# Adam, Saved or Not?



## kbergsing (Oct 2, 2007)

The bible isn't clear on Adam's fate but I have to ask: Is Adam in Heaven?


----------



## sastark (Oct 2, 2007)

kbergsing said:


> The bible isn't clear on Adam's fate but I have to ask: Is Adam in Heaven?



Yes. 

Evidences include: Abel (and later, Seth) knew the proper way to worship the Lord. Where did they learn this?

Also, although the promise of a savior was made through Eve (seed of the woman), Adam was obviously needed to help fulfill that promise. It makes more sense to me that Adam would then be a believer.

Lastly, the naming of Cain (Adam says he has gotten a man from the Lord) implies that Adam and Eve may have believed Cain to be the promised seed.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 2, 2007)

Whew...questioning my moderator position is one thing, but I thought this was a bit much!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 2, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Whew...questioning my moderator position is one thing, but I thought this was a bit much!


----------



## elnwood (Oct 2, 2007)

kbergsing said:


> The bible isn't clear on Adam's fate but I have to ask: Is Adam in Heaven?



I think you answered your own question well. The Bible isn't clear.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Oct 2, 2007)

Also, God clothed them with the garment of skin from a slain animal, and the fact that Abel knew to sacrifice the first born of his flock, um... who taught Abel that?


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 2, 2007)

Don, your point is well made, however, the fact that scripture is not clear is not the end of the argument. Ask both the credo and the paedo, the lack of clarity is only the beginning of the strongest of convictions, is it not? 




elnwood said:


> kbergsing said:
> 
> 
> > The bible isn't clear on Adam's fate but I have to ask: Is Adam in Heaven?
> ...


----------



## Barnpreacher (Oct 2, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Whew...questioning my moderator position is one thing, but I thought this was a bit much!



Adam,

It's not very often that posts make me laugh out loud like that one did. Classic.


----------



## tdowns (Oct 2, 2007)

*lol*



Barnpreacher said:


> houseparent said:
> 
> 
> > Whew...questioning my moderator position is one thing, but I thought this was a bit much!
> ...


----------



## elnwood (Oct 2, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Don, your point is well made, however, the fact that scripture is not clear is not the end of the argument. Ask both the credo and the paedo, the lack of clarity is only the beginning of the strongest of convictions, is it not?



My impression is that the credos and paedos here think that the issue is clear. That argument needs to continue because it affects church practice. The salvation of Adam does not.

I recall reading a paper years ago that dogmatically stated that Adam was unsaved but that Eve was saved. In any case, I don't like taking part in these arguments because the arguments given are, in my opinion, very weak, and the same types of arguments would never be considered valid elsewhere. For example, you have much stronger evidence of Saul being saved, based on his early rule, than you would Adam. (Saul's later rule, of course, seems to disqualify him.)

Often I find a general implicit attitude that the Bible takes a position on every point of doctrine, and that if we dig hard enough, we'll find an answer. Personally, I don't think the perspicuity of Scripture applies to every doctrine.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 2, 2007)

Yes but pursuing pedantic and punctillious problems perpetuates the precise pedagogic and particular purposes of the Puritan Board.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Oct 2, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Yes but pursuing pedantic and punctillious problems perpetuates the precise pedagogic and particular purposes of the Puritan Board.



O.k., so maybe I laugh out loud at posts more than I thought I did.  You guys are funny.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Oct 2, 2007)

If I'm not mistaken, does not Pink teach that to make Adam a saved man would eliminate the type in Romans 5? But if Christ is the antitype, did not Adam understand this through the sacrifice which covered his sin and the promise of the Messiah in Genesis 3:15? Not to mention the restored fellowship with God. And to argue that there was no restored fellowship doesn't seem to fit, else why did God provide the sacrifice and clothe him?


----------



## kbergsing (Oct 2, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Whew...questioning my moderator position is one thing, but I thought this was a bit much!


----------



## kbergsing (Oct 2, 2007)

sastark said:


> kbergsing said:
> 
> 
> > The bible isn't clear on Adam's fate but I have to ask: Is Adam in Heaven?
> ...


Thanks for the post. I hate to be legalistic, but wouldn't we label these examples as circumstancial? And if so, does it matter?


----------



## sastark (Oct 2, 2007)

kbergsing said:


> Thanks for the post. I hate to be legalistic, but wouldn't we label these examples as circumstancial? And if so, does it matter?



Well, yeah, of course it's circumstantial. I mean, we don't have a verse that says "Adam died and went to heaven" so any evidence will only be circumstantial evidence. I just happen to be of the _opinion_ that Adam did, in fact, go to heaven.

