# Prize Christ, who restored what Adam took away



## MW (Feb 9, 2014)

Thomas Boston, Works, 1:273:

O prize Christ, who, to redeem lost man, did hang upon a tree, and drink the cup of wrath as the bitter fruits of sin, and was buried in a garden. The first Adam ate of the forbidden tree, and Christ hung on the cursed tree. Adam’s preposterous love to his wife made him sin, and Christ’s love to his spouse made him suffer. Our first parents pleased their sensual appetite with the taste of the pleasant fruit of the forbidden tree; and therefore Christ got vinegar mixed with gall to drink upon the cross tree. Adam sinned in a garden, and in a garden was Christ buried. By eating the forbidden fruit, death came upon all men to condemnation; and by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, life is brought to the soul. O then, sinners, flee unto the Lord Jesus Christ, who hath restored that which the first Adam took away; and ye shall be reinstated in all that happiness and favour with God, which he forfeited by eating the forbidden fruit.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 10, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> O then, sinners, flee unto the Lord Jesus Christ, *who hath restored that which the first Adam took away; and ye shall be reinstated in all that happiness and favour with God, which he forfeited by eating the forbidden fruit*.



Does this mean Adam's estate was that of a glorified Christian? I thought our estate will be a more glorious one due to our knowledge of sin and (consequently) knowledge of His self-giving love. I mean, isn't that glorified estate the very reason why God decreed sin into existence in the first place, so that we might glorify God not only as His creatures and children but also as former sinners?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 10, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > O then, sinners, flee unto the Lord Jesus Christ, *who hath restored that which the first Adam took away; and ye shall be reinstated in all that happiness and favour with God, which he forfeited by eating the forbidden fruit*.
> ...



I don't think Boston is denying that our estate in Christ is, and will be, better than that of Adam and Eve in a state of innocency. 

The merit of the God-Man is providing us with far more than was lost by the demerit of Man.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 10, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Thomas Boston, Works, 1:273:
> 
> O prize Christ, who, to redeem lost man, did hang upon a tree, and drink the cup of wrath as the bitter fruits of sin, and was buried in a garden. The first Adam ate of the forbidden tree, and Christ hung on the cursed tree. Adam’s preposterous love to his wife made him sin, and Christ’s love to his spouse made him suffer. Our first parents pleased their sensual appetite with the taste of the pleasant fruit of the forbidden tree; and therefore Christ got vinegar mixed with gall to drink upon the cross tree. Adam sinned in a garden, and in a garden was Christ buried. By eating the forbidden fruit, death came upon all men to condemnation; and by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, life is brought to the soul. O then, sinners, flee unto the Lord Jesus Christ, who hath restored that which the first Adam took away; and ye shall be reinstated in all that happiness and favour with God, which he forfeited by eating the forbidden fruit.



_Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. (John 20:15-16)_


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 10, 2014)

I was thinking of some of these things the other day, rereading the account of Balaam. When he comes to curse Israel (by sacrifice and mediation), he can only bless them -- but the blessing is unexpectedly in the language and terms of the curse: 'dust, death'. One sees him leaping forward in prophetic vision from the bare height, where he met both God and the vision of Israel -- to Christ, 'the righteous'; and death, the ultimate expression of our being under a curse, as reversed -- now irreversible. Neither death or any lesser evil can be turned to a curse for us again, by any divination or enchantment.


----------



## MW (Feb 10, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Does this mean Adam's estate was that of a glorified Christian?



The restoration by Christ would include not only what Adam enjoyed and lost, but also what he failed to obtain for himself and his posterity as a result of his disobedience. This was the "life" promised in the covenant of works, of which the tree of life was a pledge.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 10, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Does this mean Adam's estate was that of a glorified Christian?
> ...



Thank you. Doesn't this mean, however, that our knowledge of sin (and the existence of sin) is _unnecessary_ to that estate to which we will surely arrive and Adam _could_ have arrived? Couldn't God have just created glorified children for Himself from eternity past? If yes, then why did He decree the existence of sin? Christ's Atonement became necessary _after_ the existence of sin, not _before_ it. So, was the existence of sin necessary or not? If it was, to what end?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 10, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > InSlaveryToChrist said:
> ...



Yes, and we wouldn't have known what it is to have such a wonderful Saviour from sin in Christ if we hadn't sinned in Adam. 

But I think Mr Boston would have agreed with all these things that you are pointing out as missing from his summary statement of our restoration.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 11, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Let me just be sure I'm understanding. So, Adam could _not_ have obtained the estate which the children of God will one day enjoy as saved sinners in Christ? Correct? I wonder, though, what essential _change_ would have occurred in Adam if he did obey. I mean, he was already created as a perfect image of God and he had eternal life. What would God have given him _in addition to what he already had_ if he obeyed? Adoption? Unity with the Trinity?

