# Adam was going to die anyways?



## Roldan (May 23, 2005)

According to the Hyper Preterist, even if Adam and Eve did NOT take of the forbidden fruit they would have eventually died anyways.

My question was an obvious reaction of, where does it say that in scripture? They answered with "where does it say they would live forever if they didn't take?

So I finally figured out that the foundation of the Hyper Preterist view is in this simple question.

Will our bodies need to be redeemed if we were destined to die anyways?

Any thoughts

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Roldan]


----------



## RamistThomist (May 23, 2005)

I think the burden of proof is on the hyper-preterist.


----------



## Roldan (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I think the burden of proof is on the hyper-preterist.



Right. Thats what I said. I told them that we have reason according to the text of Genesis 2 to say that we were not going to die if they did not partake of the tree and that the burden of proof was upon them.

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Roldan]


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 23, 2005)

It's just another misunderstanding of the Covenant of Works, which is not surprising in light of HPs' lack of a fully-developed systematic theology altogether.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 23, 2005)

The implication from the threat for disobedience is plain--disobey and die. The tree of Life was for what? Not magic. Not a "super meal" to keep one going perpetually, or by repeated physical nourishment. No, it was a sacramental tree, to be partaken of by faith. And that faith in the Word and promise of God would thus be the divinely appointed means whereby they would renew their lives perpetually, until God eliminated the probation, and advanced them to glory.

Death of the "living creatures" and man doesn't fit into the perfect created order. And the perfect created order includes faith operations. Man has never lived by bread alone.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 23, 2005)

The Tree of Life, being as a sacrament, obviously entails that they would have "life" from it; that is, live eternally. Something must change in the covenantal relationship between Adam & God before that would be affected, namely, the violation of God's commandment of complete obedience.

To speculate beyond this is sinful, in my opinion.



> Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
> 2 Thessalonians 3:6





> As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.
> 1 Timothy 1:3-4


----------



## Roldan (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The implication from the threat for disobedience is plain--disobey and die. The tree of Life was for what? Not magic. Not a "super meal" to keep one going perpetually, or by repeated physical nourishment. No, it was a sacramental tree, to be partaken of by faith. And that faith in the Word and promise of God would thus be the divinely appointed means whereby they would renew their lives perpetually, until God eliminated the probation, and advanced them to glory.
> 
> Death of the "living creatures" and man doesn't fit into the perfect created order. And the perfect created order includes faith operations. Man has never lived by bread alone.






I also responded by stating that why would God tell them they would die if they disobeyed? In connection I sarcastically stated that God would tell them "hey you eat of this tree and die, oh and by the way even if you don't you will die anyways" and told them that was absurd.

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Roldan]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 23, 2005)

Romans 5:12-21. Death was the result of sin in Adam.


----------



## Roldan (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Romans 5:12-21. Death was the result of sin in Adam.



Yes, but they say only spiritual death was the result not physical. Therefore as their reasoning goes we should not expect our dead corpses to be redeemed but only our dead souls and that was fullfilled in 70 AD. We are all united to the physical body of Christ which ressurected for us, which they call corporate.

So then, as the Hyprets continues, God never made a Covenant to restore our fleshly bodies so we should not expect a physical ressurection.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 23, 2005)

How do they interpret 1 Cor. 15 or 1 Thess 4?


----------



## D Battjes (May 23, 2005)

I disagree that Adam could have merited eternal life if he did not eat of the fruit. TO specualte with if's about God's revelation cannot become a dogmatic statement.

However, to inherit eternal heavenly life, he would need the imputed righteousness of Christ.

There was a covenant instituted in the garden. That much is clear. While it is arrogant of theologians to speculate regarding "what-ifs," in my opinion, nevertheless this has become fair game it seems. My exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:45ff leads me to conclude that 1) Adam had no life-giving ability; his sin but not his righteousness could be imputed; 2) his origin and therefore his life was completely earthy, not heavenly; 3) his life was a natural life, not a spiritual life; 4) the Adamic image in us could only have led to an earthly, natural life and the image of the Lord of heaven would under any circumstances have been needful for us to attain to a spiritual, heavenly life



Consider also the necessity of the fall. What righteousness was available through Adam for the elect? If we say there was righteousness available, then the infra must concede that had Adam not fallen, that same righteousness would have been imputed to the reprobate. So, either the fall was necessary to distinguish the antithesis between elect and reprobate (thus supralapsarianism) or the fall was necessary because the righteousness of Adam was insufficient for full glorification of the elect (again, thus supralapsarian).


----------



## openairboy (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> According to the Hyper Preterist, even if Adam and Eve did NOT take of the forbidden fruit they would have eventually died anyways.
> 
> My question was an obvious reaction of, where does it say that in scripture? They answered with "where does it say they would live forever if they didn't take?
> ...



I apologize for my impatience, but only the most blind of the blind would believe that YHWH, the Author of life, would call death "good". The reason death is so terrible is because it is not natural. It is the result of sin. They turn death on its head and make it "good". 

Systems "provide" answers. The hyperpreterist needs to fit everything into his scheme, so if that means death is "good", then they will declare it good. They need to interpret it spiritually, b/c they need to reject a bodily resurrection, so they need to reject the falls influence upon the earth and upon the body of man.

The second Adam will bring the creation into glory, which the first Adam failed to do. The first creation was 'good', but was not glorified, which the second Adam will do. The fall effected the whole cosmos, and Christ's redemption is for the whole cosmos. The curse is clear; the redemption is clear. They heretics are not. 

openairboy


----------



## Roldan (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Roldan_
> ...



WOW, AMEN brotha!!!!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> I disagree that Adam could have merited eternal life if he did not eat of the fruit. TO specualte with if's about God's revelation cannot become a dogmatic statement.
> 
> However, to inherit eternal heavenly life, he would need the imputed righteousness of Christ.


And what is the imputed righteousness of Christ? What defines the "righteousness"? 



> There was a covenant instituted in the garden. That much is clear. While it is arrogant of theologians to speculate regarding "what-ifs," in my opinion, nevertheless this has become fair game it seems.


Isn't it arrogant to throw away 400 years of progress in covenant theology, in which the doctrine of the covenant of works was generally accepted in all the Reformed churches? 



> My exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:45ff leads me to conclude that 1) Adam had no life-giving ability; his sin but not his righteousness could be imputed;


Who argues that Adam had life-giving ability? It is God who made the covenant with him, and God who determined the promises and stipulations. God is the life-giver and rewarder. 


> 2) his origin and therefore his life was completely earthy, not heavenly;


Was Adam then just an animal? And what exactly then did Adam lose in the Fall?



> 3) his life was a natural life, not a spiritual life;


So then his death would not be spiritual death either would it? 



> 4) the Adamic image in us could only have led to an earthly, natural life and the image of the Lord of heaven would under any circumstances have been needful for us to attain to a spiritual, heavenly life


I would encourage you to read through the Westminster Standards and their proof texts regarding the covenants, the law, and justification. Hoeksema was wrong. The legal covenant Christ entered into was the same that Adam entered into so far as there federal representations were concerned. Those who would keep the law perfectly could have obtained life by it (Mark 10, Gal 3). The righteousness required to maintain fellowship with God was the same for both. The perfect obedience to the revealed will of God (moral law) was necessary for both. 



> Consider also the necessity of the fall. What righteousness was available through Adam for the elect? If we say there was righteousness available, then the infra must concede that had Adam not fallen, that same righteousness would have been imputed to the reprobate.


The decree of God doesn't in any way change the promise of the covenant of works to Adam. In fact, it reenforces it. The legal structure set up with Adam, perfect obedience necessary to inherit eternal life for him and his posterity, provided the legal framework for Christ to do His work on our behalf. That is the same promise that Christ in fact obtains for us by His obedience, where Adam failed. At least this is how traditional covenant theology has understood this. 



> So, either the fall was necessary to distinguish the antithesis between elect and reprobate (thus supralapsarianism)


And just what were the reprobate reprobated to before they were considered sinners after the Fall (in the decrees that is)?



> or the fall was necessary because the righteousness of Adam was insufficient for full glorification of the elect (again, thus supralapsarian).


You've got the wrong focus here. Certainly Adam could never obtain eternal life on His own as a mere creature. But he was created in God's image, for the express purpose of communion with Him. And, it was God who condescended to Adam to make this covenant with him. God was the initiator. God was the designer. God set the requirements and God promised the reward of eternal life. It was God who bound Himself to give the reward to His good and upright creature (at least this is the traditional view). And we know in hindsight, that this arrangment provided the framework for Christ to do His work for us.


----------



## D Battjes (May 24, 2005)

> And what is the imputed righteousness of Christ? What defines the "righteousness"?



Are you asking me because you dont know, or are you setting up a house of sand to test me?



