Was Adam a Calvinist?

[webdog]

But that's not what saved him. Read Genesis 15. Your belief does not square with Scripture. And we know which one is right. How can you deny something that is so clear? That is amazing.



That's a great Scripture and absolutely true. However the context is not eternal salvation. The context of chapter 4 is the message that Peter delivered after healing the lame man, which is the same message that he delivered in Acts 2. It's the message of the kingdom, not the message of eternal salvation.

Two separate messages that must be kept separate if we are going to understand Scripture properly.

Acts 4:12 IS dealing with Messianic salvation, which is eternal salvation and the same salvation that follows in Acts 5:31 and 17:11. Peter was speaking to the Sanhedrin and telling them the necessity of salvation in Christ alone, and in no other (dei sōthēnai).

 

[DeadMan]

No, even though he was offered the tree but was then banned from the garden where the tree exist. Adam will have to accept Christ like the rest of us.

OK, I have to ask: How would he pull that one off?

 

[J. Jump]

I don't know about you but I believe when Jesus shed His blood it also covered those before His coming.

I agree with that, because Jesus was actually slain before the foundation of the world, it just didn't physically happen until some point in human history.

But that is beside the point and you are dodging the issue. Genesis 15 clearly states that Abraham received righteousness when he believed God concerning His promise of more descendants than stars that can be counted.

How can you deny something so clear in Scripture?

 

[J. Jump]

Acts 4:12 IS dealing with Messianic salvation, which is eternal salvation and the same salvation that follows in Acts 5:31 and 17:11. Peter was speaking to the Sanhedrin and telling them the necessity of salvation in Christ alone, and in no other (dei sōthēnai).

Peter's sermons were not sermons on eternal salvation. He was dealing with Jesus the Christ as the Messiah (King, Annointed One).

The message of the kingdom and the message of eternal salvation by grace through faith are two separate messages. If you keep trying to combine them you are going to place a great number of contradictions upon Scripture, which can not exist.

Here is another way that you can tell this isn't dealing with eternal salvation, becuase repentance is required, which is not required for eternal salvation by grace through faith. Only faith is required (Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:30-31, Romans 4-5).

And on top of that it was a call for national repentance not individual repentance.

Any way you draw it up the two messages are distinct and different. One is delievered to dead men in trespasses and sins and the other message is delievered to spiritually alive men.

Spiritually dead men couldn't even have understood the message of the kingdom, because it was a spiritual message. The only message a spiritually dead man can entertain is the Christ died for him according to Scriptures.

Once the person is made alive spiritually then and only then can they even understand the message of the kingdom.

That's why you have to keep the messages separate, because they are dealing with different things.

 

[Brother Bob]

Acts: 2
38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob,
If the tree of Life in the garden was Christ, why were the first pair kept from gaining access to Him? If they had not partaken of that tree in the garden and they could not gain access to Christ (the tree of Life as you see it) after the fall, how and when could they possibly inherit eternal life? Were they just dead men walking before and after the fall?

 

[Brother Bob]

They would of had to go through the Sword (word of God) the same as the rest of us. You see, I believe in a repentance, suffering over your sins and asking for forgiveness before you get to the Tree. Now I know the Calvinist are really going to jump this one but no matter. Jesus said except you repent you shall die in your sins and where I am you can not come.
We ORB believe in a "travel" from nature to Grace and that is to Believe, Repent (which includes suffering over your sins) and be Baptized ( which is the Holy Ghost baptism).

We don't believe that God puts faith in you that makes you have a new heart that will then seek Jesus and believe. We believe in a Sovereign God that in the beginning when He made man He put before him two Trees and He had a choice to choose good or evil. Man, of course chose evil and needed a Savior. We still have before us the same both good and evil. Satan certainly is striving with man to go his way and I believe God is striving with man to go His. Satan strives with "all" men and God strives with "all" men. I believe the flaming Sword is the "word of God", which includes what I have just said.

I believe in those He foreknew but think the Bible is plain that He was talking about the remnant of Israel. I believe we are of those who have to hear the word of truth, gospel of our salvation and we must "believe" then we also will have eternal life.

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 5 - Christ is a type of Adam because Adam is "the first human" for real.

But Adam is not a type of Christ - because Christ never caused humanity to fall!

In Romans 5 we see how Adam failed.

In Romans 5 we see "by contrast" how the second Adam DID NOT!

The TYPE is that of "first human" and "Father of the race".

The TYPE is NOT that of "falling into sin and dooming the race". That was not a TYPE of Christ!

 

[J. Jump]

Christ is a type of Adam because Adam is "the first human"

That is a part of it, but certainly not the entire picture.

But Adam is not a type of Christ - because Christ never caused humanity to fall!

The picture here is of opposites, through one all died, but the One now all can live.

The TYPE is that of "first human" and "Father of the race".

Again that is part, but not the only part.

