Was Adam a Calvinist?

[BobRyan]

whats it matter if adam was "osas"? what's it matter if he was given the gift of eternal life? what's it matter if he was or wasnt "eternally secure" in spite of the fall?
---

God creates Lucifer - sinnless, holy, exaulted and in perfect harmony with God. The same is true of Adam and Eve.

They then CHOOSE sin - not because "all angels must choose sin" in Lucifer's case - but they certainly have that CHOICE!

Nothing MAKES them choose sin.

They choose it -- on their own!

They FALL from their family relationship with God!

(note that even the angels are called the sons of God in Job 1)

Lucifer becomes "really condemned to hell" fallen with sinful nature. The same is true of Adam.

SAVED - simply means "no longer condemend and RESTORED" to that former state of fellowship with God! But if you START in perfect harmony then you were not RESTORED to it - you already had that perfect family relationship to God at the very start!

So in each case what did it "COST" God to allow the free will choice of Lucifer? (1/3 of the Angels). To allow the free will choice of Adam and Eve (the fall of humanity, the suffering and death of God the Son!)

What a HUGE price God was willing to pay for "free will"!!

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Romans 8. The entire creation was subjected to death and decay as a result of sin.

Romans 5 "Death spread to all for ALL sinned" showing that the door for death was sin!

Also you find it in Gen 2 and 3 where Adam is warned that to EAT from the tree of knowledge of good "and Evil" is to die.

 

[BobRyan]

You are, as far as I can tell, stating that man was not created to exist with God eteranlly as he was created. Are you sure that is the position you desire to take? Just remeber, if you take that position, there are some logical ends to that position that you must be willing to accept as yours as well.

In Gen 3 "Lest he eat from the tree life and live forever"! God was not placing Adam in the Garden with the tree of life - to "not live forever". When the plan "changed" Adam had to be "removed from the live-forever environment".

The "fall" of mankind brought death Romans 5 as well as the sinful nature described in Romans 3.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Redemption RESTORES fallen mankind!

HP: That statement says more than first might meet the eye. If we are going to come to the true meaning of what is restored, we will have to look carefully into what Adam had, how it was maintained, the hopes he possessed and the nature of them.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

We "know" Adam did not eat of the tree AFTER he sinned. We have nothing in scripture saying that eating of the tree of life was not in fact HIS FIRST meal after being created. In fact it would make sense that IT WAS because God immediately takes Adam TO THAT TREE and shows him both the tree of knowledge of good and evil AND the tree of life.

The thing that MAKES this such a test is that to GO to the tree of life you must ALSO go to the place of the tree of knowledge of good AND evil. Otherwhise why not simply hedge up the way to the tree of evil and 'never go there'!!?

It is "instructive" that God places them together so that mankind must see and CHOOSE not to eat of the tree of evil each time he went to the tree of life.

(BTW - some seem to think that "God was stuck" if mankind had already eaten from the tree of life. Colossians 1 shows us that Christ is "the sustainer" of all life. Life does not "just happen" on its own!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Also you find it in Gen 2 and 3 where Adam is warned that to EAT from the tree of knowledge of good "and Evil" is to die.

HP: You are bringing up issues that need to be addressed. Are you suggesting that this world was created to be eternal in nature, and nothing would have ceased to exist, or died by any means, if sin would not have been chosen?

 

[BobRyan]

That is correct. The earth was intended to be the paradise that the New Earth will one day be.

In Romans 4 we see the "Gospel promise" is that the saints will inherit the earth (the new earth that is created after the literal millennium). But that New Earth is precisely the FIRST created earth in terms of paradise and wonder - except that it ALSO has the city of God!

God did not create the earth as an "experiment in death" or as a doomed planet of failure. Man did not need to die. Death came in (as we see in Romans 5) purely because of sin.

The Gospel message starts with our Loving Creator - making this sinless, perfect paradise for sinless holy mankind. (not the disease, carnage, starvation, extinction model of the evolutionist-gospel). It is from THAT perfect paradise that mankind 'chooses' to fall. And it is a RETURN to that sinless, holy paradise that the Gospel provides.

If the Gospel "promise" was just to "return mankind to the caves and monkey-brain breakfasts" then it would not be gospel at all. Today we are not 'fallen' from that evolutionist "dream" of creation we could only be seen as "clawing our way out of it". Far better to live the homes we have today than that "evolutionist's paradise". They preach "another gospel".

So the sinless, deathless, perfect, holy environment first created - is the one to which we are being "restored" - one with perfect holy fellowship with God.