> Isn't it arrogant to throw away 400 years of progress in covenant theology, in which the doctrine of the covenant of works was generally accepted in all the Reformed churches?



My statement stands Patrick. You are being very haughty. IT is ARROGANT to ask "what if's" and specualte anything about God. I am not denying a COW.



> Who argues that Adam had life-giving ability? It is God who made the covenant with him, and God who determined the promises and stipulations. God is the life-giver and rewarder.




Some seem to say that Adam could have merited eternal heavenly life "IF" he obeyed, therefore would have been our savior.




> Was Adam then just an animal? And what exactly then did Adam lose in the Fall?



No he was not an animal patrick. Why are you being so confrontational? WHat does scripture say he lost? 



> So then his death would not be spiritual death either would it?



I do not know what this means. his redeemer is Christ like everyone elses. 



> I would encourage you to read through the Westminster Standards and their proof texts regarding the covenants, the law, and justification. Hoeksema was wrong. The legal covenant Christ entered into was the same that Adam entered into so far as there federal representations were concerned. Those who would keep the law perfectly could have obtained life by it (Mark 10, Gal 3). The righteousness required to maintain fellowship with God was the same for both. The perfect obedience to the revealed will of God (moral law) was necessary for both.




Thank you for the "encouragement" Patrick. Who mentioned Hoekesema? Just because I am a member, former member, at a prc does not mean I am a Hoeksema clone. 

Where is it stated that the revealed will of God is only the Moral Law? Where is that in the Scripture? There is nothing else that pertains to the Will of God other than the Moral law? Adam and Christ are NOT the same. One is man one is God. The cutting of the covenants, the parties involved are not the same. Are you Diefying Adam? Again you mention pure speculation. Could haves, if's and's or but's.



> The decree of God doesn't in any way change the promise of the covenant of works to Adam. In fact, it reenforces it. The legal structure set up with Adam, perfect obedience necessary to inherit eternal life for him and his posterity, provided the legal framework for Christ to do His work on our behalf. That is the same promise that Christ in fact obtains for us by His obedience, where Adam failed. At least this is how traditional covenant theology has understood this.



A legal framework based on one verse in the Scripture Patrick? "Eat and die" is the legal framework for Christs redemption of His sheep?





> You've got the wrong focus here. Certainly Adam could never obtain eternal life on His own as a mere creature. But he was created in God's image, for the express purpose of communion with Him. And, it was God who condescended to Adam to make this covenant with him. God was the initiator. God was the designer. God set the requirements and God promised the reward of eternal life. It was God who bound Himself to give the reward to His good and upright creature (at least this is the traditional view). And we know in hindsight, that this arrangment provided the framework for Christ to do His work for us.




I am not focusing on anything. There is nothing more important to focus on than KNOWING that Adam needed an alien righteoussness. Anyone who denies this is in error in my humble opinion. You state as a creature, then mention Gods image. Gods image does NOT equal God. We are all created in Gods image. 

To conclude the opposite of eat and die to mean dont eat and live eternally is spiritualizing Scripture Patrick. It is not there. And is almost as much of a stretch to put it there as a papist concludes The primacy of Peter as pope.

Now I am not a HP, another Label that means nothing to me. 

The Covenant with Christ was made in eternity Patrick, it was not decreed after the Fall as a second fix. 

You seem to be struggling with the old question. "How could God require something He knows cannot be fulfilled?" "Why does He still find fault?" And my answer to you is exactly what Paul states in Romans 9. I encourage you to read that.:bigsmile::bigsmile::bigsmile:


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> My statement stands Patrick. You are being very haughty. IT is ARROGANT to ask "what if's" and specualte anything about God. I am not denying a COW.


But you are denying the tradional Reformed understanding of it. The reason I push people on these deviations from the Reformed view is because when you mess with Adam, you inevitably mess with the Second Adam. 



> > Who argues that Adam had life-giving ability? It is God who made the covenant with him, and God who determined the promises and stipulations. God is the life-giver and rewarder.
> 
> 
> Some seem to say that Adam could have merited eternal heavenly life "IF" he obeyed, therefore would have been our savior.


It was never the plan of God for him to be our Savior. That does not nullify the promise made to him, nor the covenant parameters that set up the reward for perfect obedience. I see absolutely no conflict the with possibility that Adam could inherit life for us. He didn't do it. But the covenant with him enabled Christ to do it for us.



> > Was Adam then just an animal? And what exactly then did Adam lose in the Fall?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My point here is that you are misunderstanding 1 Cor. 15 if you think that Adam had no spiritual life before the Fall. Adam was a complete being before the Fall, living righteous and holy in communion with God. He fellowshipped with God. This is no "earthy" existense. He was made after God's image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. He was upright (Ecc. 7:29). He lacked nothing to accomplish his appointed duties. God declared him "very good" even though he was mutable. This is not deifying Adam. It simply tells us how far we have fallen. In 1 Cor. 15 Paul is explaining the comparison between the present age (the whole creation lost in Adam), and the age to come (the new creation in Christ) and how God is using it to accomplish His purposes. We do not at present see the new creation but it will be manifested at the end with the ressurection. 



> > I would encourage you to read through the Westminster Standards and their proof texts regarding the covenants, the law, and justification. Hoeksema was wrong. The legal covenant Christ entered into was the same that Adam entered into so far as there federal representations were concerned. Those who would keep the law perfectly could have obtained life by it (Mark 10, Gal 3). The righteousness required to maintain fellowship with God was the same for both. The perfect obedience to the revealed will of God (moral law) was necessary for both.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the "encouragement" Patrick. Who mentioned Hoekesema? Just because I am a member, former member, at a prc does not mean I am a Hoeksema clone.


I mentioned Hoeksema because you said you came from the PRC and also because you are using his arguments made in his Reformed Dogmatics. If that was not your intention than I apologize. 



> Where is it stated that the revealed will of God is only the Moral Law? Where is that in the Scripture? There is nothing else that pertains to the Will of God other than the Moral law? Adam and Christ are NOT the same. One is man one is God. The cutting of the covenants, the parties involved are not the same. Are you Diefying Adam? Again you mention pure speculation. Could haves, if's and's or but's.


That is all Adam had plus the command to not eat. The law was written on his heart. And I did not say Adam and Christ were the same nor that they represented that same people. I said they were the same so far as their federal representation is concerned. What the head does, he does for his posterity. He acts as the legal representative for all in him. The requirements of perfect obedience are the same. The promise of eternal life is the same for that obedience. 

Are you not making "what if's" by saying this?


> If we say there was righteousness available, then the infra must concede that had Adam not fallen, that same righteousness would have been imputed to the reprobate. So, either the fall was necessary to distinguish the antithesis between elect and reprobate (thus supralapsarianism) or the fall was necessary because the righteousness of Adam was insufficient for full glorification of the elect (again, thus supralapsarian).


Is the doctrine of the Trinity a "what if"? Just because the word doesn't appear doesn't mean we can't deduce the concept. You already agreed there is some covenant of works there. In covenants, especially divine covenants, there is the promise and the stipulations. What was the promise to Adam if it was not eternal life? If you would argue it was only continued earthly life, then how do you deduce that from "eat this and die." Obviously it would be the same type of argument that we deduce the promise of eternal life. 

The Reformed concept is not just built on this passage alone but also on others which describe the relationship of man to God outside of the covenant of grace. Rom. 5:12-21, there federal headships are defined and the consequences of their work in that legal framework explained. Gal 4 states clearly that there are two covenants operating which determine man's relation to God. Gal 3 teaches us that those who would attempt to inherit life by the law must keep it entirely, along with Christ's own explicit teaching that in order for the rich young ruler to inherit eternal life he must keep the law (Mark 10). Romans 3 also teaches us there are two ways of inheriting life, by the law of works, or by the law of faith. So with these Scripture references in mind, it is clearly not presuming too much to see the implied promise that if Adam would have obeyed he would have inherited eternal life. Obviously that way to eternal life has been shut to sinners. Only through Christ can we have that life now. 



> > The decree of God doesn't in any way change the promise of the covenant of works to Adam. In fact, it reenforces it. The legal structure set up with Adam, perfect obedience necessary to inherit eternal life for him and his posterity, provided the legal framework for Christ to do His work on our behalf. That is the same promise that Christ in fact obtains for us by His obedience, where Adam failed. At least this is how traditional covenant theology has understood this.
> 
> 
> 
> A legal framework based on one verse in the Scripture Patrick? "Eat and die" is the legal framework for Christs redemption of His sheep?


That is a gross mischaracterization. See above. 



