# Did Adam Repent?



## D. Paul

I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."

Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.


----------



## au5t1n

I believe it is mentioned that he did in various extra-canonical books that the Jews had in Christ's time, but those are extra-canonical, so I don't know. 

Hmm...This could be relevant:



> Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.”
> -Gen. 4:1(ESV)



And also...



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



-----Added 10/12/2009 at 05:45:20 EST-----

The extra-canonical books to which I was referring are included in the pseudepigrapha. A quick google search on "pseudepigrapha adam" yields a number of Jewish works that existed among the Jews in the Apostles' time. The Book of Adam is one that comes to mind, wherein Adam does repent.

None of that proves that Adam repented, since these books are non-canonical and many of them are quite ridiculous.  What it _does_ tell us is that it was probably common belief in Christ's time that Adam _had_ repented.


----------



## Pergamum

Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.


----------



## Grillsy

Adam better have.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.



Or by their mother, specifically to whom the covenant of grace was promised. (Gen. 3:15)

There is no mention of Adam repenting, but there is evidence of Eve believing the gospel promise. (Genesis 4:1, 25)


----------



## Prufrock

D. Paul said:


> I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."
> 
> Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.



Evidence of Adam's faith may be gleaned from his subsequent affirmation of God's promise in his naming his wife _Eve_, the mother of all living; for God had just before designated that from her would come Christ, the source of life and head of all the living.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> D. Paul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."
> 
> Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of Adam's faith may be gleaned from his subsequent affirmation of God's promise in his naming his wife _Eve_, the mother of all living.
Click to expand...


Acknowledgement of physical lineage, is not necessarily the acknowledgment of spiritual lineage.

Adam is not listed in Hebrews Chapter 11; but the first born of A&E (Abel) is listed as a man of faith; as the first "seed" (faithful) produced by the woman who was given the gospel truth. He was not the Savior she hoped for in faith, but he was indeed the first of the Godly lineage who would produce the promised "Seed."


----------



## Prufrock

TeachingTulip said:


> Adam is not listed in Hebrews Chapter 11


Nor are many other great saints of God who are spoken of in the Old Testament. This does not mean they were not men or women of faith. Why should we doubt that Adam and Eve's professions of the Lord's promise (Gen. 3:20, 4:1) expressed their faith in the true seed which the Lord had just mentioned, especially when the whole of the first several chapters of Genesis is so focused upon the promise of this seed?



TeachingTulip said:


> Acknowledgement of physical lineage, is not necessarily the acknowledgment of spiritual lineage.


Whence do you derive your confidence that he merely acknowledged physical lineage?



TeachingTulip said:


> He was not the Savior she hoped for in faith, but he was indeed the first of the Godly lineage who would produce the promised "Seed."


If you have acknowledged here that Eve had faith in the promise of the seed, would not she then be the first faithful, and not Abel?


----------



## rescuedbyLove

D. Paul said:


> I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."
> 
> Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.



I've always wondered about that.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam is not listed in Hebrews Chapter 11
> 
> 
> 
> Nor are many other great saints of God who are spoken of in the Old Testament. This does not mean they were not men or women of faith. Why should we doubt that Adam and Eve's professions of the Lord's promise (Gen. 3:20, 4:1) expressed their faith in the true seed which the Lord had just mentioned, especially when the whole of the first several chapters of Genesis is so focused upon the promise of this seed?
Click to expand...


It is telling that Abel is the first mentioned. (Hebrews 11:4)

In that Godly lineage is delivered, as a rule, according to male lineage; omitting female participation, at all.



> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acknowledgement of physical lineage, is not necessarily the acknowledgment of spiritual lineage.
> 
> 
> 
> Whence do you derive your confidence that he merely acknowledged physical lineage?
Click to expand...


My point is Eve is named as the the mother of all physical mankind. 

Is there reason to believe that Adam named Eve as the mother of only those who will know spiritual life?



> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was not the Savior she hoped for in faith, but he was indeed the first of the Godly lineage who would produce the promised "Seed."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have acknowledged here that Eve had faith in the promise of the seed, would not she then be the first faithful, and not Abel?
Click to expand...


Good point.

And if your point is to be taken, why are not both Adam and Eve named as the "first" faithful?