In Christ,

Bob

 

[Brother Bob]

I totally agree with Bob and have always believed that. I think that Adam and Eve would of been the only two people on the earth though. It was after the fall that the thristles came and man had to eat from the sweat of his brow and the bearing of children. Just my 2 cents. peace:Fish:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: God did not create the earth as an "experiment in death" or as a doomed planet of failure. Man did not need to die. Death came in (as we see in Romans 5) purely because of sin.

HP: God created this as a finite planet, with finite space, with the laws of entropy in place. Everything that is seen is temporal by design. I am not trying to guess or suggest that I know for how long. In the beginning it was obvious man lived much longer than we do today, and IF Adam had not sinned he most likely would not have had to see death as we know it, but rather would have been simply translated at some point in time like Enoch or Elijah. This mortal must put on immortality. I believe we were created as mortals subject to the laws of mortality. It is beyond reason that God would put into motion men, animals and insects that were told to be fruitful and multiply for eternity in a finite world. It is beyond every vestige of reason or logic to even consider contemplating what this world would look like if that were to have happened. It is simply absurd.

This world was made temporal from the start and that by design. Man was created finite and temporal, as far as his existence in this world is concerned. Man may have not grown old as we know it, but would have had to cease from his present physical state if he were to continue with God throughout eternity. He certainly would not have encountered death or the deterioration of the physical body due to sickness and disease as we know it had he not sinned, but a cessation of existence on this finite planet would have been inevitable at some point in time.

You cannot have infinite reproduction in a finite space. That is logically impossible. I cannot conceive of an Infinitely Wise God telling man to procreate infinitely in a finite space,let alone the animals etc. Even the stars of the heavens are finite, and the laws of entropy are inescapable.

I can see no other possibility for eternal existence. Everything that is seen is not eternal and must be changed if in fact it will last for eternity. The laws of reproduction, and the consequents of it, and entropy are built into creation by design, not sin. Sin obviously speeds up the process and adds much wickedness and sadness to the process, but sin did not determine the eternal fact, that everything we see is temporal and that every mortal must put on immortality at some point in time and that by design.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: I think that Adam and Eve would of been the only two people on the earth though.

HP: The first parents, before the fall, were commanded to be fruitful and multiply were they not? Why should we believe that if they would ‘have not sinned’ they would have never been obedient to that command?

 

[J. Jump]

That is correct. The earth was intended to be the paradise that the New Earth will one day be.

In Romans 4 we see the "Gospel promise" is that the saints will inherit the earth (the new earth that is created after the literal millennium). But that New Earth is precisely the FIRST created earth in terms of paradise and wonder - except that it ALSO has the city of God!

God did not create the earth as an "experiment in death" or as a doomed planet of failure. Man did not need to die. Death came in (as we see in Romans 5) purely because of sin.

The Gospel message starts with our Loving Creator - making this sinless, perfect paradise for sinless holy mankind. (not the disease, carnage, starvation, extinction model of the evolutionist-gospel). It is from THAT perfect paradise that mankind 'chooses' to fall. And it is a RETURN to that sinless, holy paradise that the Gospel provides.

If the Gospel "promise" was just to "return mankind to the caves and monkey-brain breakfasts" then it would not be gospel at all. Today we are not 'fallen' from that evolutionist "dream" of creation we could only be seen as "clawing our way out of it". Far better to live the homes we have today than that "evolutionist's paradise". They preach "another gospel".

So the sinless, deathless, perfect, holy environment first created - is the one to which we are being "restored" - one with perfect holy fellowship with God.

Hey what do you know BobRyan and I found something that we can agree upon. I don't know if we would agree with the details of that big picture, but we pretty much agree on the big picture.

Quote:
BB: I think that Adam and Eve would of been the only two people on the earth though.
HP: The first parents, before the fall, were commanded to be fruitful and multiply were they not? Why should we believe that if they would ‘have not sinned’ they would have never been obedient to that command?

This is getting scary because now I'm actually agree with HP and BobRyan in the same thread. The planets must be in perfect alignment or something :laugh:

Brother Bob mankind was created to rule and reign over this earth in the stead of Satan. And in doing so they needed to have more than just two. That's why they were told to multiply.

There are no telling how many angels he had that joined in his rebellion with him and that was only 1/3 of the angels under his assignment as the original ruler of the earth, so to think that Adam and Eve would have been the only ones here had they not fallen is misguided I think.

 

[Brother Bob]

:tear: You are right, don't know why I said that.

 

[J. Jump]

Trust me I've had to eat my fair share of crow and then some :thumbs:

 

[Scarlett O.]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

Go to the following link.

http://www.prca.org/current/Doctrine/Volume%208/news-18.htm

There are three essays. Read the THIRD one. It's about Adam and Eve's spiritual status and how they got it.

I didn't read the first two essays, so I don't know what they are about. They could be about Elvis sightings on Mars or The DaVinci Code....that's my fault for not reading them.