> > You've got the wrong focus here. Certainly Adam could never obtain eternal life on His own as a mere creature. But he was created in God's image, for the express purpose of communion with Him. And, it was God who condescended to Adam to make this covenant with him. God was the initiator. God was the designer. God set the requirements and God promised the reward of eternal life. It was God who bound Himself to give the reward to His good and upright creature (at least this is the traditional view). And we know in hindsight, that this arrangment provided the framework for Christ to do His work for us.
> 
> 
> I am not focusing on anything. There is nothing more important to focus on than KNOWING that Adam needed an alien righteoussness. Anyone who denies this is in error in my humble opinion. You state as a creature, then mention Gods image. Gods image does NOT equal God. We are all created in Gods image.


Adam did not need an alien righteousness until he sinned. I never said God's image equals God. I'm not sure where you got that from. Adam was a creature made in God's image. He was designed for fellowship with God. He was designed for covenant communion with God. He was created righteous and holy for that purpose. God cannot fellowship with the unrighteous. 



> The Covenant with Christ was made in eternity Patrick, it was not decreed after the Fall as a second fix.


Who argued that? I expressely said the covenant of works was designed for Christ to accomplish His work. Sure the covenant of redemption was made in eternity. But it had to be carried out in time. The covenant of works with Adam defined how men are to stand in the sight of God and enjoy that fellowship with Him. Christ fulfilled those obligations for the elect. God decreed in eternity past that this is how He would accomplish redemption. There is no "Plan B" or "second fix" in anything I have argued. 

As I said above, my concern in reacting so strongly is that if you mess with Adam, you mess with the second Adam. That's what the HP's have done. That's what Hoeksema did. And that's what these new groups like FV and NPP do (largely thanks to Hoeksema's covenant scheme). You end up with both legalism and antinominism in some form. And if I may tie this together with some others threads we've had recently, the covenant of works with it's stipulations and promise, explains the necessity of our need for Christ's active obedience to be imputed to us. To discard the traditional formulation does eventually lead to error.


[Edited on 5-24-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## D Battjes (May 24, 2005)

> But you are denying the tradional Reformed understanding of it. The reason I push people on these deviations from the Reformed view is because when you mess with Adam, you inevitably mess with the Second Adam.



Sand bagging people is not a way to dialogue Patrick. Dont use the excuse, "Telling the truth in Love while blasting someone" I am much older than you and have witnessed that attitude in the prc for years. I have neither said anything contrary to what scripture presents. clearly. 



> It was never the plan of God for him to be our Savior. That does not nullify the promise made to him, nor the covenant parameters that set up the reward for perfect obedience. I see absolutely no conflict the with possibility that Adam could inherit life for us. He didn't do it. But the covenant with him enabled Christ to do it for us.



Again, I do not believe that Christs covenant in eternity was based on the agreement with Adam.. Life does not always equal eternal life



> My point here is that you are misunderstanding 1 Cor. 15 if you think that Adam had no spiritual life before the Fall. Adam was a complete being before the Fall, living righteous and holy in communion with God. He fellowshipped with God. This is no "earthy" existense. He was made after God's image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. He was upright (Ecc. 7:29). He lacked nothing to accomplish his appointed duties. God declared him "very good" even though he was mutable. This is not deifying Adam. It simply tells us how far we have fallen. In 1 Cor. 15 Paul is explaining the comparison between the present age (the whole creation lost in Adam), and the age to come (the new creation in Christ) and how God is using it to accomplish His purposes. We do not at present see the new creation but it will be manifested at the end with the ressurection.



There are many in the Scriptures who are called righteouss Patrick. Does this mean they kept the Law perfectly? Why then did Adam sin? Where did this inclination to sin come from? If what you say is clear and true, why did he sin? Did God leave him to his own will for this "Probationary" period?I put it in quotes because I deny any probationary period also.



> I mentioned Hoeksema because you said you came from the PRC and also because you are using his arguments made in his Reformed Dogmatics. If that was not your intention than I apologize.



And i asked you not to do that please. These are not his arguements. When you read his WHOLE dogmatics, then we can talk. Not just the bits and pieces that have been used as proof texts against him.



> That is all Adam had plus the command to not eat. The law was written on his heart. And I did not say Adam and Christ were the same nor that they represented that same people. I said they were the same so far as their federal representation is concerned. What the head does, he does for his posterity. He acts as the legal representative for all in him. The requirements of perfect obedience are the same. The promise of eternal life is the same for that obedience.



Where does it say it was written on his heart? Or can we just conclude that it was. In every other instance the Scripture clearly says, "God made a covenant with this and that person". Why does it not say that for adam? THis is a question that has bothered me for some time. 



> The Reformed concept is not just built on this passage alone but also on others which describe the relationship of man to God outside of the covenant of grace. Rom. 5:12-21, there federal headships are defined and the consequences of their work in that legal framework explained. Gal 4 states clearly that there are two covenants operating which determine man's relation to God. Gal 3 teaches us that those who would attempt to inherit life by the law must keep it entirely, along with Christ's own explicit teaching that in order for the rich young ruler to inherit eternal life he must keep the law (Mark 10). Romans 3 also teaches us there are two ways of inheriting life, by the law of works, or by the law of faith. So with these Scripture references in mind, it is clearly not presuming too much to see the implied promise that if Adam would have obeyed he would have inherited eternal life. Obviously that way to eternal life has been shut to sinners. Only through Christ can we have that life now.



I disagree. I see a promise made, but not one of eternal life in Adam. I do not believe it was ever a chance. 





> Adam did not need an alien righteousness until he sinned. I never said God's image equals God. I'm not sure where you got that from. Adam was a creature made in God's image. He was designed for fellowship with God. He was designed for covenant communion with God. He was created righteous and holy for that purpose. God cannot fellowship with the unrighteous.



Are not ALL His elect designed the same way? God fellowshipped with many who were unrighteouss. He ate and spent time with sinners patrick. 



> Who argued that? I expressely said the covenant of works was designed for Christ to accomplish His work. Sure the covenant of redemption was made in eternity. But it had to be carried out in time. The covenant of works with Adam defined how men are to stand in the sight of God and enjoy that fellowship with Him. Christ fulfilled those obligations for the elect. God decreed in eternity past that this is how He would accomplish redemption. There is no "Plan B" or "second fix" in anything I have argued.



The COR was the first Covenant cut. When Noah found favor in Gods eyes, did he do it by keeping the Law perfect? No he did not. When David is called a man after Gods own heart, was he perfectly Holy? I do not see the connection you are making here. Unless you are equating "Image of God" with perfect and no sin nor inclination to sin.



> As I said above, my concern in reacting so strongly is that if you mess with Adam, you mess with the second Adam. That's what the HP's have done. That's what Hoeksema did. And that's what these new groups like FV and NPP do (largely thanks to Hoeksema's covenant scheme). You end up with both legalism and antinominism in some form. And if I may tie this together with some others threads we've had recently, the covenant of works with it's stipulations and promise, explains the necessity of our need for Christ's active obedience to be imputed to us. To discard the traditional formulation does eventually lead to error.



I do not believe I am discarding anything Patrick. Other than anyone claiming that Adam would not need Christ. I do not believe that is traditional, nor is it biblically expressed. I understand your concern to remain within the sphere of orthodoxy patrick and I commend you for that. But your approach is bothersome to me. Show more charity of Spirit. I am not pushing a Hoeksema agenda, or HP or NPP. 


[Edited on 5-24-2005 by puritansailor] [/quote]

[Edited on 5-24-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## D Battjes (May 24, 2005)

Adam was created holy, but not yet secured in his holiness by God's Spirit. Calvin, for example, in commenting on Gen 2:7 points out that "the state of man was not perfected in the person of Adam; but it is a peculiar benefit conferred by Christ, that we may be renewed to a life which is celestial, whereas before the fall of Adam man's life was only earthly, seeing it had no firm and settled constancy."


The life Adam would have gained would have been the life he had as a creature, an innocent, natural life upon the earth; but no more.

Eternal life was promised to God's elect in the covenant of grace made with Christ long before this (Eph. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:2; 1 John 5:10). 

Eternal life is the free gift of God's grace in Christ the Mediator, through the merit and virtue of his blood, and by the knowledge of him (John 10:10, 28; 17:3; Rom 6:23). 

If eternal life could have been won by Adam's obedience, then eternal life would have been gained by works, not by the grace and gift of God. 

Eternal life is nothing less or more than the consummation of salvation in everlasting glory with Christ; and this, the Scriptures everywhere declare, is the work and gift of God's free grace alone (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9). 

Life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel of Christ, not by Adam, Abraham, or Moses (2 Tim. 1:9-10). 

There is no proportion between the best works of man, not even in his state of innocence and sinlessness, and eternal life. 