This all wouldn't make sense, since God had already decreed from eternity to save sinners through Christ in the future. Or would someone suggest that God's plan of sending Christ to Earth was simply an option B just in case the option A, namely, Adam's obedience, did not occur?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 11, 2014)

It's slighly hypothetical, since it never happened, wasn't going to happen, and we aren't given explicit details.

Well, for a start, Adam and his offspring would have become confirmed in righteousness and impeccable (incapable of falling into sin).

Adam and his offspring would have built the City of God, a holy civilisation, on Earth. Genesis 2 sketches a small part of the resources that were available to Adam and his offspring in fulfilling the Creation Mandate and building the godly civilisation.



> And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is *gold*; And the gold of that land is good: there is *bdellium* and the *onyx* stone. (Genesis 2:10-11)



The Book of Revelation symbolically highlights gold and precious stones as the materials of the Holy City.


Adam and His offspring would have had access to God's nearer presence in Heaven, without death.


----------



## MW (Feb 11, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> What would God have given him _in addition to what he already had_ if he obeyed? Adoption? Unity with the Trinity?



Perhaps Thomas Boston himself can answer:

He should have been confirmed in his holy and happy estate beyond the hazard or possibility of sinning, or forfeiting it. – Though he was created mutable, and mutability is woven into the very nature of the creature, yet having finished the time allotted for his probation, he would have been secured from actual liableness to change for ever. His body would have been absolutely and for ever secured against hazard of death, or hurt from external accidents or injuries. He would have been confirmed in the love and favour of God for ever, without any hazard of falling out of it. The sun of favour from God would have shone upon him without ever setting. And after the time of his trial was over, he would have been transported, soul and body, into the heavenly paradise, there to abide for ever. He would not have always lived in the earthly paradise, where he was to eat, drink, and sleep; but have been carried to the celestial paradise, where the happy inhabitants live as the angels of God. -- Works, 1:233-234.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 12, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > What would God have given him _in addition to what he already had_ if he obeyed? Adoption? Unity with the Trinity?
> ...



Nevertheless, God decreed Adam to fall because He loved Himself (and more accurately, because the Father loved the Son) and Adam so much that He wanted him and a part of his posterity to know what it is like to be _at the brink of the separating line between the human creature and the Creator_ (i.e., _in every respect as close to God as possible_). Correct?


----------



## MW (Feb 12, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Nevertheless, God decreed Adam to fall because He loved Himself (and more accurately, because the Father loved the Son) and Adam so much that He wanted him and a part of his posterity to know what it is like to be _at the brink of the separating line between the human creature and the Creator_ (i.e., _in every respect as close to God as possible_). Correct?



This is the felix culpa -- happy fault. But as with all sin, God overrules it for good; there is nothing in sin which naturally and inevitably brings good consequences. There was nothing in Adam's fall in and of itself which was desirable for the good of mankind. The gracious, wise, and holy counsel of God's own will ordains it as a means to a greater end.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 12, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Nevertheless, God decreed Adam to fall because He loved Himself (and more accurately, because the Father loved the Son) and Adam so much that He wanted him and a part of his posterity to know what it is like to be _at the brink of the separating line between the human creature and the Creator_ (i.e., _in every respect as close to God as possible_). Correct?
> ...



And that is all I'm saying, although with an emphasis on the greater nature of the estate which will be received by a restored sinner than an obedient Adam.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 12, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > InSlaveryToChrist said:
> ...



The estate would be the same as described above and it was deemed fit to happen exactly the way Our Lord decreed for His glory. The angels look into His work as it unveils and manifests before their eyes just how The Lord works.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 15, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > InSlaveryToChrist said:
> ...



I don't know if the Reformed theologians hold that the estate that Adam would have inherited by pactum merit would have been any less than that that Christ inherited for His people by condign merit, but because we shall enjoy the Person and Work of Christ it is greater in that sense. God becomes the inheritance of His people in Christ, in a way that would not have been true in Adam. 

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## py3ak (Feb 15, 2014)

It was actually a point of some discussion whether (hypothetically) Adam would have inherited a glorification comparable to what we receive in Christ or something inferior. Of course in one way, we don't have to answer that question. Adam was appointed to be a figure of the one who was to come, and the decree of God provided only for this reality, not any other. But I incline towards thinking that Adam would have obtained something inferior to what Christ bestows, because I think it takes the Lord from heaven to become a life-giving Spirit. The infinite value of Christ's theanthropic person makes his obedience of far more dignity than the obedience of Adam could ever have been.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 16, 2014)

py3ak said:


> But I incline towards thinking that Adam would have obtained something inferior to what Christ bestows, *because I think it takes the Lord from heaven to become a life-giving Spirit. The infinite value of Christ's theanthropic person makes his obedience of far more dignity than the obedience of Adam could ever have been*.