But I read the last essay several times. It's pretty darn good.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SO: But I read the last essay several times. It's pretty darn good.

HP: Sorry Scarlet. I did not find it in accordance to truth overall. If salvation was wholly of God with God even 'giving them faith,' with man represented as a passive wimp, lacking any and all abilities to do anything other than what they found themselves doing, i.e., sinning and that continually, you can end up no where but God orchestrating necessitated predestined determination in salvation. The picture that article paints is one of God clearly being a respecter of persons. I for one do not accept such a portrait of our first parents or any moral agent for that matter depicted as such. I believe the author clearly lacks a proper understanding of moral agency in general and the process by which salvation is accomplished.

 

[LeBuick]

:tear: You are right, don't know why I said that.

You were in the ball park, woman wouldn't have the pain she does during child birth so they wouldn't so readily take the pill and get their tubes tied and we'd probably have more folks populating the earth :wavey: :laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here are some questions I asked Gekko and the list that went unanswered. Did Adam entertain a living reality and future hope of continued eternal life while in a state of obedience as the first pair walked with God in the garden? Was there any reason not to believe that in this state of obedience they ate from the tree of Life freely up until the point of their act of willing disobedience to a known commandment of God?

Was Adam in possession of eternal life while in his state of obedience before the fall? Could Adam have boldly stated even as the Apostle Paul stated, while in such a state of present obedience, that nothing could separate him from God?

 

[Brother Bob]

Do you think if God Himself had of eat of the Heavenly manna it would of made any difference with Him? The
Tree of Life as far as I am concerned was Jesus. I don't know even if the manna was there or fruit for Adam to eat but to eat of that manna or fruit would be to restore someone back to eternal life. I believe that children have internal life inwardly until the sin and die and if they don't come to know good and don't sin I think they will live in Heaven with eternal life. The children though had the natural death pronounced upon them because Adam did sin. But Adam was different before. Both the outward and inward man had eternal life and if they had of eat of the tree I can't see it making a difference for if I shower then what good would another shower do me right then, just to use a natural happening. I am not going to become any cleaner, supposing I took a good shower. So I don't see eating or not eating would of changed Adam's life existance. Now after the fall he would had something to gain by eating of that Tree of Life. Now I know some will jump me real quick about saying that the Tree of Life was Jesus but that don't matter to me for I believe there is only one way to get eternal life after you have lost it and that is Jesus. In Rev; in the midst of the river and on either side was the Tree of Life I believe to be the same. Jesus. The reason it say on either side is because God had made a promise to them back before Christ came that He would come and when that fountain opened I believe God fulfilled His promise to Israel and that blood flowed back to them under the Law was there while Jesus remained upon the earth for 40 days and flowed forward to us and is still flowing. Maybe I got off subject, I don't know but typed as it kept coming to me. peace

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: The Tree of Life as far as I am concerned was Jesus. I don't know even if the manna was there or fruit for Adam to eat but to eat of that manna or fruit would be to restore someone back to eternal life

HP: First, trees produce fruit not manna as far a I know. Call me simplistic or naïve, but I take the Scripture literal in Genesis, and even though I agree that today, Christ is the tree of Life, I believe in the garden the way to life was as simple as partaking of the tree of Life, eating of the fruit that God told them to eat of, while refraining from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I suppose I see the 'tree in the garden' as a 'type' of Christ, not Christ Himself. I believe that Adam needed to eat physical food to sustain his life, and the fruit of the tree of Life did just that. Sure there were far more effects from eating of the fruit from the tree of Life than just needed bodily food, for there were clearly spiritual implications involved as well. As long as one was continuing in obedience, and partaking of the fruit of the tree of Life, not only was physical life maintained but more importantly eternal spiritual life was maintained. To me, the tree of Life in the garden was not to ‘restore anything’ as it was to ‘gain and maintain’ eternal life. Only as he was in constant obedience did God allow him to partake of eternal life via the fruit of the tree of Life.

 

[LeBuick]

As long as one was continuing in obedience, and partaking of the fruit of the tree of Life, not only was physical life maintained but more importantly eternal spiritual life was maintained. To me, the tree of Life in the garden was not to ‘restore anything’ as it was to ‘gain and maintain’ eternal life. Only as he was in constant obedience did God allow him to partake of eternal life via the fruit of the tree of Life.

If, "partaking of the fruit of the tree of Life, not only was physical life maintained but more importantly eternal spiritual life was maintained" then how did it differ from any other tree? To eat from any tree except the one forbidden by GOD would provide physical substance and maintained the spiritual agreement with GOD.

If man did not sin then he would not need a savior and Jesus would only be our brother and the tree of life would only be a tree.