The breaking of this covenant did not take God by surprise. Ever remember that nothing is out of God's control or outside God's purpose. He said to Adam, "In the day thou eatest thereof," (not if you eat, but when), "thou shalt surely die." The sin and fall of Adam was typical of and made way for the coming of the second man, the Lord from heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ and the new covenant of grace in him (Ps. 76:10). Yet, the breaking of this covenant, Adam's disobedience to God led to the sin, corruption, and death of the whole human race.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 24, 2005)

I _never_ ceases to amaze me how absolutely ridiculous theology becomes when the CoW is messed up. Personally, I cannot understand why someone, or anyone, on this board would suddenly bypass the "Confessional Standard" they signed up with, because no Reformed Confession teaches that Adam could have died before the fall, or that Adam could not have inherited eternal life. It is exactly what the Confession teaches unless, of course, silly me, you DENY the confessional standard. 




> I have neither said anything contrary to what scripture presents. clearly.



If you have said that Adam could die or would have died before the fall, or that Adam could not inherit eternal life by fulfilling the CoW then you have said both what the Scriptures do NOT teach as well as what the Church has not taught for 6000 years.

Simple premise based on most of the bible which I really should not need to quote:

What Christ DID do was a result of what Adam DID NOT do.

_Ipso facto_, the CoW would have rewarded Adam with ETERNAL LIFE.

Romans 7:10 "*And the commandment, which was to bring life*, I found to bring death."

Following the commandment would have brought LIFE. If we need to, we can go back to "life" 101 and start talking about what that actually means all thought the NT, but I think everyone should get the point right away. (To hope, but yet to dream!)

To deny that the LAW BRINGS LIFE is to deny the very foundation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 2, and to deny that the attributes of God bring life, and to deny the CoWs. Which is past ridiculous because the life of God is what eternal salvation is all about. Thus, screw up the CoW and Theology Proper goes "bye bye". That leads us into heresy and all sorts of nasty little things that synods and councils have condemend long ago.



> Adam was created holy, but not yet secured in his holiness by God's Spirit. Calvin, for example, in commenting on Gen 2:7 points out that "the state of man was not perfected in the person of Adam; but it is a peculiar benefit conferred by Christ, that we may be renewed to a life which is celestial, whereas before the fall of Adam man's life was only earthly, seeing it had no firm and settled constancy."



Exactly. Don´t misread Calvin. In other words, until the PROBATIONARY period was over, eternal life had not YET been merited. Thus a Covenant of WORKS. Capital *W-O-R-K-S.*




> The life Adam would have gained would have been the life he had as a creature, an innocent, natural life upon the earth; but no more.



This is NOT what Calvin is teaching. This is what people who _screw up_ the Covenant of Works teach. Covenant Theology 101 "“ what Christ did is what Adam DID NOT do. Adam should have accomplished EXACTLY what SAME benefits that Christ accomplished as the last Adam.



> Eternal life was promised to God's elect in the covenant of grace made with Christ long before this (Eph. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:2; 1 John 5:10).



Right. But this, in no way, refigures the intent and reward of the Covenant of WORKS.

We are saved by grace because Christ Fulfilled the Covenant of WORKS - which is what Patrick was getting at when he asked you what "righteousness" is.



> Eternal life is the free gift of God's grace in Christ the Mediator, through the merit and virtue of his blood, and by the knowledge of him (John 10:10, 28; 17:3; Rom 6:23).



Same as previous answer.



> If eternal life could have been won by Adam's obedience, then eternal life would have been gained by works, not by the grace and gift of God.



EXACTLY what DID HAPPEN. That is why, pay attention now, it called the COVENANT OF *WORKS*. Christ, being the second Adam fulfilled, again, what the first Adam _blew_.



> Life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel of Christ, not by Adam, Abraham, or Moses (2 Tim. 1:9-10).



Abraham and Moses are in a whole different class than the Federal Headship of Adam over the Human Race. Don´t mix apples and oranges, or rather, apples and lamb chops.



> There is no proportion between the best works of man, not even in his state of innocence and sinlessness, and eternal life.



You are missing, _entirely_, the point of what it means to "œkeep the law" and to reflect the attributes of God in the law. To conform to the law, is to uphold the attributes of God and to be holy. If we uphold the law perfectly, the we will be like God in reflecting back His glory and His worth. Thus, Christ is not the village idiot when He said, "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." This is not a euphemism, but a pointing to the law. Adam, for however long, did uphold the image of God in perfect holiness. God was perfectly and infinitely pleased with what Adam had accomplished until he fell.

We are getting way to many people on the board messing this up. Its one thing to question, its another to deny orthodoxy. "Saying" you are not denying orthodoxy is like saying to the officer who pulled you over in the Lamborghini, "No sir, I wasn't speeding." 

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## turmeric (May 24, 2005)

Folks, what part of "In the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall DIE" are we not getting? If he didn't eat it, he wouldn't die, eventually or any other time.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 24, 2005)

With the utmost respect and humility, I must say that, if you mess with the Covenant of Works, you are dancing on the line of full-on heresy.


----------



## Roldan (May 25, 2005)

WOW, this has been an edifying thread, for me anyways. I was contemplating on the same argument that Webmaster so clearly articulated. I clearly see even more now that to deny the CoW messes alot more up than just our physical ressurection but the heart of the Gospel itself. Well, I always knew that, in the gospel sense by denying our imputed righteousness but I never realized that Adam was a starting point for sound theology

great stuff brothers, I have learned alot here as always. 

Here is another question relevant to this. From my understanding, the tree of life was a symbol of eternal life for Adam and Eve. One of the HP that I know, which btw they are pretty great guys none the less, said that in Revelation the tree of life was for healing. Now I think we went of subject when he was explaining it to me so I am not sure where he was going with this but I assume it was the tree to heal the adams physical body because it was going to deteriate anyways so it was there for physical healing when needed. huh?


----------



## turmeric (May 25, 2005)

I think he was referring to the verse in Rev 22(?) where it was mentioned that the trees grew along the river and their leaves are for the healing of the nations. This scripture is in my opinion referring to a time when the curse is to be removed, hence healing.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I think he was referring to the verse in Rev 22(?) where it was mentioned that the trees grew along the river and their leaves are for the healing of the nations. This scripture is in my opinion referring to a time when the curse is to be removed, hence healing.



It is Rev. 22:3, and this is clearly a parallel to Ezekiel 47.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 25, 2005)

I find this all very intresting, but the title of the thread keeps freaking me out.


----------



## D Battjes (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> I _never_ ceases to amaze me how absolutely ridiculous theology becomes when the CoW is messed up. Personally, I cannot understand why someone, or anyone, on this board would suddenly bypass the "Confessional Standard" they signed up with, because no Reformed Confession teaches that Adam could have died before the fall, or that Adam could not have inherited eternal life. It is exactly what the Confession teaches unless, of course, silly me, you DENY the confessional standard.
> 
> 
> ...




Doctor Matt: Some of the words and phrases you have used directed towrds me are very harsh and insulting. I know I do not have letters after my name, but I am a blood bought child of God. SHow a little more charity please. I never knew the implications you have mentioned by me stating that Adam needed an alien righteousness and could not have merited eternal life if he obeyed.

I have discussed this in length with many before, but have not been accosted by such a contemptuous rebuttal as yours.

I apologize if my statements inflamed you and will relent. Perhaps you had a bad day and i will forgive you also.


DMB


----------



## Roldan (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I find this all very intresting, but the title of the thread keeps freaking me out.






It freaked me out when I first heard it.


----------



## Roldan (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> Doctor Matt: Some of the words and phrases you have used directed towrds me are very harsh and insulting. I know I do not have letters after my name, but I am a blood bought child of God. SHow a little more charity please. I never knew the implications you have mentioned by me stating that Adam needed an alien righteousness and could not have merited eternal life if he obeyed.
> ...



A little sarcasm is helpful to get points across and I think the Dr. did an excellent job and I really got the point. 



[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Roldan]

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Roldan]

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Roldan]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 25, 2005)

OK, charitably, let's not screw up the Covenant of Works. Its essential for orthodoxy. Falling over the line towards denying it is detrimental to understnading what our Lord and Savior did by fulfilling everything that Adam should have filled.

I think the Confession is very basic on this point when it says:

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.[2]

1. Gen. 3:13; II Cor. 11:3
2. See Chapter V, Section IV

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]

3. Gen. 3:6-8; Rom. 3:23
4. Gen. 2:17; Eph. 2:1-3; see Rom. 5:12
5. Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Titus 1:15; Rom. 3:10-19

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]

6. Acts. 17:26; Rom. 5:12, 15-19; I Cor. 15:21-22, 49
7. Psa. 51:5; John 3:6; Gen. 5:3; Job 15:14

We don't need letters next to our name to parrot the truth. Remember, we are all to be plagerists of the highest order. Mimic Scripture, and God's providential provision and preservation of it through historical theology, and one will always wind up on the right side. Depart from it at your own peril.