Are we just to assume both A&E were faithful ("elect"), or are we to assume that Eve produced the first faithful seed ("elect"), according to and manifesting God's promise of His Covenant of Grace (versus any kind of performance of faithful works), in the person of Abel?


----------



## Prufrock

TeachingTulip said:


> My point is Eve is named as the the mother of all physical mankind.


Which is simply an assertion. It requires demonstration.



TeachingTulip said:


> Is there reason to believe that Adam named Eve as the mother of only those who will know spiritual life?


Yes, there is contextual reason. The naming of Eve, being a part of the curse/promise narrative, is intimately connected with the proceeding promise of the seed who was to come from her, who would reverse the curse and, by implication, bring in life. Adam has just been told that he will return to dust, and yet through the conquering seed yet live. There is a clear reason to separate the seed of the woman (which is to have true life), from the seed of the serpent (which shall not), which is established immediately prior to the naming of Eve. The subsequent Genesis narratives (for instance, Lamech's naming of Noah, or the explanation of the promise to Abraham) demonstrate how the promise was understood. It is fitting that Adam's pronouncement be understood in this light.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is Eve is named as the the mother of all physical mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is simply an assertion. It requires demonstration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eve is not the mother of all humanity?
Click to expand...


----------



## Prufrock

Well, I didn't say that. I simply stated that such is not the reason for her being named "Mother of all living." At least, it should not be seen as the _chief_ reason. You asserted that she is so named _because_ she is the physical mother of human kind. I think we should bow before a much greater and more sublime mystery which is contained in these words: that from Eve, or from the very woman who was deceived, shall come the promised seed, even as he came into the world very clearly and plainly by a woman who had known no man.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> Adam has just been told that he will return to dust, and yet through the conquering seed yet live.



Dear friend,

What exact Scripture do you refer to, here?

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 10:05:15 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> I think we should bow before a much greater and more sublime mystery which is contained in these words: that from Eve, or from the very woman who was deceived, shall come the promised seed, even as he came into the world very clearly and plainly by a woman who had known no man.



I am loathe to bow to mystery.

Eve was promised a faithful seed who would crush the head of the devil, which was the first gospel promise of grace from God.

There was nothing mentioned to Eve about the seed being produced by a virgin. Those revelations came later.

Eve simply believed that one of her male offspring would reverse the curse of sin. And she apparently taught her children of this promise, which one of the first sons (Abel) believed according to personal faith, and evidenced by his practice of right worship.


----------



## Prufrock

> Originally Posted by *TeachingTulip*
> _Dear friend,
> 
> What exact Scripture do you refer to, here?_



1.) That man still shall physically die is established by Gen. 3:19.
2.) That the promised seed as a collective head shall defeat death as his own is established by Gen. 3:15.
3.) I have already stated that I think it clear that, considered in the general thrust of the first chapters of Genesis, 3:20 shows Adam's appropriation and acceptance of this promise.
There seem to be many evidences of this. One is that we have a distinct division of two classes of people in Gen. 6 -- the sons of God and the daughters (sons) of men (see 1 John 3). It is worth noting that, when the ungodly line (the sons of men, or the seed of the serpent/devil) is delineated, it begins not with Adam, but with Cain; when the "sons of God" are listed, it begins not with Seth, but Adam.


----------



## Prufrock

TeachingTulip said:


> Eve was promised a faithful seed who would crush the head of the devil, which was the first gospel promise of grace from God.


Amen.


TeachingTulip said:


> There was nothing mentioned to Eve about the seed being produced by a virgin. Those revelations came later.


Nor have I ever so claimed. I _did_, however, point out the scriptural parallel between the two, evident to us know who can consider the harmonious whole of scripture. It might be worth pointing out, however, that several of our most honored Reformed exegetes do see Adam and Eve understanding the virgin birth from this first promise.


TeachingTulip said:


> Eve simply *believed* that one of her male offspring would reverse the curse of sin. And she apparently taught her children of this *promise*, which one of the first sons (Abel) believed according to personal faith, and evidenced by his practice of right worship.


