Was Adam a Calvinist?

[BobRyan]

Was Adam once saved always saved? He had been given the gift eternal life, partaking of the tree of life, had he not? Was he always eteranlly secure in spite of the fall?

Did God "Love Adam"?

Did God "Love Lucifer"??

Where they both referred to as "The sons of God" in the sense that God accepted them as family?

When mankind fell did God "START so loving mankind that He would give" or did He ALREADY so love those who He made?

Arminians would have no problem with this unless they try to hold to OSAS as well. Calvinists who find inconsistency in the Arminians who cling to OSAS and yet admit to the truth of the Arminian position - have a point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[El_Guero]

OK

Where does it say in the Bible that there was NO physical death in the Garden before the fall?

I keep hearing about this theology, but I have yet to find it in the Word.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

This is getting interesting and I have to leave for awhile. Let me ask this question as I go. Prior to the fall, or if Adam would not have fallen, could he of ever partaken of the Tree God placed in the middle of the garden and told them they could partake of it freely? Was God walking around rubbing His hands together worrying what would happen if Adam took Him up on the offer to partake of that tree? If not, why not? Was God lying to Adam when he told him that he placed the tree of Life in the garden for his use, and that Adam, in his condition prior to the fall, could partake of it freely?

Here is te picture I see that several on the list are painting. Here they are in the garden. God is watching Adam walk around the tree of Life in the middle of the garden. Picture God, seen as a giant hand extending down just above it posed to pluck it up by the roots in one lightening fast swoop, if in fact Adam accepted His offer to eat of that tree. How am I doing?

 

[Brother Bob]

I can't see where if Adam eat of the tree of life it would of made any difference before the fall for he was already alive forever at that time. It really proves what the so called free-willers have said all along. Man had a choice and Adam was no different and he chose evil as we all did. He died a Spiritual death and had the physical death pronounced upon him and we already have the physical death pronounced upon us but we have to sin to have the Spiritual death come upon us.

Someone asked where does it say there was no physical death in the garden. There must of been physical death of an animal for God gave them skins to cover themselves but I can not find where there was any human physical death.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Was Adam once saved always saved? He had been given the gift eternal life, partaking of the tree of life, had he not? Was he always eteranlly secure in spite of the fall?

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Mt. 22:29

Here is what the Bible says:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Apparently, he had not partaken of the tree of life at this point, and had no eternal life. I would not even dare answer in the definite whether he is eternally secure since I do not see his name in the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11 which begins with Abel. Neither will I say he is lost. God knows.

 

[J. Jump]

Why was Adam not allowed to eat of the tree of life?

Well HP it's kind of an involved study, but the short answer is that the tree of life has to do with the knowledge and wisdom that it takes to rule the earth. Adam and Eve first had to face the test of whether they would be found worthy to rule.

Eve faced Satan and Satan won. Adam then had to partake of the apple, because he could not rule apart from his wife. They were one being. So in order for Eve to find redemption Adam had to partake of sin, just like in the antitype Christ's bride was found in a fallen sinful state and in order for Christ to reign He must partake (became sin) so that His bride could be redeemed.

The tree of life has to do with ruling and reigning.

 

[LeBuick]

The tree of life has to do with ruling and reigning.

As the name implies, the tree of life has to do with living, "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."

 

[Brother Bob]

Tree of life has nothing to do with ruling the earth but eternal life.

 

[LeBuick]

... but we have to sin to have the Spiritual death come upon us.

Don't forget this Psalm, "PS 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

And before you sk, Adam was not born of a womb, he was created/made.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Eve faced Satan and Satan won. Adam then had to partake of the apple, because he could not rule apart from his wife. They were one being. So in order for Eve to find redemption Adam had to partake of sin, just like in the antitype Christ's bride was found in a fallen sinful state and in order for Christ to reign He must partake (became sin) so that His bride could be redeemed.

So.....

Adam didn't really want to sin? Eve was the only big loser? Adam just martyred himself so that Eve wouldn't have to suffer God's wrath alone?

How noble of him.

He doesn't sound very noble in Genesis 3:11-12.

God said, "Adam. What has happened here? Who told you that you were naked? Have you disobeyed Me?"

Adam said, "Well, it's Your fault, God. That woman You made and gave is flawed. She did it first. And she gave the fruit to me."

I don't think that I could in good conscience call this behavior "Christ-like" or a "type" of Christ at all.

Adam didn't sin to "save" Eve. He sinned of his own accord and then blamed God for it and tried to shift the focus on his wife's sin.