----------



## D Battjes (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> OK, charitably, let's not screw up the Covenant of Works. Its essential for orthodoxy. Falling over the line towards denying it is detrimental to understnading what our Lord and Savior did by fulfilling everything that Adam should have filled.
> 
> I think the Confession is very basic on this point when it says:
> ...



Thank you Matt. 

Perhaps Ishould write down what I am going to say, read it, then read it again, then post. 

I did not realize the I was denying the COW. I previously said there was a covenant made, but I cannot find anywhere in scripture or the confessions that Adam could have merited eternal life. 


DMB


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

DM,

It would seem that it boils down to this:

If Adam would not have merited eternal life by obeying the commandment, then what did he lose in disobeying? If just physical life, then our next question is:

What did he lose through sin? And the answer would have to be simply physical life (since he never would have had life even if he did not sin).

And so the WCF would appear to be wrong when it says:


> By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body (WCF 6.2)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)

Is it right to say Adam _needed_ to inherit eternal life? Did he not already posses such a promise, and the means to have this, prior to the Fall?


----------



## Consistent (May 25, 2005)

Amen Dr. McMahon.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Is it right to say Adam _needed_ to inherit eternal life? Did he not already posses such a promise, and the means to have this, prior to the Fall?



Adam needed to be confirmed in his state of original righteousness. To say that he needed to have something added to him, is to embrace the Romanist doctrine of _donum superadditum_, which no surprise, is problematic with the CoW.


----------



## openairboy (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> Doctor Matt: Some of the words and phrases you have used directed towrds me are very harsh and insulting. I know I do not have letters after my name, but I am a blood bought child of God. SHow a little more charity please. I never knew the implications you have mentioned by me stating that Adam needed an alien righteousness and could not have merited eternal life if he obeyed.
> 
> ...



As my friend Mark says, "Sin is a lot like bad breath. It is always easier to smell on others." You may want to reread this thread if this is your response... 

openairboy

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## D Battjes (May 25, 2005)

Doctor Matthew et all:

After some time spent with the Holy Scriptures, and reading what you and others have posted, I will refrain from entering any other posts to this thread.

I was bothered by your tone before matt, but God pushed me to go back and read and honestly look at Adam. Because of my conclusions, I cannot in good faith continue presenting facts that others disagree with here.


According to that so-called covenant of works between God and Adam, man could attain to the end of eternal life through and as a reward of obedience: he could merit eternal life. And in that covenant he could also make himself worthy of death through disobedience. This "covenant of works" implied, so the dogma is further developed, a condition (not to eat of the forbidden tree), a promise (eternal life), and a penalty (death). 


I still do not see te Bible speaking of an agreement such as this between God and Man. It does, indeed, speak of the probationary command, forbidding Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil on penalty of death. But a command is no covenant, no contract, no agreement between two parties. It certainly does not speak of the promise of "eternal life," of the higher and heavenly state of perfect liberty and glory, as something that could be attained by Adam. The contention that he could have "merited" eternal life in this covenant of works is certainly quite contrary to the fundamental teaching of Holy Writ. Man can never merit anything with God. He owes all he is and has continuously to God. He cannot offer God anything. He has nothing for sale to God. If he serves God without fail, with all his heart and mind and soul and strength, he is still just an unworthy servant that has merited exactly nothing. And, therefore, the teaching that Adam could merit eternal life by his obedience is corrupt. 


If we must answer the question, what could have become of Adam in case he had not fallen but remained obedient, all we can say on the basis of Scripture is that he could not have died, that he would have retained the life he had. But never would he have attained to that higher "eternal life," which can be had only through Jesus Christ our Lord. This notion, therefore, of a covenant in the sense of an agreement between God and Adam as two parties, in which Adam could attain to eternal life if he obeyed, I reject at this time as purely philisophical. But will continue to study and pray that God leads me to a correct understanding.



Some people think that, before sin entered the world, man was in a position to earn or merit blessing from God. But, while it is true that sin corrupts everything we do now, even apart from sin our works could never put God in our debt. The older Protestant theologians knew this. One of them, James Fisher, authored a "catechism"--a series of question and answers for the purpose of teaching children Christian doctrine--which included a question about the first human being: "Was there any proportion between Adam's obedience, though sinless, and the life that was promised?" The answer is: "There can be no proportion between the obedience of a finite creature, however perfect, and the enjoyment of the infinite God."

The catechism goes on: "Why could not Adam's perfect obedience be meritorious of eternal life?" and answers, "Because perfect obedience was no more than what he was bound to, by virtue of his natural dependence on God, as a reasonable creature made after his image." Finally, the questions is asked: "Could he have claimed the reward as a debt, in case he had continued in his obedience?" The answer is that all rewards are of God's grace, his unmerited favor: "He could have claimed it only as a pactional debt, in virtue of the covenant promise, by which God became debtor to his own faithfulness, but not in virtue of any intrinsic merit of his obedience, Luke 17:10." By "pactional" the author means that it was a only by an gracious decision to bind himself to a promise that God could be obligated in the first place.

This last answer is accompanied by a Scripture text, Luke 17.10: "Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come at once and recline at table'? Will he not rather say to him, 'Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink'? Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'"


In this state and condition Adam's obedience should have been rewarded in justice, but he could not have merited that reward. Happiness should have been conferred upon him, or continued unto him for his works, but they had not deserved the continuance thereof: for it is impossible the creature should merit of the Creator, because when he hath done all that he can, he is an unprofitable servant, he hath done but his duty (A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace).
Unworthy servants are what we are, even when we have done all our duty! How much less can we ever rightfully claim to obligate God to reward us when we both fail to do our duty and actively violate God's commands every day?



Again, I thank you all for your posts and please pray for God to push me and keep me in the right understanding, and if wrong, be able to humbly accept correction and not be ashamed of speaking error, but be thankful I will not remain in it.


DMB


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)

If you do not believe in the CoW, you do not adhere to the LBC or the WCF, and really have no place posting on this board. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are denying the CoW, correct?


----------



## D Battjes (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If you do not believe in the CoW, you do not adhere to the LBC or the WCF, and really have no place posting on this board. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are denying the CoW, correct?




Gabriel, the irony is I never thought I was. I NEVER thought that saying Adam could not have merited eternal life if he obeyed was denying the COW. This is the first time I have been confronted with this reasoning and why at this time I will no longer post to this thread. I need to reconsider my position after a lengthy time with our Lord and His Word. I have always been under the teachings that the adamic covenant was only to bring death. Therefore resulting in Christ doing what Adam was not decreed to do. I NEVER considered that Adam could have merited anything, just like we can never merit anything. 


DMB


----------



## Poimen (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If you do not believe in the CoW, you do not adhere to the LBC or the WCF, and really have no place posting on this board. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are denying the CoW, correct?



First of all, for the record, I heartily believe and confess a CoW made with Adam as outlined in the WCF. 

And I agree that for better or worse, if you deny it, you are on the road to moralism: grace and works/faith and works for justification. Yet...

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/faq.php?page=forumrules



> Those who desire to join the Puritanboard must embrace an historic confession.



...the Three Forms of Unity are listed as an acceptable confession that may be embraced for membership. The 3FU do not teach the covenant of works. Therefore someone could be a member here and deny the covenant of works. 

Or would the moderators rap my knuckles for this one? 

BTW, In my humble opinion, the only statement in the 3FU that supports or embraces the CoW is Q&A 6 of the HC: 

Q6: Did God create man thus, wicked and perverse?

A7: No,[1] but God created man good and after His own image,[2] that is, in righteousness and true holiness; that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him.[3]

1. Gen. 1:31
2. Gen. 1:26-27
3. II Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24

Yet I think it would be a stretch of the original intent to make this a full blown CoW. Maybe it is implied but it not explicitly stated here or in Ursinus's commentary on the Catechism.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by poimen]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

Good job Paul.

It is also crucial to remember that Adam's meriting eternal life was not solely meritorious on his behalf. God _voluntarily condescended*_ to enter into covenant with Adam, providing the condition for Adam to fulfill. It was not incumbent upon God to permit Adam to enter into covenant, nor to provide a reward for obedience.

God could have demanded perpetual perfect obedience with no end to the probationary period, and no covenantal promises. But he did. So Adam was not in the place of being equal with God (that is, in bargaining power), but rather as the recepient of the goodness of God's condescension.



*WCF 7.1 The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.


----------



## D Battjes (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



What may I ask are anti COW tendancies?


And lastly Paul, I have no issue with those scriptures. And it appears that the false "domino effect" is being casted my way.

Next because of my understnading, I will be said to destroy the trinity, incarnation, oh and throw in the virgin birth. 

Of course Christ came to do what adam could not do. And that was DIE for us. The Atonement is not purely based upon Christs active obedience is it? that would be considered the moral example theory of atonement which is as heretical as they come.