Again, Amen. Eve _believed_ the promise. We have here all the elements of the glorious gospel of God -- the promised Christ who will reverse the curse and bring in the blessing of God; the belief of this promise; and the walking according to its rule, or teaching our house in the things of God.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> we have a distinct division of two classes of people in Gen. 6 -- the sons of God and the daughters (sons) of men (see 1 John 3). It is worth noting that, when the ungodly line (the sons of men, or the seed of the serpent/devil) is delineated, it begins not with Adam, but with Cain;



I would dispute this on the basis of the teachings of Romans 5:12.

All humans are the sons of man; Adam; imputed with his sin.





> when the "sons of God" are listed, it begins not with Seth, but Adam.



Only those gifted with faith in the promised Son of God (the last "Adam") are listed as the faithful, beginning with Abel. (Hebrews 11:4)

My argument being, spiritual anti-thesis between the first Adam as federal head of all sinful mankind and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) as federal head of all the faithful elect of God, MUST be maintained.


----------



## Prufrock

TeachingTulip said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a distinct division of two classes of people in Gen. 6 -- the sons of God and the daughters (sons) of men (see 1 John 3). It is worth noting that, when the ungodly line (the sons of men, or the seed of the serpent/devil) is delineated, it begins not with Adam, but with Cain;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would dispute this on the basis of the teachings of Romans 5:12.
> 
> All humans are the sons of man; Adam; imputed with his sin.
Click to expand...


This seems to have little bearing on the discussion; for, at least, in one sense (and arguably the pre-eminent sense) it is most plain that the world is divided into the Sons of God and the Sons of Men/serpent/devil (see, for example, Gen. 6:2 and 1 John 3:10 which plainly expounds upon Gen. 3 and 4).




TeachingTulip said:


> when the "sons of God" are listed, it begins not with Seth, but Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only those gifted with faith in the promised Son of God (the last "Adam") are listed as the faithful.
> 
> My argument being, spiritual anti-thesis between the first Adam as federal head of all sinful mankind and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) as federal head of all the faithful elect of God, MUST be maintained.
Click to expand...


I don't see why anyone would dispute this. But this doesn't mean, for the purpose of maintaining the antithesis, Adam must be reprobate. In fact, most Reformed exegetes (who developed the idea of the two federal heads) understood the naming of Eve to be a token of Adam's faith.

Further, you have already granted that Eve believed the promise and taught her children in the way; I am not sure upon what evidence you base that, which concomitantly disallows Adam's belief of the promise.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> most Reformed exegetes (who developed the idea of the two federal heads) understood the naming of Eve to be a token of Adam's faith.



I know, but I do not see any evidence of Adamic faith clearly taught in Scripture.

Plus, does not such interpretation make the promise of grace to Eve to be a reward of Adam's faith, somehow?

I reject that notion. Such would not be a covenant of grace, at all!

What evidence of Adamic faith is exhibited or evidenced prior to God freely bestowing His promise of grace to Eve?

Rather, God's promise of grace to Eve is founded strictly on God's predetermined will to reverse the evil effects of the devil's temptations and Adam's resultant sin, for His own glory in the Person of His Son.


----------



## Prufrock

> Originally Posted by *TeachingTulip*
> _Plus, does not such interpretation make the promise of grace to Eve to be a reward of Adam's faith, somehow?_


Not in anyway! Such would not even make logical sense, for how can faith precede the promise upon which it rests? God promised grace through the Seed; Adam believed and rested upon the given promise. So to ask "what evidence of Adamic faith is exhibited prior to God freely bestowing his promise" is not a right question -- for there could certainly be no faith prior thereunto.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> Originally Posted by *TeachingTulip*
> _Plus, does not such interpretation make the promise of grace to Eve to be a reward of Adam's faith, somehow?_
> 
> 
> 
> Not in anyway! Such would not even make logical sense, for how can faith precede the promise upon which it rests?
Click to expand...


Indeed.




> God promised grace through the Seed;



My sticking point, is that the promise was given specifically to Eve and to her seed; not to Adam's seed, per se.





> Adam believed and rested upon the given promise.



There is no Scripture that says so, or gives Adam credit for exhibiting such faith.

