What Was Adam Pre-Fall

[Yeshua1]

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").

Adam and jesus were the 2 humans who ever had "real free will", Adam due to him being created in a sinless state, and jesus coming via the Virgin Birth and having a sinless humanity nature!

 

[Iconoclast]

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 .

That is not it JonC.
You have been given answers over and over.
You do not like or welcome the answers.
So you go about to oppose and disrupt the posters as if you alone are the final word.
Many have been more than kind to you despite your aberrant ideas

You have every right to oppose historic teaching and biblical understanding held by millions from the past and present.
No one is fooled by you seeking to diminish these scriptural truths bu suggesting they are;
Philosophy, theory, or speculation and that truth cannot be known.
It is revealed for us to know and present as part of the gospel.
Your anti Calvinism attempts fall short, fool no one.
With all your protesting and vaguely worded posts, you still have not answered the basic questions about Adam, pre-fall.
Every Calvinist on here has answered over and over again.
We cannot force you to reconsider what you post, and at this point we do not anticipate you adding positive feedback on the topic.
I do not think anyone is waiting for some fresh view from your direction.
I do not speak for the others, but in case you have not noticed, even the non Cals have distanced themselves from your posts and as much as they would like to, they cannot find it in themselves to agree with them.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is not it JonC.
You have been given answers over and over.
You do not like or welcome the answers.
So you go about to oppose and disrupt the posters as if you alone are the final word.
Many have been more than kind to you despite your aberrant ideas

You have every right to oppose historic teaching and biblical understanding held by millions from the past and present.
No one is fooled by you seeking to diminish these scriptural truths bu suggesting they are;
Philosophy, theory, or speculation and that truth cannot be known.
It is revealed for us to know and present as part of the gospel.
Your anti Calvinism attempts fall short, fool no one.
With all your protesting and vaguely worded posts, you still have not answered the basic questions about Adam, pre-fall.
Every Calvinist on here has answered over and over again.
We cannot force you to reconsider what you post, and at this point we do not anticipate you adding positive feedback on the topic.
I do not think anyone is waiting for some fresh view from your direction.
I do not speak for the others, but in case you have not noticed, even the non Cals have distanced themselves from your posts and as.m7ch as they would like to, they cannot find it in themselves to agree with them.

JonC seems to hold that Jesus was born with same nature as us, so even things as essential as the Virgin birth than comes into disrepute, as not being needed to have a Messianic Jesus! That seems to tie right into spiritual death discussion here....

 

[JonShaff]

Adam was glorious when first created though, correct?

Are you equating Adam's Stature with Christ's?

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you equating Adam's Stature with Christ's?

I am just asking how do we really know about how Adam was when first created?

 

[JonC]

I am just asking how do we really know about how Adam was when first created?

Scripture tells us. Read 1 Cor. 15. I do not know that much more should be needed. We do not to add to what is there.

 

[JonC]

That is not it JonC.
You have been given answers over and over.
You do not like or welcome the answers.
So you go about to oppose and disrupt the posters as if you alone are the final word.
Many have been more than kind to you despite your aberrant ideas

You have every right to oppose historic teaching and biblical understanding held by millions from the past and present.
No one is fooled by you seeking to diminish these scriptural truths bu suggesting they are;
Philosophy, theory, or speculation and that truth cannot be known.
It is revealed for us to know and present as part of the gospel.
Your anti Calvinism attempts fall short, fool no one.
With all your protesting and vaguely worded posts, you still have not answered the basic questions about Adam, pre-fall.
Every Calvinist on here has answered over and over again.
We cannot force you to reconsider what you post, and at this point we do not anticipate you adding positive feedback on the topic.
I do not think anyone is waiting for some fresh view from your direction.
I do not speak for the others, but in case you have not noticed, even the non Cals have distanced themselves from your posts and as much as they would like to, they cannot find it in themselves to agree with them.

Evidently this is another passage you do not understand.

Speaking of Adam first having a physical body, then a spiritual body.

Verse 44 is very clear. Did you not read this verse?

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture tells us. Read 1 Cor. 15. I do not know that much more should be needed. We do not to add to what is there.

That was not Adam being described there in his original state, but his fallen one!

 

[JonC]

That was not Adam being described there in his original state, but his fallen one!

Oh really? That you need to explain because it seems that Scripture is pretty clear that the natural comes first (Adam) and then the spiritual (Christ). I do not know that you can read the verse and walk away believing it actually means that Adam was spiritual, then natural. Even @Iconoclast , who stated that he believes this verse is speaking of Adam first having a physical body and then a spiritual body has the order right.

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh really? That you need to explain because it seems that Scripture is pretty clear that the natural comes first (Adam) and then the spiritual (Christ). I do not know that you can read the verse and walk away believing it actually means that Adam was spiritual, then natural. Even @Iconoclast , who stated that he believes this verse is speaking of Adam first having a physical body and then a spiritual body has the order right.

