# Calvin on unfallen man "passing" into heaven



## Mr. Bultitude (Nov 6, 2016)

Reading John Calvin's commentary on Genesis 2 and 3, he says:



> Remember from what kind of life man fell. He was, in every respect, happy; his life, therefore, had alike respect to his body and his soul, since in his soul a right judgment and a proper government of the affections prevailed, there also life reigned; in his body there was no defect, wherefore he was wholly free from death. His earthly life truly would have been temporal; yet he would have passed into heaven without death, and without injury. ...
> 
> Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.



It seems that Calvin believes that if Adam had not sinned, his life would have been temporal, and at the end of his temporal life he would have passed, body and soul, into heaven, without death, destruction, violence, or corruption.

I find that interesting. I thought I had only heard that he would have had an eternal earthly life and heaven and earth would at some point become united. But he seems, while denying the possibility of "death," to believe that a kind of "passing" from earthly life to heavenly life would be the norm for humanity. Is this a common reformed view?


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 7, 2016)

I think it's standard Reformed theology - very hypothetical of course - that if Adam hadn't sinned during the Probation that he and his descendants would have been confirmed in original righteousness forever, and that at some point after the Probation (and the fulfilment of the Creation Mandate?) that they would have been translated to a higher form of existence. The Bible teaches that this is possible without death or division of soul and body. E.g. Enoch and Elijah.

Calvin is presumably thinking of a Heaven that is appropriate for body and soul. Whether he has the Heaven of Heavens (where Christ, the angels and the spirits of just men made perfect currently are) in mind or a New Heavens and a New Earth, he didn't make clear here. 

E.g. the Sabbath Day itself spoke of reward and entering God's rest in a new and special way even to the unfallen Adam and Eve.

The nature of the present world and our bodies as originally created is appropriate to the Probation in that they are capable of corruption. The world that Adam and family would have entered if he had not sinned would have been incapable of corruption. This is the world that Christ has purchased for His people by His own probation.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Nov 7, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> The nature of the present world and our bodies as originally created is appropriate to the Probation in that they are capable of corruption. The world that Adam and family would have entered if he had not sinned would have been incapable of corruption.



That's familiar to me. My impression though was that the teaching was more or less that the old world would pass into the new. It sounds like Calvin is saying that _individuals_ would pass from the old world into the new. In other words, individuals would have a series of lives in the present world following which they would be translated (a la Elijah and Enoch) into the new, as opposed to the old world _itself_ passing away.

Do you see the distinction I'm making? Am I reading too much into Calvin's words, perhaps?


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 7, 2016)

I see what your saying.

Maybe anything Calvin or we could say on this would be somewhat speculative on the exact way in which God would have fulfilled the promise of the Sabbath.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Nov 7, 2016)

That's fair, and probably true. I'm still interested in knowing if the tradition has tended more toward Calvin's speculation or the speculation that I was more familiar with. Thoughts?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 7, 2016)

Generally, other than the certain promise of eternal life for Adam's obedience during the probationary period, it is not made certain whether God would have made the blessedness of Adam _a heaven on earth_ or not.

Francis Turretin poses the question "_whether Adam had the promise of eternal and heavenly life so that (his course of obedience being finished) he would have been carried to heaven_." Turretin answers in the affirmative. 

On the other hand, Goodwin provides a rigorous defense of his position on Christological grounds. All that was promised to Adam was life in the garden "_and not the translating him, in the end, unto that Spiritual life in heaven_." Goodwin gives several reasons why Adam's reward would have been only continued life on earth. First, Christ is the "_heavenly man_" (1 Cor. 15:47), whereas Adam is the "_earthly man_." Christ is the first and only author of heavenly life. Adam, as an earthly man, had a happiness that should reach no higher. 

In Goodwin's mind, Adam's reward, if he had stood, was a blessed life in Eden where he could enjoy communion with God according to the perpetual terms of the covenant of works. But certainly not heaven, "_which is not ex debito, is not due to nature under the covenant of works_." Rather, the reward of heaven comes through Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23) and is the "_sole fruit of election_." 

Whether or not one finds Goodwin's arguments persuasive, the obvious burden of his exposition focuses on the superiority of the second Adam over the first Adam. Christ could merit heavenly life on account of the dignity and worth of His person, whereas Adam, as a mere creature, could only continue in the state in which God had placed him, which nevertheless was a reward above and beyond what he deserved. Goodwin's view was a minority position. 

See more here:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/09/the-gracious-covenant-of-works-1.php


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 7, 2016)

Would he not though have lived forever, as sin itself brought death to Him?


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 7, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Would he not though have lived forever, as sin itself brought death to Him?


Yes, of course. Death is the wages of sin. 

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 8, 2016)

Adam woul dhave had to be changed though intoa fitting glorified body in order to enetr heaven then, and stand in presence of the Lord, correct?

As flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God?


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 9, 2016)

Yes. It seems so.

Some of the materials that are used to describe the City of God or godly civilisation as we have it in the Book of Revelation, e.g. gold, are mentioned in Genesis 2. The implication may be that if Adam together with his offspring had remained unfallen because by God's goodness he fulfilled the probation, Adam and Eve and their offspring had the task of filling and subduing the Earth with a holy civilisation. 

At the point of its completion it would be blessed by God with incorruption and glorification, along with Mankind.

Even for unfallen Man God was held out in a special way as His further reward namely "entering God's rest".

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------