Adam is only held accountable for bringing death and sin upon the human race. Romans 5:12


----------



## Prufrock

TeachingTulip said:


> God promised grace through the Seed;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sticking point, is that the promise was given specifically to Eve and to her seed; not to Adam's seed, per se.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely right! It was promised to the seed of the woman, not the seed of the man; for Christ is not the seed of Adam, but of Eve. But all who believe in Christ are members of his body, and are mystically that seed, being included in Him their head, for all who are baptized [believe] into Christ have put on Christ. There is nothing which in anyway prevents Adam from, spiritually, being considered a member of the seed of the woman.



TeachingTulip said:


> Adam believed and rested upon the given promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Scripture that says so, or gives Adam credit for exhibiting such faith.
> 
> Adam is only held accountable for bringing death and sin upon the human race. Romans 5:12
Click to expand...


This we have already been over; I think there is much evidence that Adam exhibited such faith. 

But what more would you like Adam to be held accountable for? I have not made him accountable in anyway for bringing in the promise. No one will contest this statement you have offered.


----------



## kevin.carroll

Pergamum said:


> Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.



Hmmmm. I am not all sure we know that. Heb. 11:4 attributes the superiority of Abel's offering to his faith, not the offering itself.

In any even, regardless of whether Adam repented, my hope is in the Second Adam.

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 11:31:45 EST-----

TT, I would add that the seed of the Woman was a spiritual, not physical lineage. Adam could have been of the seed of the Woman, though not descended from her. For that matter, Adam could be in Christ and not in Adam!

Either way, it is significant to me that God clothes both Adam and Eve at the end of chapter 3, in effect antoning for their sins with the blood on an innocent animal.


----------



## Christusregnat

D. Paul said:


> I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."
> 
> Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.



Yes, and I was probably around 17 or 18 years of age when God in His goodness granted me repentance


----------



## Pergamum

kevin.carroll said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm. I am not all sure we know that. Heb. 11:4 attributes the superiority of Abel's offering to his faith, not the offering itself.
> 
> In any even, regardless of whether Adam repented, my hope is in the Second Adam.
> 
> -----Added 10/12/2009 at 11:31:45 EST-----
> 
> TT, I would add that the seed of the Woman was a spiritual, not physical lineage. Adam could have been of the seed of the Woman, though not descended from her. For that matter, Adam could be in Christ and not in Adam!
> 
> Either way, it is significant to me that God clothes both Adam and Eve at the end of chapter 3, in effect antoning for their sins with the blood on an innocent animal.
Click to expand...


It's hard to exhibit faith when you're offering the wrong stuff. 

It was mentioned in Genesis that their offerings differed as to the substance, I think this was mentioned for a reason.


----------



## JennyG

If Adam did have repentance and saving faith, would that make any difference toi the vital distinction between being "in Adam" or "in Christ"?
I'm not making a point, just asking, because I don't see clearly.
It rather makes the idea of being in Adam seem less calamitous!


----------



## kevin.carroll

Pergamum said:


> It's hard to exhibit faith when you're offering the wrong stuff.
> 
> It was mentioned in Genesis that their offerings differed as to the substance, I think this was mentioned for a reason.



You are reading a lot into the text. Both Cain's and Abel's offerings have their counterparts in the Levitical system, so it is hard to say that Cain's offering was the "wrong stuff."

I think it is much better to look at it the way Genesis 4 does. Cain clearly had a heart problem that manifested itself in envy and anger, culminating in murder.

From a typological point of view, we might think that Abel's sacrifice was superior, but the NT doesn't focus on the typology, it focuses on the hearts.

-----Added 10/13/2009 at 10:46:22 EST-----



JennyG said:


> If Adam did have repentance and saving faith, would that make any difference toi the vital distinction between being "in Adam" or "in Christ"?
> I'm not making a point, just asking, because I don't see clearly.
> It rather makes the idea of being in Adam seem less calamitous!



I'm not sure that it would, Jenny. Being "in Adam" or "in Christ" is a covenantal relationship. Adam could be "in Christ" in that he was redeemed.


----------



## TeachingTulip

kevin.carroll said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm. I am not all sure we know that. Heb. 11:4 attributes the superiority of Abel's offering to his faith, not the offering itself.
Click to expand...


"By faith Abel offered to God . . ."

An offering made apart from faith, is worthless. Faith is the context and teaching of Hebrews 11:4. Abel is the first listed as being a man of faith. God Himself testifies of Abel's "righteousness," which means Abel was indeed saved by faith in God's promises.