Everyone, I will state this again, coming from the PRC, this is what I have been taught. But believe me, to draw the conclusion that because of this understanding, it denies the COW I stand shocked. And to throw in the fact that according you your "self appointed epignosis" it destroys the work of Christ is nonsense. Almost humorous. 

I will study this further with our Lord and reconsider this position, and I pray I am led to the truth.


DMB

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 25, 2005)

DMB,




> I NEVER thought that saying Adam could not have merited eternal life if he obeyed was denying the COW. This is the first time I have been confronted with this reasoning and why at this time I will no longer post to this thread. I need to reconsider my position after a lengthy time with our Lord and His Word. I have always been under the teachings that the adamic covenant was only to bring death. Therefore resulting in Christ doing what Adam was not decreed to do. I NEVER considered that Adam could have merited anything, just like we can never merit anything.



Remember, Adam, in a FALLEN state cannot merit anything as we do. In a state of innocence, its a whole other ball of wax as our Federal Head.

Two good books that help here are:

Thomas Boston's, "Human Nature in its Fourfold State" (checking state #1 for study)
Herman Witsius', "The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man," Chapters 1-9 in book 1.

Study on!


----------



## D Battjes (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> DMB,
> 
> 
> ...



Matt: Thank you, now that is an example of Christ-like charity. And it is well appreciated.


The one point that I was taught, that I have yet to find a decent answer to relates to what you just said matt.

All have sinned in adam as our federal head, that I 100% agree with. But can we infer, because it is not implied or hinted at in scripture, that we were all in Adam prior to the fall? This is the crux of my battle in this. I have searched and searched and have never found an answer to this. I ask this because this is one of the main reasons I deny that eternal life could have been merited by him, for his posterity.

Also, Question #2: The whole human race sinned in adam, but only the Elect are redeemed through Christ. This brings other implications to my study. Since 1 offense resulted in the mass human sin, then why did not Christ do the exact opposite and redeem the whole of man? According to what i read here and in other places, Christ being the 2nd adam is portrayed as the opposite of adam in this respect.



DMB


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

DM,

Would it not stand to reason (and from Romans 5) that the entire human race was in Adam before the Fall? If not, how could all receive judgment as a result of Adam's sin?


----------



## D Battjes (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> DM,
> 
> Would it not stand to reason (and from Romans 5) that the entire human race was in Adam before the Fall? If not, how could all receive judgment as a result of Adam's sin?





I do not know Fred. I have yet to see that spoken of anywhere. Specifically that Adam would have secured eternal life for himself and all the human race to follow.

One thing I know for certain, my stay in the PRC Never spoke of this. The only focus was on the decree , the Fall, and redemption!!!!!


----------



## Roldan (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> I will study this further with our Lord and reconsider this position, and I pray I am led to the truth.
> ...



Please do. I will pray for your truth journey as well.


----------



## Roldan (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> I do not know Fred. I have yet to see that spoken of anywhere. Specifically that Adam would have secured eternal life for himself and all the human race to follow.



Ok. You are having a problem with Adam securing eternal life for himself and all the human race IF he would have not disobeyed, right?

Now, you stated in a recent post that you AFFIRM that Adam brought us ALL death, right? So as Fred asked I will ask in a different manner.

Isn't then Adam KEEPING (for he ALREADY had it) eternal life the antithesis of Adam SECURING ETERNAL death for us ALL?


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



I understand. But I am not there yet.

We are agreed that all are in need of redemption because of Adam's sin, correct? That is the doctrine of original sin:



> WLC 25 Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell? A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called Original Sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.
> 
> WLC 26 How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity? A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin.



So my question is: if all men were not in Adam, how could they be justly punished for his sin? Paul answers this question by linking Adam to men in the same way (that is the important part) that he links Christ to men:

Rom 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> The one point that I was taught, that I have yet to find a decent answer to relates to what you just said matt.
> 
> All have sinned in adam as our federal head, that I 100% agree with. But can we infer, because it is not implied or hinted at in scripture, that we were all in Adam prior to the fall? This is the crux of my battle in this. I have searched and searched and have never found an answer to this. I ask this because this is one of the main reasons I deny that eternal life could have been merited by him, for his posterity.


For the sake of clarity, how do you understand Adam as a "federal head"? My understanding of the PRC idea is that they trace his headship more to a biological or parental headship for the transmission of corruption rather than the Westminster view of legal imputation as the reason of our corruption. In other words, Adam was more than a parental head but a legal representative acting on our behalf. What ever his obedience or disobedeince merited, he did so for all he represented. Our corrupt natures and original guilt are punishment for Adam's sin as our representative. 

As to when he became a federal head, it was when Adam, the vassal, agreed to the terms of the covenant, made by his Lord. What Adam covenanted to do, he did for his posterity as well. 



> Also, Question #2: The whole human race sinned in adam, but only the Elect are redeemed through Christ. This brings other implications to my study. Since 1 offense resulted in the mass human sin, then why did not Christ do the exact opposite and redeem the whole of man? According to what i read here and in other places, Christ being the 2nd adam is portrayed as the opposite of adam in this respect.



This is where the probationary period comes in. One sin is enough to kill the inheritance and cut you off from God. But the righteousness required was much more. It was God who determined how much time Adam had to live righteously in order to inherit the promise He bound himself to make. So with Christ. The determined amount of righteousness was set in the mind of God for Christ to fulfill.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 25, 2005)

DMB - 

The point I think you are troubled with is what Fred and Patrick both alluded to.

Here is what Patrick said:




> ...rather than the Westminster view of legal imputation as the reason of our corruption.



This is really important. Legal imputation is far more than Adam as our "father" but as our "representative." he is our legality before God, so to speak.

Hosea 6:7, "But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me."

What covenant? The CoW. Like Adam, who was covenanted with God, so, as a result of the fall, his posterity also continue to break the covenant, yet int his case it is specifically Israel. (Which speaks more of covenant structure than it does of posterity in general.)

Then, following Fred, if we are in Adam as a result of his sin, and we are therefore the beneficiaries of "imputed sin", then it would be impossible to say that we were not IN Adam before that time, otherwise, the sin would never be imputed to anyone who was not in HIM as a federal head.

One of two things would have happened: 1) Adam would have not fallen, and so righteousness would have been fulfilled, and his posterity would have had imputed righteousness given to them as a result of Adam's obedience. (Stay with me here - we are NOT dealing with God's decree, but His revealed will. Adam should have obeyed.) 2) Adam would fall, and so wickedness would be imputed to his posterity. Imputation works on either of those two levels. But since Adam fell, Christ HAD to come to fulfill what Adam lost - that brings those He died for to GROUND ZERO. But since men are wicked (you and me) we still sin, and so we needed ATONEMENT as well. Ground zero is not enough, we needed a righteousness that is alien to us to cover us. What Adam should have completed, Christ completed.

So I'm in the pit. Christ's active obedience gets me out of the pit and onto Ground Zero. Then at ground zero, I cannot be left to myself, I need HIS righteousness to cover me so that I can be accepted as if I kept the law perfectly (what Adam failed to do). That is accomplished byt he cross and resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as *in* Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

WLC:

Q26: How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?
A26: Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin.[1]

1. Psa. 51:5; Job 14:4; 15:14; John 3:6

WCF:

III. They being *the root of all mankind*, the guilt of this sin was *imputed*;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]

6. Acts. 17:26; Rom. 5:12, 15-19; I Cor. 15:21-22, 49
7. Psa. 51:5; John 3:6; Gen. 5:3; Job 15:14



[Edited on 5-25-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## RamistThomist (May 25, 2005)

just out of curiousity and as a tangent,
Matt,
Given your above post, does that immediately refute arminianism?



> So I'm in the pit. Christ's active obedience gets me out of the pit and onto Ground Zero. Then at ground zero, I cannot be left to myself, I need HIS righteousness to cover me so that I can be accepted as if I kept the law perfectly (what Adam failed to do).



Many Arminians I know deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Just curious.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> So I'm in the pit. Christ's active obedience gets me out of the pit and onto Ground Zero. Then at ground zero, I cannot be left to myself, I need HIS righteousness to cover me so that I can be accepted as if I kept the law perfectly (what Adam failed to do). That is accomplished by the cross and resurrection.



Actually, I think it is more proper to say:

So I'm in condemned and dead (the pit). Christ's passive obedience removes the guilty verdict (gets me out of the pit) and puts me on my feet again (onto Ground Zero). Then at ground zero, I cannot be left to myself, because I cannot stay from acts that will condemn me, I need HIS righteousness to cover me so that I can be accepted as if I kept the law perfectly (what Adam failed to do). That is accomplished by the His perfect keeping of the law. God looks at me, and I am not only NOT GUILTY, I am actually seen as perfectly obedient, the model son.