The TYPE is NOT that of "falling into sin and dooming the race". That was not a TYPE of Christ!

I'm not sure what you mean by falling into sin. When I read that is sounds as though you are saying Adam got suckered into sinning? Please correct me if I am mis-reading that.

However the type concerning sin is that both partook of sin to insure redemption for their bride. Adam had to partake of sin so that Eve could be redeemed through a Redeemer, therefore needing a Redeemer himself.

Christ partook of sin to redeem His bride. However the difference is He didn't need a Redeemer, because He was the Redeemer.

There's more to the type, but that would be for another thread

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: They would of had to go through the Sword (word of God) the same as the rest of us. You see, I believe in a repentance, suffering over your sins and asking for forgiveness before you get to the Tree.

HP: I am addressing the time period PRIOR to any sin, not subsequent to sinning. Why would have Adam needed to repent until he sinned?

Adam had direct access with the Father before the fall. He was one with Him, communing and fellowshipping together in obedience. He was partaking of the tree of Life freely before the fall just as God had allowed him to. The flaming sword did not come into play until AFTER the fall of Adam.

Now I fully agree with you that in order for the sinner to get to the Tree of Life, i.e. Christ, repentance must come first. You are right on target there. That is an important idea that so many have backwards. They seem to think that faith comes first and then repentance, but it is the other way around as you indicate. I applaud your determination to hold that issue before those you minister to. Few today have that issue correct.

The issue at stake is that it matters not if one is as righteous as Adam before the fall, who has in the past maintained a right relationship with God, if they are to sin, repentance is in order to continue in a right relationship with God, for the one that had a right relationship or sinner alike. No full assurance of ones final standing before God can be rightfully entertained apart from a present clear conscience before God and man. No amount of faith or forgiveness on the account of sins that are past, or as in Adam’s case a past of perfect obedience, will suffice for the repentance needed to restore a right relationship with God subsequent to new or repeated sin. No obedience of the past, nor forgiveness for sins that are past, grants to anyone a license to sin or automatically grant one forgiveness for future sins, nor negates the renewed call to repentance, (the way of the Sword as you refer to it,) for any subsequent acts of disobedience. Without that renewed repentance for any subsequent acts of disobedience, no man shall maintain a right realtionship with the Lord, nor be found to have Christ as ones advocate when we stand before God in judgment.

Eze 33:12 Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.

 

[Brother Bob]

HP;
It seems to me we are in an area where we begin to suppose. I for one do believe Adam would

of lived forever for if there was no death before he sinned how could he die. The only way Adam

could die was to eat of the forbidden fruit and bring death. The Tree of Life was not forbidden

but did he eat? I don't know. I would have to suppose again. I mean it was not the fruit that

was for the healing of the nations but the leaves. Now that puts another light on it doesn't it? I

really don't know what you are thinking to be honest. I know you said that he would have to die

in time even if he didn't sin or at least I think so but death is a enemy and was not present at

that time I don't think. Oh man, we are trying to be intelligent and really don't know what we

say.:laugh: :laugh: :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ge 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, OF EVERY tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

HP: Brother Bob,
These are the trees that existed in the garden, and there was only one that Adam was forbidden to eat of. There were no nations to partake of the leaves at that time, only two individuals. Some have drawn an imaginary line around a tree and its fruit that God did not draw. Not only could they eat, but they could 'eat freely.' The problem is when we start trying to read the Genesis account and make our conclusions fit into the presuppositions that must exist in order for us to see it in a light consistent with our dogmas such as OSAS.

I clearly stated that IF man would not have sinned that he would have had to exist in a physical form and put on immortality ‘at some point in time’ to exist eternally with God. We were created as mortals on a finite and temporal planet in the midst of a finite universe. I clearly stated that if man would not have sinned, he would not have seen death for sure in the manner in which we see it, but rather would have seen an end to his physical existence much like Enoch or Elijah I suppose. There would have been no suffering or pain, and certainly would have been far removed from the death we will most likely encounter.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
The TYPE is NOT that of "falling into sin and dooming the race". That was not a TYPE of Christ!

I'm not sure what you mean by falling into sin. When I read that is sounds as though you are saying Adam got suckered into sinning? Please correct me if I am mis-reading that.

Both the Lamb and the LAMB OF GOD served as a means for "taking away sin" so the OT lamb is a "type of Christ".

Both Adam and Christ serve as a "Father" a "head of the race of mankind" so in that sense ONLY Christ and Adam are linked as type and antitype.

But Eve was "first deceived" and fell into sin under Satan's temptation and then Adam ALSO fell in that temptation. In his fall HE says to God "The WOMAN YOU gave me caused me to sin" thus blaming BOTH the woman AND God in his efforts to justify himself.

Had Adam NOT fallen the human race would have been spared.

Had Adam NOT fallen he would have continued to live with perfect access to the tree of life.