> In any even, regardless of whether Adam repented, my hope is in the Second Adam.



My "thank you" was in response to this statement. 




> TT, I would add that the seed of the Woman was a spiritual, not physical lineage. Adam could have been of the seed of the Woman, though not descended from her. For that matter, Adam could be in Christ and not in Adam!



???

Eve is the mother of all the human race; the spiritual Seed promised her was the Christ. The latter part of your statement does not compute with me . . . sorry. 



> Either way, it is significant to me that God clothes both Adam and Eve at the end of chapter 3, in effect antoning for their sins with the blood on an innocent animal.



God provided A&E with _temporal atonement_; however the blood of the animals did not accomplish remission of their sin. God made this provision in order to allow for A&E to produce all of humanity as decreed and commanded. (Genesis 1:28)

The sin of Adam did not, nor could not thwart the will and purposes of God.


----------



## Amazing Grace

D. Paul said:


> I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."
> 
> Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.



Is the actual act of repenting spoken of for many of Biblical people? Did Peter repent after denying our Lord? Is there a record of Paul repenting? Did Solomon? Please do not hear what I am not saying, I am not saying repentance is optional.. What I am saying is recording the saints repentance seems to be optional.


----------



## kevin.carroll

TeachingTulip;700973
Eve is the mother of all the human race; the spiritual Seed promised her was the Christ. The latter part of your statement does not compute with me . . . sorry. :)[/QUOTE said:


> The promise of Gen. 3:15 has more than one reference. I believe it points to all of the righteous, but ultimately points to Christ.


----------



## D. Paul

Amazing Grace said:


> D. Paul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."
> 
> Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the actual act of repenting spoken of for many of Biblical people? Did Peter repent after denying our Lord? Is there a record of Paul repenting? Did Solomon? Please do not hear what I am not saying, I am not saying repentance is optional.. What I am saying is recording the saints repentance seems to be optional.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm.......
Alright, then. 

At any rate, when we repent, we turn away from the known sin, yet often must live out the consequences. From Adam's point of view the consequences were


----------



## Pergamum

TeachingTulip said:


> kevin.carroll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm. I am not all sure we know that. Heb. 11:4 attributes the superiority of Abel's offering to his faith, not the offering itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "By faith Abel offered to God . . ."
> 
> An offering made apart from faith, is worthless. Faith is the context and teaching of Hebrews 11:4. Abel is the first listed as being a man of faith. God Himself testifies of Abel's "righteousness," which means Abel was indeed saved by faith in God's promises.
> 
> 
> 
> My "thank you" was in response to this statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TT, I would add that the seed of the Woman was a spiritual, not physical lineage. Adam could have been of the seed of the Woman, though not descended from her. For that matter, Adam could be in Christ and not in Adam!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Eve is the mother of all the human race; the spiritual Seed promised her was the Christ. The latter part of your statement does not compute with me . . . sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, it is significant to me that God clothes both Adam and Eve at the end of chapter 3, in effect antoning for their sins with the blood on an innocent animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God provided A&E with _temporal atonement_; however the blood of the animals did not accomplish remission of their sin. God made this provision in order to allow for A&E to produce all of humanity as decreed and commanded. (Genesis 1:28)
> 
> The sin of Adam did not, nor could not thwart the will and purposes of God.
Click to expand...


It is true that Abel offered with faith. 

But, this does not negate that there is a high probability that the manifestation of Cain's lack of faith included offering the wrong thing, especially since the example of Adam and Eve was that they first tried to cover their nakedness with leaves, and God covered them with dead flesh, and Genesis sees fit to mention the different substance of the sacrifices as well. 

It is mentioned by Scripture, so it is of some importance - even if of a secondary importance or as an external manifestation of Cain's lack of internal faith.


----------



## TeachingTulip

A.W. Pink regarding this subject:

PART TWO: THE ADAMIC COVENANT


----------



## Prufrock

Ronda,

Unless I remember very incorrectly, the work from Pink which you have linked is on an unrelated topic: it pertains to the prefall covenant of works made with Adam as a federal head and has no bearing on post-fall faith in the promise. Unless, of course, there is a specific section from that chapter which you are attempting to highlight.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> Ronda,
> 
> Unless I remember very incorrectly, the work from Pink which you have linked is on an unrelated topic: it pertains to the prefall covenant of works made with Adam as a federal head and has no bearing on post-fall faith in the promise. Unless, of course, there is a specific section from that chapter which you are attempting to highlight.