But isn't the whole point of _pactum merit_ that, as far as _obedience_ is concerned, Adam could have merited exactly what Christ merited for Himself and the elect?


----------



## earl40 (Feb 16, 2014)

py3ak said:


> I incline towards thinking that Adam would have obtained something inferior to what Christ bestows, because I think it takes the Lord from heaven to become a life-giving Spirit. The infinite value of Christ's theanthropic person makes his obedience of far more dignity than the obedience of Adam could ever have been.



I suspect if we never fell in Adam the context of this verse would be different so far as God being a "life-giving Spirit"....28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

No doubt we all would loose something in that we could not truly "empathize" what pain and suffering is, and in that sense Our Lord manifests His glory all the more to His creations in heaven or hell.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 16, 2014)

That's the point at issue. What did God promise to Adam on condition of perfect and perpetual obedience? All we have to go on is the contrast with the threatening God made against disobedience. You could argue that death is maximal, so its opposite is also. But you could have eternal life without being enthroned with Christ. You could be justified and not adopted if you weren't justified in God's only-begotten Son.
So I think we get more in Christ than we could ever have gotten in Adam. And I think that's because Adam was earthy, but Christ is the Lord from heaven.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 16, 2014)

py3ak said:


> That's the point at issue. What did God promise to Adam on condition of perfect and perpetual obedience? All we have to go on is the contrast with the threatening God made against disobedience. You could argue that death is maximal, so its opposite is also. But you could have eternal life without being enthroned with Christ. You could be justified and not adopted if you weren't justified in God's only-begotten Son.
> So I think we get more in Christ than we could ever have gotten in Adam. And I think that's becaise Adam was earthy, but Christ is the Lord from heaven.



Ruben, I agree with your reasoning. Would you agree with the following thought? The Covenant of Works promises us _things_, whereas the Covenant of Grace promises us _things _and _unity with God_. In other words, by perfect obedience to the law of God Adam would have obtained _eternal life_, but by faith in Christ sinners have _unity with Christ _(which includes eternal life).


----------



## py3ak (Feb 16, 2014)

That seems to get at the distinction, though I might use "blessings" over "things." Christ has the pre-eminence in all things, and the covenant of grace is better than the covenant of works because in the covenant of grace we are joined to the pre-eminent Christ.


----------



## MW (Feb 16, 2014)

Thomas Boston and reformed divines in general rejected the idea that man in innocence could merit anything from his Creator, whether by pact or otherwise. While obedience was the condition on which life was to be obtained in the covenant of works, the life itself was promised and would be bestowed as an act of grace: "It was simply impossible for man to merit any thing at God’s hand. It must be owned, there was much grace in this transaction, in that God entered into terms of agreement with man; not his equal, but his own creature, and the work of his hands: and in promising him a reward for his service, which was due to God by the law of creation previous to that federal deed; and so great a reward, even eternal life, between which and the work there was no proportion." Thomas Boston, Works, 1:238.

The merit of Christ becomes necessary only because of the demerit of sin. It was not agreeable to the righteousness of God to freely bestow a blessing where judgment was demanded. No judgment was demanded in the state of innocence. Hence life could be freely given on the condition required in the covenant.

The punishment due to disobedience included eternal death. The promise therefore must have included eternal life.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 16, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> The punishment due to disobedience included eternal death. The promise therefore must have included eternal life.



Rev. Matthew Winzer,

I don't see how we can use such logic between God and man. I think it was you who taught me that the reason why Christ had to suffer for only three hours on the cross, while we should suffer for eternity, was His infinite worth. In light of the truth of God's infinite worth, man rightly deserves eternal death, but is not _necessarily_ promised eternal life if he obeys God's law perfectly. Therefore, whether Adam was promised anything at all should not be deduced by _such_ use of logic (not that logic is bad in itself), but by express statements in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence.


----------



## MW (Feb 16, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> or by good and necessary consequence.



The eternal death to eternal life argument is by good and necessary consequence. The "promise" of the covenant of works is proven by the "threatening" on the basis that "where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included," Larger Catechism 99.4. The threatening of death includes the promise of life. As nothing less than eternal death was contained in the threatening, nothing less than eternal life was contained in the promise.


----------