 

[Brother Bob]

Well, it sounded good for us males though Scarlett O; I was afraid he wouldn't get away with it though, gotta give him an A for effort.raying: raying: :laugh:

 

[J. Jump]

I don't think that I could in good conscience call this behavior "Christ-like" or a "type" of Christ at all.

The truth of the matter is it doesn't matter what you or I think or anyone else thinks for that matter. It only matters what the Bible says. And the Bible says Adam is a type of Christ.

The picture is there. You can either accept it as the Truth that it is, or you can reject the teaching of Scripture. The choice is simple.

By the way because of what Adam did there was still a price to be paid. Jesus becoming sin was the most noble act of all human history, but He still paid the price that satisfied His Father. God turned His face from the Son, while His Son was doing the most lovely thing in all human history.

the tree of life has to do with living

Adam was created an eternal being and would have lived forever anyway without eating the tree of life. What you are saying is that Adam wasn't created an eternal being and needed to eat a piece of fruit to make that a reality. That's not Scripture says.

Life is not just the actual breathing and existing...the mechanics. Life is beyond that.

Just as the NT says one that finds his life in this age will lose it in the coming age, but one that loses his life in this age will find it in the coming age. Whether or not one loses his life now or saves it now they will be alive in the coming age. This life has to do with rulership in Christ's coming kingdom.

We can't assign our own meanings to words, but must let the Bible tell us what the meanings are.

Tree of life has nothing to do with ruling the earth but eternal life.

Again that is an incorrect view of what Scripture has to say about the matter.

 

[LeBuick]

Well, it sounded good for us males though Scarlett O; I was afraid he wouldn't get away with it though, gotta give him an A for effort.raying: raying: :laugh:

LOL :thumbs:

 

[J. Jump]

Folks the problem with a great majority of interpretational error is that we have to get away from looking at Scripture through the eyes of a 21st century believer.

Because we assign 21st centruy meanings to Scripture that is 4,000-plus years old we are falling into misinterpretation.

It doesn't look good to women of this century that Adam blamed the woman. But you will notice that there was no rebuke for what Adam said. It was the truth. It was the woman that gave him the fruit. However it didn't excuse him from the consequences that had to follow.

 

[Brother Bob]

Its only eyes I have and they have gotten really bad. You got a set of them thar eyes yu is talkin abowt?

 

[J. Jump]

Its only eyes I have and they have gotten really bad. You got a set of them thar eyes yu is talkin abowt?

I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about, but I'm going to guess that you are talking about seeing Scripture through the eyes of a 21st century believer remark.

And yes I do have a set of eyes I'm talking about, because we are to see Scripture, not through our eyes, but through the eyes of our Teacher the Holy Spirit Who has been given to lead us into ALL TRUTH!

If we will see Scripture as He presents it then we will be led into ALL TRUTH. If we continue to see Scripture through "our" eyes, we will continue to make mistakes.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Adam blaming Eve doesn't bother me anymore that Eve blaming the Devil.

Both Adam and Eve tried to "wiggle out" of their own personal responsibility for their own personal sin.

What bothers me is this notion that Adam was "protecting" Eve and making amends to "save" her by sinning against his will. What really bothers me is taking Adam's sinful acts and rude conversation with God and calling it a "type" of Christ.

They both sinned. They both wanted to blame someone else for it and get a "free ride" with God.

 

[Brother Bob]

I was only jesting a little J Jump. peace:wavey:

 

[J. Jump]

Both Adam and Eve tried to "wiggle out" of their own personal responsibility for their own personal sin.

If that is a case then why isn't there a rebuke from God? There is no rebuke, because both of them were telling the truth just as it happened.

What bothers me is this notion that Adam was "protecting" Eve and making amends to "save" her by sinning against his will. What really bothers me is taking Adam's sinful acts and rude conversation with God and calling it a "type" of Christ.

What you saying is that you don't like what Scripture has to say about the matter because it makes you uncomfortable. Well I can't help that Scriptural Truth makes you uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable at times as well, but we must let Scripture shape our thoughts and beliefs and not allow our comfort from holding us back.

The plain truth of the matter is that Adam was a type of Christ.

Romans 5:14 ...Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Adam is a type of Christ. We can either believe Scripture or not.

Do you think that it is mere coincidence that the stories fit together like they do? I think not. God's Scripture is ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!!!

They both sinned. They both wanted to blame someone else for it and get a "free ride" with God.

That is just not the picture that Scripture paints for us, but that is the picture that modern day preachers have presented, because it makes for a better sermon.

 

[Brother Bob]

So, J Jump;
You are say that women has been our downfall all the time and not Adam. I thought it said "as in Adam all die"?