In direct answer to the OP, Pink held the view that Adam did not evidence repentance:

"Contrary to the prevailing idea, I believe that Adam was eternally lost. He is mentioned only once again in Genesis, where we read: “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness” (5:3). He is solemnly missing from the witnesses of faith in Hebrews 11! He is uniformly presented in the New Testament as the fountainhead of death, as Christ is of life (Rom. 5:12 19; 1 Cor. 15:22)."

A.W. Pink; Part Two Adamic Covenant


(The linked article gives Pink's thorough basis for this stated opinion and conclusion.)


----------



## Prufrock

Thanks for clarifying why you linked that! I used the search function to find the section you quoted. It is, at least, certainly worth noting that he admits right at the start that he is teaching "Contrary to the prevailing idea."


----------



## Prufrock

TeachingTulip said:


> (The linked article gives Pink's thorough basis for this stated opinion and conclusion.)



In the section in which I found the sentence you quoted, it is in fact the only statement he makes in the near proximity on the topic of Adam's repentance or lack thereof. I'm assuming there is more, since you mentioned his thorough basis; I would like to read it, if you would point me to where in the article I might find it. A phrase to do a search for would be great. Thanks!


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> (The linked article gives Pink's thorough basis for this stated opinion and conclusion.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the section in which I found the sentence you quoted, it is in fact the only statement he makes in the near proximity on the topic of Adam's repentance or lack thereof. I'm assuming there is more, since you mentioned his thorough basis; I would like to read it, if you would point me to where in the article I might find it. A phrase to do a search for would be great. Thanks!
Click to expand...


Pink's argument is a whole piece; primarily having to do with the ordained federal headships of the two Adams under the two covenants; which in my opinion is deserving of an entire read for anyone truly interested in the truth of the matter.


----------



## kevin.carroll

Pergamum said:


> But, this does not negate that there is a high probability that the manifestation of Cain's lack of faith included offering the wrong thing, especially since the example of Adam and Eve was that they first tried to cover their nakedness with leaves, and God covered them with dead flesh, and Genesis sees fit to mention the different substance of the sacrifices as well.
> 
> It is mentioned by Scripture, so it is of some importance - even if of a secondary importance or as an external manifestation of Cain's lack of internal faith.



Not a "high probability," but a *possibility*. All we can know for sure is what the text says. Since, as I pointed out, both types of sacrifices were acceptable under the Levitical system, you simply do not have a firm leg to stand on here.


----------



## Prufrock

TeachingTulip said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> (The linked article gives Pink's thorough basis for this stated opinion and conclusion.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the section in which I found the sentence you quoted, it is in fact the only statement he makes in the near proximity on the topic of Adam's repentance or lack thereof. I'm assuming there is more, since you mentioned his thorough basis; I would like to read it, if you would point me to where in the article I might find it. A phrase to do a search for would be great. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pink's argument is a whole piece; primarily having to do with the ordained federal headships of the two Adams under the two covenants; which in my opinion is deserving of an entire read for anyone truly interested in the truth of the matter.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you are simply infinitely more astute than I am (which is a real possibility!) but I fail to see what bearing Adam's federal headship under the covenant of works could possibly have upon forgiveness he could have subsequently received in the Covenant of Grace. Nor do I know of anyone else who has made the connection; nor does that seem integral at all to what Pink is saying.

Either way, I will now respectfully withdraw from the thread, as I simply do not have the time to keep up on it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

In my opinion, when the text reads:4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, ...
5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were ...​I am inclined to read into Adam's marital relations--coming as they did on the heels of Cain's attack on the human race--
1) intent to concieve
2) an act of faith

I do not see any rationale to separating _Eve's_ act of naming her son from _Adam's_ inclusion in the matter. Someone had to pass faith along to the next generation, and supposing it was Eve alone strikes me as giving the Devil just a little more than's he's due for success.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Prufrock said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the section in which I found the sentence you quoted, it is in fact the only statement he makes in the near proximity on the topic of Adam's repentance or lack thereof. I'm assuming there is more, since you mentioned his thorough basis; I would like to read it, if you would point me to where in the article I might find it. A phrase to do a search for would be great. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pink's argument is a whole piece; primarily having to do with the ordained federal headships of the two Adams under the two covenants; which in my opinion is deserving of an entire read for anyone truly interested in the truth of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fail to see what bearing Adam's federal headship under the covenant of works could possibly have upon forgiveness he could have subsequently received in the Covenant of Grace.
Click to expand...