The PRICE for falling - was death as we see in Gen 2 and 3 and Romans 5!

Nothing can be more certain, more clear, more apparent in the Gospel story.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

Both the Lamb and the LAMB OF GOD served as a means for "taking away sin" so the OT lamb is a "type of Christ".

Bob I would agree with that as I think you meant lamb as in the physical animals. They were a type of Christ. There are a great number of types and shadows of Christ in the OT.

Christ says virtually the entire OT is in some shape or form talking about Him, His Work, His life, how we are to relate to Him etc.

Both Adam and Christ serve as a "Father" a "head of the race of mankind" so in that sense ONLY Christ and Adam are linked as type and antitype.

Bob that is not the ONLY type of Adam to Christ.

But Eve was "first deceived" and fell into sin under Satan's temptation and then Adam ALSO fell in that temptation. In his fall HE says to God "The WOMAN YOU gave me caused me to sin" thus blaming BOTH the woman AND God in his efforts to justify himself.

Eve was deceived. Adam was not.

I would respectlyfully disagree with your assessment of the blame game. Adam was merely telling the truth as to what happened. The woman that God gave Him caused him to eat.

There was no rebuke for what Adam said. God didn't say Adam get real you ate the fruit no just buck up and face the music. No he immediately turned to Eve and started asking her what was this you have done.

Had Adam NOT fallen the human race would have been spared.

How so? He wasn't able to cleave to his wife in a fallen state. Therefore he would have been all alone.

Had Adam NOT fallen he would have continued to live with perfect access to the tree of life.

But he would have been the only one in the garden and would not have been able to replenish the earth as commanded, and he would not have been able to partake of the tree of life, because he would have been an incomplete being at the time.

The PRICE for falling - was death as we see in Gen 2 and 3 and Romans 5!

That we can agree upon.

But Adam as a father figure is not the only type of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

Even you admitted that Christ's success is CONTRASTED to Adam's fall! That is the totally defeat of your argument then and there that the FALL is something Christ DID EVEN BETTER than Adam (i.e. type and antitype).

Your argument for Christ leading mankind into sin as did Adam is not working.

Further - Adam is never said ANYWHERE in ALL of scripture to have "redeemed Eve" or "redeemed mankind" or "SAVED EVE" or "SAVED mankind".

Making stuff up is not the same thing as actual Bible doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

But I think we "digress" from HP's opening argument

 

[J. Jump]

Making stuff up is not the same thing as actual Bible doctrine.

Neither is you making stuff up about me. Why do you continue to lie about those that you don't agree with. BobRyan are you sure you are saved, becuase you have been doing an awful lot of lying through these threads.

Let me give you an example.

Adam is never said ANYWHERE in ALL of scripture to have "redeemed Eve" or "redeemed mankind" or "SAVED EVE" or "SAVED mankind".

Please show me where I have stated this. This is an out and out lie about what I have stated. I even clarified I believe it was to Marcia that that was not what I said, because she said the same thing.

Adam DID NOT redeem Eve. He DID NOT save Eve. He did not SAVE mankind.

He did however partake of sin to provide the avenue for the Redeemer to come and to effect the redemption of mankind. He partook of sin so that mankind could be redeemed. Christ became sin so that mankind could be redeemed.

Just like Adam couldn't rule without his wife, Christ can not rule without His bride. Adam's wife was in a fallen state and needed to be redeemed. The only way that was going to happen was for Adam to sin and fall so that the seed of the woman could come.

People have to remember that Adam was the smartest person that has ever lived on this planet. He knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it.

Your argument for Christ leading mankind into sin as did Adam is not working.

Once again why the lies? I never said that Christ led man into sin like Adam did. That's where the contrast lies. Through the first Adam all died, but through the Second Adam all can live.

You really do need quit twisting people's words to make your points. If you have valid points they will stand on their own without you having to manipulate and lie about others.

 

[BobRyan]

The point remains - most people here know "Sin" to be bad thing and engaging in sin was never what Christ did "for mankind". Adam did not do mankind a "favor" by sinning according to Romans 5.

Pretty hard to ignore.

But I think we "digress" from HP's opening argument

 

[J. Jump]

engaging in sin was never what Christ did "for mankind".

I will just let Scripture speak for itself in refuting your statement:

II Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Adam did not do mankind a "favor" by sinning according to Romans 5.

Again I never said he did mankind a favor. And if you will go back and re-read my posts you will see that I have always stated that death came because of Adam.

However he did do his wife a favor. Because if he hadn't partaken of the fruit she would not have been able to be redeemed.

Pretty hard to ignore.

Who's ingoring anything?

 

[Brother Bob]

HP;
I have no problem whatsoever with the way you explain if Adam had not of eaten. I agree he was free to eat of all the trees except the tree of knowledge but the Bible is silent whether he ate of the Tree of Life.