# Adam & Eve: Saved or Lost?



## thistle93 (Jul 29, 2014)

Is there anything in Scripture to help us to know if Adam and Eve ultimately where redeemed or condemned? I know that they where cast out of the garden but I see this as a punishment for their sin but not as a sign of their condemnation. Also God covered them with skins of animals to cover their nakedness, which is to be a picture of how Jesus covers the believer with His righteousness through His sacrificial death. So it would seem that Adam and Eve where redeemed. But then in Romans those who are in Adam as opposed to those in Jesus, are those who are reprobates and lost. This would lead me to think Adam and Eve were ultimatly condemned, if Adam is the poster child for all those outside of Jesus. Any thoughts from Scripture or authors who discuss this topic or just something we will not know this side of the new heaven? Thank you! 
For His Glory-
matthew


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jul 29, 2014)

I believe the message in romans is speaking of the covenant of works as failed by the first Adam and fulfilled by the Christ. Not the salvific state of Adam himself.


----------



## Paul1976 (Jul 29, 2014)

I agree with the previous post that Rom. 5 does not require Adam to be ultimately condemned, at least as I read it.

I do believe that, the moment they sinned against God, they died spiritually and were under God's condemnation - the same condemnation we are born into from the first birth. God providing for them does not necessarily imply providing salvation to them specifically. He provided protection for Cain, the father of a completely ungodly line, and for Ishmael. There is nothing to indicate either were regenerate (although it is possible that they might have been). More generally, rain falls on the just and the unjust. So, I would not take physical provision to mean also providing regeneration. Adam is also conspicuously absent in Heb. 11.

At the end of the day, whether they were ultimately regenerate depends on whether they placed their faith in God. The naming of Seth, to me, is at least hopeful for Adam and Eve.

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed[g] for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” 26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord."

Personally, I suspect that they were justified eventually, although I do not believe there is enough evidence either way to know for certain, this side of heaven.


----------



## Justified (Jul 29, 2014)

Did not God provide a covering for them instead of their fig leaves? This clearly conveys the inadequacy of their own covering and the adequacy of God's covering. I think it's relatively clear; I have few doubts that we will see Adam and Eve in heaven.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 30, 2014)

aBrakel:

Objection:
"There is no proof that Adam and Eve were saved by Christ. The very opposite appears to be true in Heb 11:4, where Abel is presented as the first believer, as well as in Matt 23:35 where he is presented as the first righteous man."

Answer:
Answer: First, Abel is indeed mentioned in these texts, but not as the first righteous man, neither as the first 
believer. Thus, Adam is no more excluded there than when Abraham is called the father of the faithful—as if that 
were to exclude all believers before him. Secondly, in these texts Abel is placed in contrast to the ungodly, since there 
is reference to the superiority of his sacrifice over Cain‟s and he was the first martyr. Thirdly, that Adam believed in 
the promised seed is proven 
(1) by virtue of the established covenant which could not exist without there being a partaker of this covenant. If 
Adam had not been a partaker of this covenant, it would have been without a partaker until Abel and Seth, who was 
born 130 years after Adam‟s creation. When God established a covenant with Abraham, he was himself included. 
Would God establish the covenant of grace, referring to the seed of the woman which would bruise the head of the 
serpent, and not include Adam and Eve in this covenant? Would this covenant then not be efficacious for so many 
years in the absence of partakers of this covenant? Would God have made announcement to Adam and Eve 
concerning the covenant of grace, and then have excluded them from it? 
(2) It is evident from the enmity between man and the serpent, for wherever there is enmity with the devil there is 
peace with God. 
(3) Eve immediately focused upon the promise after she bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man from the Lord” 
(Gen 4:1). 
(4) Add to this the godly upbringing and faithful instruction of Adam‟s children, which was the means whereby 
Abel received faith.​


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 30, 2014)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> (3) Eve immediately focused upon the promise after she bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man from the Lord”
> (Gen 4:1).



That was the first thing that came to mind for me. Eve believed in the promise, she was a believer as much as anyone in Genesis was.

Adam takes a little more work, but I think aBrakel's view is persuasive.


----------



## Cymro (Jul 30, 2014)

Could this be a token? In that the genealogy in Luke3 traces back from Christ to Adam. Each successive 
step ends with the phrase,"which was the son of". And this refrain continues to Adam, but with a difference.
"Which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God."


----------



## lynnie (Jul 30, 2014)

Also, can't we reasonably assume that Adam had taught Abel to bring a sacrifice to the Lord?

_ And Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering._

You can't prove it, but Jude refers to Cain in saying:

_But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain......._

I figured Cain knew it but didn't understand it and rejected it, bringing the fruit of his own work instead. I always figured Adam had taught them about the type and shadow of animal sacrifice and was saved by faith.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 30, 2014)

Yes, Lynnie, I think that you are correct in all that you (and others) observe. 

As to the question--was Adam elect or not?--I am uncertain that it is fruitful to raise such with respect to Adam or any of the patriarchs, or other prominent figures of Scripture, except in the cases where the text itself suggests reasons for thinking them reprobate (Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Judas, and the like). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jul 30, 2014)

I would think that because Eve means "mother of all the living," that they had some faith in God's promise to provide redemption. The name and its translation are given immediately after the fall as well. It'd be hard for a man to give his wife a name like that right after facing God as a judge, unless they afterward turned and believed God's promise.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 30, 2014)

Let me be a little be more explicit: I think that there's something fundamentally wrong with looking at someone like like Adam in the Bible and musing "Was he really saved or not?" 

Not only do we have no good reason to raise that question, it's often a little step beyond that to ask--and such who take it not infrequently assign themselves the task of asking--"Is this person over there (in my church or that other NAPARC or other Reformed/Presbyterian Church) really saved?" I am not thinking of those who are sub-orthodox or not a member in good standing of a Bible-believing Christian church. We do this about each other in our own churches (I've certainly had people make such remarks to me as a pastor). 

I have to rebuke myself from asking this of my fellow churchmen who have done something I don't like or whom I see deficient in some way. And then I have to remind myself that, even as a minister of the gospel, whether someone enjoys a credible profession of faith is not my sole judgment but, when I am examining someone, a decision made only in conference with other ministers and elders. It is the church's corporate judgment, not my personal one, as to whether a professor's faith is credible or not. 

I need thus to be careful about pronouncing, particularly with respect to those with whom I have no personal experience, "that person is not a Christian." Truth be told, that could be reversed and said about us as those with whom we differ in our own circles might suspect that of us as they experience our bad attitudes, lack of charity, and a general lack of spiritual fruit. The best of us, whoever that is, aren't much and we want to be very careful about pronoucing people in the Bible, in our churches, in our lives, as saved or unsaved, not because they are clearly unorthodox or ungodly but because they don't in some way jibe with our own conceptions of what a "real Christian" should be. 

We all need to take, I believe, quite a bit more time pondering Romans 14 and all its implications. Yes, contend for the faith. Yes, let iron sharpen iron. Yes, let us spur one another on. And, yes, let us have searching preaching whereby we are challenged to make our calling and election sure. But let's be very careful with the "I don't think X is really a Christian" judgments not only outwardly but inwardly as well. My judgmentalism with respect to this is something for which I am always called to repent.

Our good moderators may judge this off-topic and perhaps it is, strictly speaking, though the conversation evokes this response in me. 

Peace,
Alan


----------