The doctrine of federal headship teaches us that Adam is head of the entire human race, and the last “Adam” Jesus Christ is head of His elect church.

When Jesus Christ was crucified and died, due to His representation of all those given to Him by the Father, these are said to have also died to sin. When Christ resurrected from the grave, it is taught that His people were also raised to new life: 

*“Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection . . . Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him.” Romans 6:4,5,8*


Just as Adam’s disobedience and sin under the covenant of works was the legal basis for God to impute sin to all of Adam’s descendants, so was the last Adam’s righteousness the basis for the elect to be imputed with righteousness and made fit to be reconciled with God according to the Covenant of Grace.

When Adam failed, we all failed, for Adam was our earthly federal head.

When Jesus Christ achieved victory over sin, death, and the devil, all Christians are assured His victory is theirs’, because He is their spiritual federal head.

So consider this: If Adam had repented and exhibited faith in the promise God made to Satan and Eve (Genesis 3:15), and had received pardon of his sin and given grace by God unto salvation, then the entire human race would have benefited from that grace, since Adam represented us all. Every human represented in Adam would have been made recipients of God’s forgiving grace, according to the doctrine of representation under Federal Headship. If Adam was brought under the Covenant of Grace in the garden, then all his descendents would be born under that Covenant of Grace, because Adam is federal head of all mankind. This would be the necessary evidence that Adam indeed repented of his sins before God, and placed his faith in the promised Savior.

But that is not reality or the teaching of Holy Scripture, is it?

All men, born in the flesh from Adam, are born sinners, still obligated before God under the Covenant of Works, and remain under the condemnation of that Law and consignment to death . . .unless and until they receive the benefits of the new Covenant of Grace by faith in Jesus Christ.

So the point is, how can the federal head of all sinful men, be rescued by faith in the promised Savior, but his unborn descendants come into the world totally depraved and corrupted under the Covenant of Works and in need of a Savior?

If righteousness and pardon was Adam’s, while still living as federal head of the human race, then God’s grace and saving pardon should be universally expected by all men. 

(And then there goes the Scriptural doctrines of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement!)

_“Direful and dreadful as was the outcome of the Adamic covenant, yet we may, with awe, perceive and admire the divine wisdom in the same. Had God permitted and enabled Adam to stand, all his posterity had been eternally happy. Adam had then been in a very real sense their savior, and while enjoying everlasting bliss, all his posterity would have exclaimed, “For all this we are indebted to our first parent.” Ali, what anointed eye can fail to discern that that would have been far too great a glory for any finite creature to have borne. Only the last Adam was entitled to and capable of sustaining such an honor. Thus, the first man, who was of the earth, earthy, must fall, so as to make way for the second man, who is “the Lord from heaven.” A.W. Pink, Part Two: The Adamic Covenant_

(Underlined emphasis, mine.)


----------



## py3ak

TeachingTulip said:


> So consider this: If Adam had repented and exhibited faith in the promise God made to Satan and Eve (Genesis 3:15), and had received pardon of his sin and given grace by God unto salvation, then the entire human race would have benefited from that grace, since Adam represented us all. Every human represented in Adam would have been made recipients of God’s forgiving grace, according to the doctrine of representation under Federal Headship. If Adam was brought under the Covenant of Grace in the garden, then all his descendents would be born under that Covenant of Grace, because Adam is federal head of all mankind. This would be the necessary evidence that Adam indeed repented of his sins before God, and placed his faith in the promised Savior.
> 
> But that is not reality or the teaching of Holy Scripture, is it?



