# Conditional Immortality



## brandonadams (Jul 1, 2009)

Does anyone believe that Adam and Eve had conditional immortality prior to the fall? Meaning that they had the ability to die, but were sustained by the tree of life?

I find it extremely difficult to accept the view that they were prohibited from eating from the tree of life because Scripture explicitly states that they were allowed to eat from every tree except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16). I have read Sam Waldron and Eddie Goodwin's article on the Covenant of Works http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/wp-content/uploads/youve_got_lies.pdf but I find their argument that the prohibition was on the trees in the midst of the garden to be unconvincing.

Saying that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from the tree of life, as far as I can tell, does not go against anything in the Confessions. It seems there are 2 options:

1) The tree of life would have given Adam or Eve instant immortality, the eternal life promised. Thus the probation was in effect until Adam chose either the tree of life or the tree of knowledge. That was the ending of the probationary period and the outcome depended on which he chose.

2) Adam and Eve had conditional immortality. They were able to die, but were sustained by continual partaking of the tree of life. Thus God's promise "You shall _surely_ die" is contrasted with "You _may_ die." The fulfillment of which is the flaming sword blocking the tree of life, resulting in inevitable, sure death.

Though I'm not sure I agree with all of his reasoning, I find Erickson's comments helpful:


> "I would suggest the concept of conditional immortality as the state of Adam before the fall. He was not inherently able to live forever, but he need not have died. Given the right conditions, he could have lived on forever: This may be the meaning of God's words when he decided to expel Adam and Eve from Eden and from the presence of the tree of life: "and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (3:22). The impression is given that Adam, even after the fall, could have lived forever if he had eaten the fruit of the tree of life. What happened at the time of his explusion from Eden was that man, who formerly could have lived forever or died, was now separated from those conditions which made eternal life possible, and thus it became inevitable that he die. Previously he *could* die; now he *would* die. This also means that Jesus was born with a body that was subject to death. He had to eat to live; had he failed to eat he would have starved to death.
> 
> We should note that there were other changes as a result of sin. In Eden man had a body which could become diseased; after the fall there were diseases for him to contract. The curse, involving the coming of death to mankind, also included a whole host of ills which would lead to death. Paul tells us that someday this set of conditions will be removed, and the whole creation delivered from this 'bondage to decay' (Rom 8:18-23).
> 
> ...



This would seem to be the physical counterpart to posse peccare, posse non peccare. The conditional aspect of immortality would have been removed had Adam fulfilled the covenant.

Thoughts?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 1, 2009)

I disagree with the manner it is being stated, although the idea being stated has certain commonalities with the Reformed understanding of Adam's pre-fall condition. Which is, as you say, "posse pecare," able to sin. ME's interpretation of Gen.3:22 is flawed, crassly literal. Calvin is infinitely better.

Adam had immortality, suspended if you will on his obedience. This seems to be a different position from ME. We believe in a Covenant of Works. I don't know if ME is willing to go there. We call Adam's situation a "probation."

Adam's obedience was in some way dependent on his relation with God, which must have included the Tree of Life. The two Trees represent a sacramental relation even in the Garden. Adam doesn't live because the ToL has "energy juice", but because he needs communion with God to live. And the ToL represents that. Partaking of the ToL was at God's invitation, it was a form of discipline. But it was not "off limits" the way the TKGE was.

Keil's treatment of the nature of the second tree is unmatched. To know Good and Evil as God knows it would have happened NOT by eating the Tree, but by NOT-eating it. God's knowledge of Evil is not by experience. Ours needn't have been either.


In the end, I propose that Erickson comes to a similar position to the Reformed (that Adam was in a probation), but does not have our categories, and therefore expresses his perspective in ways that don't do the same justice to the subject. in my opinion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 1, 2009)

One word of caution here. Most who advocate conditional immortality usually hold to annihilationism in some form or another.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 1, 2009)

Thanks Bruce. I agree with you, though I'm not sure I'm convinced the ToL was devoid of any physical benefit. The fall was a physical and a spiritual death. I'll have to re-read Calvin and get back to you.

Thanks Martin. Those are the kinds of connect-the-dots I'm looking for as I'm not sure what implications such a view has. Do you know of any writings connecting those two thoughts?


----------