Adam in his physical body when first created would not have been corrupted by sin or the fall, correct?

 

[JonC]

Adam in his physical body when first created would not have been corrupted by sin or the fall, correct?

Adam would not have had his eyes opened to the knowledge of good and evil, and death would not have entered the world (or mankind, or even the consciousness of man). There are many possibilities. I think it is important when it comes to this topic that we stick with Scripture regardless of how we want to understand it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Adam would not have had his eyes opened to the knowledge of good and evil, and death would not have entered the world (or mankind, or even the consciousness of man). There are many possibilities. I think it is important when it comes to this topic that we stick with Scripture regardless of how we want to understand it.

There was no need of a messiah until the fall, so Adam would not have needed any atonement, so he was in relationship with god through obeying God fully, correct?

 

[JonC]

There was no need of a messiah until the fall, so Adam would not have needed any atonement, so he was in relationship with god through obeying God fully, correct?

I do not believe that is correct. I believe God is not reactionary but sovereign. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, not from Adam's sin. The Cross was not "plan B".

 

[Reformed1689]

I do not believe that is correct. I believe God is not reactionary but sovereign. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, not from Adam's sin. The Cross was not "plan B".

I don't think that the cross being plan B is the necessary conclusion from Adam not needing an atonement pre-fall.

 

[Benjamin]

There was no need of a messiah until the fall, so Adam would not have needed any atonement, so he was in relationship with god through obeying God fully, correct?

God foreknew the "need" of a Messiah before even creation, therefore in His Love the promise was made before the foundation. Obviously this was based on the upcoming need involving the creation of volitional beings who God knew would gain the attribute of knowledge of good and evil of their own free will.

What happened to your Determinist' view of divine foreknowledge must = pre-destination, Yeshua1?

 

[JonC]

I don't think that the cross being plan B is the necessary conclusion from Adam not needing an atonement pre-fall.

I disagree (surprise). I believe Adam's need was not manifested until he sinned but that human nature always would fall short of God's glory. Adam had a choice not to give Adam the opportunity to live forever but to demonstrate the glory of God in His redemptive plan.

 

[Reformed1689]

I disagree (surprise). I believe Adam's need was not manifested until he sinned but that human nature always would fall short of God's glory. Adam had a choice not to give Adam the opportunity to live forever but to demonstrate the glory of God in His redemptive plan.

So Adam needed a Savior prior to sinning even though there was nothing to save him fro at that point? Jon that makes no sense. That doesn't change anything about God or make it that God was surprised or learned something. But it wasn't a mere manifestation. It was a need that pre-fall, for Adam, did not exist. That need did not exist until sin entered the equation. At that point, Adam needed a savior. Now, God already had the plan in place, it was already sealed, but it was not necessary until the cause for that necessitation was actuated.

 

[JonC]

So Adam needed a Savior prior to sinning even though there was nothing to save him fro at that point? Jon that makes no sense. That doesn't change anything about God or make it that God was surprised or learned something. But it wasn't a mere manifestation. It was a need that pre-fall, for Adam, did not exist. That need did not exist until sin entered the equation. At that point, Adam needed a savior. Now, God already had the plan in place, it was already sealed, but it was not necessary until the cause for that necessitation was actuated.

From God’s perspective, yes. Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain from the very foundation of the world (not from the Fall, not from the beginning of the Church age, but from the foundation of the world).

God does not acquiesce to man, even when it comes to salvation. All of creation was made to glorify God. And this glory (IMHO) includes redemption – not as an after thought but as the focus.

Adam was created with a human spirit that would sin, therefore Adam was always in need of a Messiah. The Messiah would come thousands of years later, but this negates neither the need nor the sufficiency of God in providing for that need to His own glory.

It was necessary because Adam was not created with “spiritual life” (with the Spirit of God indwelling in him). Adam was created with a human spirit that would at some point fall short of God’s glory. Adam’s error was wanting to be like God. I do not find it appropriate to hold that Adam was in fact like God.

First the natural, the first Adam. Second the spiritual, the last Adam becoming a life-giving spirit.


We will never agree on this, David. It is interesting to work through and hopefully edifying at least that we can both see what the other believes.

 

[Reformed1689]

It was necessary because Adam was not created with “spiritual life” (with the Spirit of God indwelling in him). Adam was created with a human spirit that would at some point fall short of God’s glory. Adam’s error was wanting to be like God. I do not find it appropriate to hold that Adam was in fact like God.

So you believe Adam was created Spiritually Dead?

 

[JonC]

So you believe Adam was created Spiritually Dead?

I do not think we can use that term. Spiritual death (IMHO) is the absence of the indwelling of the Spirit but at the same time it has a sence of being in bondage to the law of sin and death (sin as a master).

I believe Adam had a human spirit (that which is common to natural man). So while I believe the term may not apply I guess technically it would be the same spirit.

I believe that sin, not the human spirit, is what separates God from man.