----------



## Jeremy (May 25, 2005)

Wow wow wow.

What I want to say may not come out in such a highly intellectual form as you all. I tend to be like the little child that holds his daddy's hand while crossing the street. I tried following all the posts in this thread, but after a while on some of the longer ones, I sort of got lost in the details. We should be standing in awe before Almighty God and His infinite Word. It's so easy to type. Not to put a feather in my cap, but I can probably type faster than anyone you've ever seen (that comes from 17 years of playing the piano). Anyway, my hypocrisy on that issue will probably be addressed as this post will probably be long. 

Anyway, I never thought that such a simple question could be given such weights with which to bog it down. To me, that's the problem when we start posting responses that are 3 miles long. I don't understand how anyone has enough time in their day to read all those and sincerely, prayerfully consider them with an honest, open heart. Hence we jump to conclusions and accuse people of holding to heresies they didn't even know existed. In reality, half of us probably are just spitting back info without even thinking. (I'll speak for myself on that!)

What I understand (if I understand anything about the CoW) is that Adam had the obligation as our "federal head" to live in perfect righteousness before God without aid of anything other than the perfect nature with which he was created. In a nutshell, he was created perfectly righteous, "with a reasonable and immortal soul, rendering him fit unto that life to God for which he was created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written on his heart; and the power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of his own will, which was subject to change." (The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689: Chapter 4, paragraph 2)

In response to the idea that Adam would have died anyway if he had not sinned, the only conclusion I can come up with is that those people are just trying to stir up arguments. God's threat of death was conditioned only upon Adam's potential disobedience. 

But it was only when Satan brought his sinful carcass into the world that Adam sinned. I don't believe they would have sinned unless they were tempted. And how did Satan get them to sin...by using God's Holy commandment. Notice how he didn't just slither up to Eve and tell her how pretty the fruit was. He didn't give her a fancy commercial to try and dazzle her eyes. He used God's commandment because that's what sin does. Paul gives this principle of his own indwelling sin in Romans 7:11 "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." So Adam broke the Covenant by allowing sin to enter his own heart and so we were all cursed in him as our "federal head". This has huge implications for the view of the 2nd Adam as some of you said. 

Anyway, I probably said something someone else already said or someone will take my statements the wrong way. But I hope I will not be labeled a heretic. Be gracious!!!

J

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by Jeremy]


----------



## Augusta (May 26, 2005)

The imperfect cannot beget the perfect, therefore we are all imperfect because Adam was. Had he remained in his perfect state and not sinned we would have inherited that as well. As it is now we have been begotten of Christ, born again, so that we are begotten into Christs perfection. This is why Jesus told Nicodemus we must be born again.

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## D Battjes (May 26, 2005)

> May I ask that you tell us what your undersatnding of the CoW was/is? You're saying that your position was what you were taught and you are shocked to hear that it denies the CoW. So, what, exactly, is the CoW?
> 
> [Edited on 5-25-2005 by Paul manata]




Paul, My understanding of the COW, is along the lines obviously of Hoeksema. That it basically was a covenant with no hope for life. It brought death in order that Christ could bring life.

If I am allowed, I will post a link that will explain how I have been taught to understand.

I am not promoting anything here, but this would be a good starting point for you all to see where I am coming from..



http://www.rsglh.org/the.covenant.gods.tabernacle.with.men.htm



DMB


----------



## Consistent (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> According to that so-called covenant of works between God and Adam, man could attain to the end of eternal life through and as a reward of obedience: he could merit eternal life. And in that covenant he could also make himself worthy of death through disobedience. This "covenant of works" implied, so the dogma is further developed, a condition (not to eat of the forbidden tree), a promise (eternal life), and a penalty (death).
> 
> ...



1.


> "I still do not see te Bible speaking of an agreement such as this between God and Man. It does, indeed, speak of the probationary command, forbidding Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil on penalty of death. But a command is no covenant, no contract, no agreement between two parties.



What is your understanding of covenant? I think that Genesis records more than just a command between God and Adam, as you yourself have pointed out. We have God giving a command and the consequences of disobedience to that command...quite simply it looks like a covenant to me. And where in scriptures do we see that man has to agree with God in order for a covenant to be drafted? God is the initiator of his covenants with his people. Adam was not really given a choice whether he would be in covenant with God or not, he was because God decided and decreed it so. And once in covenant, he was bound to it. I believe our present state as dependant on the work of Christ is evidence that Adam did indeed violate a covenant with God and therefore God was just to carry out the curse of that covenant..."you will surely die".

2.


> According to that so-called covenant of works between God and Adam, man could attain to the end of eternal life through and as a reward of obedience: he could merit eternal life. And in that covenant he could also make himself worthy of death through disobedience. This "covenant of works" implied, so the dogma is further developed, a condition (not to eat of the forbidden tree), a promise (eternal life), and a penalty (death).



You agree that Adam would never die if he did not violate the covenant, correct? If he would never die, doesn't that mean he would always live? Is that not what eternal life is? So, as one as already pointed out, Adam was not meriting eternal life...only keeping it. He did manage however to merit death as our legal representative. We were created in the image of God to serve him always. Death is not natural, which is why it is an enemy that will never again plague the people of God. (see Rom.5 and I Cor. 15)

3.


> If we must answer the question, what could have become of Adam in case he had not fallen but remained obedient, all we can say on the basis of Scripture is that he could not have died, that he would have retained the life he had. But never would he have attained to that higher "eternal life," which can be had only through Jesus Christ our Lord. This notion, therefore, of a covenant in the sense of an agreement between God and Adam as two parties, in which Adam could attain to eternal life if he obeyed, I reject at this time as purely philisophical. But will continue to study and pray that God leads me to a correct understanding.



Again...I think you misunderstand the concept of covenant. God as soverign King of Creation needs no approval to make covenants. There were two parties...God and Adam...am I missing someone? And a command was given- do not eat of this fruit. And a consequence was set- if you eat you will die. This my friend is a covenant between God and Adam, or rather God and humanity which Adam represented. So we see in Genesis the Covanant of Works which was violated by our federal head and in turn makes Christ necessary for us inhertiters of the depraved sinful nature. 

Also DM, what is your understanding of the meaning of the term 'eternal life'?

In Christ-

John

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by Consistent]


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

I appreciate the irenic and thoughtful posts put up so far. 

To continue in this vein, I would like to 'caveat' this post by saying that I do not mean to be condescending to DM Battjes but simply to echo his experience.

I was brought up in the Christian Reformed Church, and a covenant child from day 1. I began to receive my catechism training at age 13. The first time I ever heard of the Covenant of Works was in university as I was perusing websites devoted to Presbyterian theology. I thought to myself 'Strange, but since I've never heard of this before so it must be a Presbyterian thing.' After seminary I ended up at Westminster where I was exposed to more covenant theology. The covenant of works thing began to grow on me, but I couldn't quite grasp all the ins and the outs. It seemed right, but I needed more evidence. 

After 2 or 3 three years of debating the issue back and forth in my mind, I came to embrace the CoW. At the same time, not a coincidence, I really came to understand and embrace the active righteousness of Christ. It has transformed the way I think about the Bible and the way I preach and teach. But it took me along time to accept it. 

So the moral of the story is: don't be too hard on people like D M Battjes. I know where he is coming from, and it seems to me that he is willing to learn.

Encouragement!


----------



## D Battjes (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> I appreciate the irenic and thoughtful posts put up so far.
> 
> To continue in this vein, I would like to 'caveat' this post by saying that I do not mean to be condescending to DM Battjes but simply to echo his experience.
> ...



Thank you Daniel:

I would also like to mention that my stay in the PRC is not all black. In fact I love Hoeksema and find him a tremendous man of God who has been mischaracterised by many. His Love of the covenant is second to none. My issue for leaving was not because of this teaching. It was because of somethign completely different. AS I read some here who "think" they know what he taught, I know it is only a characature of the PRC.

They are not all cold hearted self righteouss stiffs. But this is where I have been taught. And I love the people and their theology. But I am not a clone. 



Thank you for your understanding. But again, if people read the link I posted, they will understand what I am saying. I hope.


DMB


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 26, 2005)

I echo your thoughts and experience Rev. Kok. I struggled a lot with the covenant of works my first few Reformed years, particularly due to the arguments of Hoeksema. But as I began to understand the work of Christ on my behalf, I began to see how important the doctrine was. The justice of God is at stake, not to mention many other things. The one work which really helped me out, and understand the big picture, and how the covenant of works fits into it, was The Marrow of Modern Divinity.


----------



## D Battjes (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I echo your thoughts and experience Rev. Kok. I struggled a lot with the covenant of works my first few Reformed years, particularly due to the arguments of Hoeksema. But as I began to understand the work of Christ on my behalf, I began to see how important the doctrine was. The justice of God is at stake, not to mention many other things. The one work which really helped me out, and understand the big picture, and how the covenant of works fits into it, was The Marrow of Modern Divinity.