The difficulty with this position is that it ignores the standard Reformed teaching that after the Fall Adam no longer functioned as a public person. John Brown of Haddington is as good a person as any to quote on the matter. Speaking of how by the one offence of Adam the covenant of works was broken in different respects he says:


> IV. The representation in the covenant was dissolved, and every particular person of mankind fell bound for himself. Adam, being now dead in law, and under the begun reign of spiritual death, was no longer fit to continue the head and representative of others, in a covenant which was originally ordained unto life. Moreover, the displacing him from his covenant headship was necessary, that the covenant of grace might be immediately administered, and that he and Eve, with their seed, might have the most early, and the most unhampered access to it.


(_Systematic Theology (Compendious View, etc.)_, p.210 of RHB edition.)


----------



## TeachingTulip

py3ak said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> So consider this: If Adam had repented and exhibited faith in the promise God made to Satan and Eve (Genesis 3:15), and had received pardon of his sin and given grace by God unto salvation, then the entire human race would have benefited from that grace, since Adam represented us all. Every human represented in Adam would have been made recipients of God’s forgiving grace, according to the doctrine of representation under Federal Headship. If Adam was brought under the Covenant of Grace in the garden, then all his descendents would be born under that Covenant of Grace, because Adam is federal head of all mankind. This would be the necessary evidence that Adam indeed repented of his sins before God, and placed his faith in the promised Savior.
> 
> But that is not reality or the teaching of Holy Scripture, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difficulty with this position is that it ignores the standard Reformed teaching that after the Fall Adam no longer functioned as a public person. John Brown of Haddington is as good a person as any to quote on the matter. Speaking of how by the one offence of Adam the covenant of works was broken in different respects he says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IV. The representation in the covenant was dissolved, and every particular person of mankind fell bound for himself. Adam, being now dead in law, and under the begun reign of spiritual death, was no longer fit to continue the head and representative of others, in a covenant which was originally ordained unto life. Moreover, the displacing him from his covenant headship was necessary, that the covenant of grace might be immediately administered, and that he and Eve, with their seed, might have the most early, and the most unhampered access to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (_Systematic Theology (Compendious View, etc.)_, p.210 of RHB edition.)
Click to expand...


So on what legal basis is Adam's sin then imputed to all men?


----------



## py3ak

That he was their representative until the Fall. If he had continued to be their representative afterward, then every needless swat on Abel's bottom, every over indulgence of Cain's selfishness, and every flare of baseless irritation at Eve would also be imputed to us. Having obtained the cursing of all humanity descended from him by ordinary generation, he obtained also his own deposition from his position.


----------



## MW

TeachingTulip said:


> So consider this: If Adam had repented and exhibited faith in the promise God made to Satan and Eve (Genesis 3:15), and had received pardon of his sin and given grace by God unto salvation, then the entire human race would have benefited from that grace, since Adam represented us all.



Adam only represented us all in the covenant of works, not in the covenant of grace. Adam is a representee in the covenant of grace, of which Christ alone is the Head.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Is not the fact that God alone provided a sacrifice for A & E enough for us to determine they were forgiven? "And the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." The prophet Isaiah wrote in Isaiah 61:10,

I will rejoice greatly in the Lord,My soul will exult in my God;*For He has clothed me with garments of salvation,He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness*,
As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland,And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

The skin that God covered Adam and Eve represent a type of imputed righteousness provided by Him in which they could stand in His holy presence. This is a shadow of what God provided for us in the imputation of His righteousness through Jesus Christ. Behind those garments, that God made for Adam and Eve has been sacrifice and death. There was a substitutionary death. God must always provide adequate covering for man to stand before Him clothed in righteousness. And without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. I will disagree with Pink that Adam is reprobate. If we read the account of Adam looking for repentance, we end up going the way of some Moral Example atonement where repentance makes Gods sacrifice effectual. God saves first and foremost for His namesake alone. 

psalm 106 clearly shows how God works.

6We have sinned with our fathers, we have committed iniquity, we have done wickedly.

7Our fathers understood not thy wonders in Egypt; they remembered not the multitude of thy mercies; but provoked him at the sea, even at the Red sea.

8*Nevertheless he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make his mighty power to be known.*

9He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness.

10And he saved them from the hand of him that hated them, and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy.

11And the waters covered their enemies: there was not one of them left.

12Then believed they his words; they sang his praise.


----------