And I was weaned that the marrow men were works righteouss and in serious error.


Patrick, you seem to imply that Hoeksema denies the works of Christ on our behalf. i hope youre not saying that. Not to digress but the PRC is all about Christ and His elect. Your statement is again hard to understand. Yes as Paul mentioned there is fallout from whatever one believes, but the domnino effect is not true in this case.

My goodness, the study of the COW is new to me alng the lines of the WCF, and i will study it, but it is not the root of my faith. Please do not tell me it is. if the COW becomes the fountain of life for any, I cannot support that


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> And I was weaned that the marrow men were works righteouss and in serious error.


I do not know if you have read the Marrow or not, but I have found it to be quite the opposite. It completely emphasizes free grace, along the same tradition and argument as the WCF and it's contemporay writers. The book is actually mostly quotes from them put into dialog form. 



> Patrick, you seem to imply that Hoeksema denies the works of Christ on our behalf. i hope youre not saying that. Not to digress but the PRC is all about Christ and His elect. Your statement is again hard to understand. Yes as Paul mentioned there is fallout from whatever one believes, but the domnino effect is not true in this case.


I'm not saying that at all. Certainly he believed in the work of Christ. I think he had a great respect for the 3 Forms which kept him in check. But I do believe he had a defective view of the covenant with Adam, which was inconsistent with his view of Christ and His work. It was certainly not the traditional Reformed view, at least as defined by Westminster, and other prominent Reformed theologians like Witsius, Boston, and Turretin whom the Reformed world tended to follow until guys like Hoeksema and Schilder came around. Hoeksema doesn't deny he differs either. But now people like the Federal Vision, have taken the views of Hoeksema/Schilder's covenant ideas to their logical conclusion and perverted the doctrine of justification. 


> My goodness, the study of the COW is new to me along the lines of the WCF, and I will study it, but it is not the root of my faith. Please do not tell me it is. If the COW becomes the fountain of life for any, I cannot support that


It is only a fountain of life for us, because Christ fulfilled it on our behalf. All that was promised upon condition of obedience, He acquired for us as our legal representive. The grace we receive is free to us, only because He paid for it with His righteous life and vicarious death.

Please, do not let the context of the thread distort your understanding of our criticisms. Obviously, the subject of the thread is on Adam and the covenant of works, and we disagree. Please, do not take that to mean we disagree on everything.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> If we must answer the question, what could have become of Adam in case he had not fallen but remained obedient, all we can say on the basis of Scripture is that he could not have died, that he would have retained the life he had. But never would he have attained to that higher "eternal life," which can be had only through Jesus Christ our Lord.



DM,

How do you see "eternal life" as being "higher" than what Adam already possessed? When you say that "he would have retained the life he had", how is that different from your view of "eternal life"?

It is not as if Adam had the same kind of life that you and I do. He didn't have sickness, financial difficulties, family problems, or Benny Hinn. And by far the best of all, Adam communed face to face with God on a daily basis, in perfect holiness, with no guilt whatsoever. When he communed with God, he knew that God actually was _pleased_ with him! --- Adam's life was _perfect_, except for the fact that it was probationary. So even if I accept what you said, that Adam only would have "retained the life he had" if he hadn't fallen, I still have trouble understanding the big difference between that and your view of "eternal life".

John 17:3 says that "eternal life" is to know the one true God. Adam knew him face to face, and communed with Him in perfect holiness. So if Adam had passed the probationary period without ever falling, and had just "retained the life he had", then wouldn't that have been "eternal life"?


----------



## D Battjes (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> ...




Joseph:

THe answer to that is simple. Eternal Life in the presence of God face to face is different than what Adam posessed. Plus the final victory over death and SIN. There is no possibility of sin when enjoying eternal life. 

That is a big difference obviously because Adam did sin, which will not be possible in our glorified state.

I do not see where scripture states adam communed face to face. For noone has seen the father except the Son Right? There relationship was not in any amount close to the relationship within our Triune God. 

Also one HUGE difference is that eternal life has no beginning or end. And adam was created. Had a beginning. 


The function of the Tree of Life was obviously to give eternal life. Of this tree God 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: 

What is clear from this verse is that the tree´s fruit could give the eater immortality. If Adam and Eve already possessed immortality, why was the tree there?


God removed the Tree specifically to avoid the fallen creatures from partaking of the tree. So this would suggest that the only reason for the tree was to provide immortality for the UNFALLEN Adam and Eve.


Who or what was offered immortality in the Scripture? Genesis 2:17 says 

Genesis 2:17. 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. 

What is interesting is that this verse actually does not say that they will live forever, it merely states the opposite. It says that in the day they eat, they will die. Does this actually imply that Adam and Eve would live forever? Traditionally this is the way that this verse has been interpreted, but in the day one eats a toadstool, they will die. Their liver will fail and they will die within 24 hours. Yet if someone tells them that the day they will eat a toadstool, they will die, it does not imply that they otherwise would live forever. To conclude that Genesis 2:17 implies immortality is a non sequitur.


Adam and Eve were offered immortality originally through the Tree of Life in some fashion. And this involved giving them a quality they didn´t originally possess--immortality. 


[Edited on 5-27-2005 by D Battjes]

[Edited on 5-27-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## D Battjes (May 28, 2005)

I hope this is not a dead thread. I woulld ask for input on this undestanding please.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 28, 2005)

The life that Adam was endowed with was mutable life (i.e., Adam could sin and forfit what he had and what he could have had). The life that we enjoy as adopted children of God is immutable, eternal life, not the same thing Adam originally possessed. What Christ brings us to, then, is what Adam forfited, what he could have had upon perfect obedience, becasue he did not pass probation (i.e., he sinned). If he did not sin, he would have been endowed with immutable, eternal life.


----------



## D Battjes (May 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> The life that Adam was endowed with was mutable life (i.e., Adam could sin and forfit what he had and what he could have had). The life that we enjoy as adopted children of God is immutable, eternal life, not the same thing Adam originally possessed. What Christ brings us to, then, is what Adam forfited, what he could have had upon perfect obedience, becasue he did not pass probation (i.e., he sinned). If he did not sin, he would have been endowed with immutable, eternal life.




This still does not address my above post Rich. IT appears that Living forever would be had by eating the tree of life, not by not eating of the fruit.


Genesis 2:17. 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.


I just cannot see where the opposite of this can equal eternal life. TO me it is just not there.

It was the function of the tree of Life to give eternal life, not Adam eating of the tree of the K o G & E.


*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: *


Death entered the world through the consequences of Adam's actions. This is also consistent with the proclamation made by God that death would follow Adam's sin. It did. They were the walking dead after the tree was removed from their reach. They were doomed die the day they lost access to the Tree of Life. 


Adam knew God as creator not as savior



[Edited on 5-29-2005 by D Battjes]

[Edited on 5-29-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 28, 2005)

DM,

Think of the tree of life as a sacrament of the covenant of works. To those who obey it brings life, but to those who disobey, it brings death. (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 _he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. _

If Adam would have obeyed and not eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - which is different than the tree of life - he would have been able to eat of the tree of life.

Of course Adam did not know God as Savior in his original estate. He did not need saving. It was only after his sin that he did, hence Gen. 3:15.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 28, 2005)

DM,

Above you stated that Adam and Eve were not created immortal. I disagree (WCF 4:2). Souls, created in the image of God, are, by nature, immortal - i.e., not subject to being extinguished or oblitereated. In other words, they cannot cease to exist. The life Adam was originally endowed with is not the same that Christ endowes us with. Adam's was mutable immortal life; ours is immutable, immortal and eternal life.


----------



## D Battjes (May 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> DM,
> 
> Above you stated that Adam and Eve were not created immortal. I disagree (WCF 4:2). Souls, created in the image of God, are, by nature, immortal - i.e., not subject to being extinguished or oblitereated. In other words, they cannot cease to exist. The life Adam was originally endowed with is not the same that Christ endowes us with. Adam's was mutable immortal life; ours is immutable, immortal and eternal life.




Excellent point Richard. My choice of words stand corrected. Thank you for pointing this out. I meant to speak of death vs life.

[Edited on 5-30-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## D Battjes (May 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> DM,
> 
> Think of the tree of life as a sacrament of the covenant of works. To those who obey it brings life, but to those who disobey, it brings death. (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 _he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. _
> ...




Fred, excellent allegory. The issue i have though is not only was adam removed from the garden, but so was the tree. This still does not answer the point that God planted the tree of life prior to creating Adam. If the tree of life was eaten, he could live forever. Now he was banished prior to having the cahnce of eating from the TOL. If Adam was already enjoying eternal life, why was the tree there?


----------