Does it matter? I'm not sure I understand the question. Does it matter that the evidence is circumstantial? I don't think so. We build a lot of our opinions and doctrines on circumstantial evidence.

Does it matter if Adam went to heaven or hell? No, I don't think it really matters all that much. I wouldn't go to the gallows over it, that's for sure.


----------



## christiana (Oct 2, 2007)

When Adam attempted to cover his sin with leaves and then God in His mercy covered Him with skins this was imputation! The shedding of blood without which there is no remission of sin! Our sin is covered the same way, yet with the blood of Christ. Our sin is imputed to Christ account and His blood covers our sin. 2 Cor 5:19-21


----------



## Calvibaptist (Oct 2, 2007)

aleksanderpolo said:


> Also, God clothed them with the garment of skin from a slain animal, and the fact that Abel knew to sacrifice the first born of his flock, um... who taught Abel that?



So, are you suggesting that Eve taught Cain the wrong way to sacrifice?


----------



## py3ak (Oct 2, 2007)

I think this question is based on another one. Adam as a public figure is obviously the father of condemnation, and to some degree it is hard to think of the father of condemnation as being himself, personally, uncondemned. At the same time, God did clothe him and his children were brought up religiously. Is it possible that Adam was one thing in his public capacity, and that is the basis of the language about him in Romans 5; but having sinned he ceased to be a public person, and in an individual capacity was regenerated and justified?
But I have also seen an argument that Esau is a type of reprobation, but was personally converted. No doubt we are not called to adjudicate such cases for the mere speculative interest of figuring out heaven's current population. But it raises the hermeneutical question of the relation of someone's symbolic status in Scripture with the personal reality of their lives. This is a point I would be glad to get wiser input on than my own.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 2, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> aleksanderpolo said:
> 
> 
> > Also, God clothed them with the garment of skin from a slain animal, and the fact that Abel knew to sacrifice the first born of his flock, um... who taught Abel that?
> ...



Nice.  And a good point as well.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Oct 2, 2007)

Well, Eve thought that Cain was the promised son of woman, that's why she named him Cain. Little did she know that both the seed of woman and seed of serpent will run from her bloodline. Don't blame Cain's fault on her, it's hard to be a mom, especially when her husband is the ultimate blame shifter.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Oct 2, 2007)

It is interesting that I was just reading today about the fall and God's provision of redemption in Jonathan Edwards' _*A History of the Work of Redemption*_. In Period 1, Part 1 (Banner of Truth edition of _the Works _- page 538), Edwards wrote that *"God soon after the fall began actually to save the souls of men through Christ's redemption... It is probable therefore that Adam and Eve were the first fruits of Christ's redemption." *Edwards gives reasons for his idea that Adam and Eve were saved, but does not go so far as to be dogmatic, carefully placing the word "probable" in the sentence.


----------



## sastark (Oct 2, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> aleksanderpolo said:
> 
> 
> > Also, God clothed them with the garment of skin from a slain animal, and the fact that Abel knew to sacrifice the first born of his flock, um... who taught Abel that?
> ...



As Calvinists, I think we can all agree that Cain's sinful nature was all that was necessary for him to present an unworthy sacrifice. Abel needed to be instructed in the faith. Cain needed no education in sin - it was his (and all of ours, before salvation) nature.


----------



## christiana (Oct 2, 2007)

Excerpt, Gleanings in Genesis, AW Pink:
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them" (Gen. 3:21). In order to adequately explain and expound this verse many pages might well be written, but perforce, we must content ourselves with a few lines. This verse gives us a typical picture of a sinner’s salvation. It was the first Gospel sermon, preached by God Himself, not in words but in symbol and action. It was a setting forth of the way by which a sinful creature could return unto and approach his holy Creator. It was the initial declaration of the fundamental fact that "without shedding of blood is no remission." It was a blessed illustration of substitution—the innocent dying in the stead of the guilty.

Before the Fall, God had defined the wages of sin: "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." God is righteous, and as Judge of all the earth He must do right. His law had been broken and justice cried aloud for the enforcing of its penalty. But is justice to override mercy! Is there no way by which grace can reign through righteousness? Blessed be God there is, there was. Mercy desired to spare the offender and because justice demands death, another shall be slain in his place. The Lord God clothed Adam and Eve with skins, and in order to procure these skins animals must have been slain, life must have been taken, blood must have been shed! And in this way was a covering provided for the fallen and ruined sinner. The application of the type is obvious. The Death of the Son of God was shadowed forth. Because the Lord Jesus laid down His life for the sheep God can now be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

How beautiful and perfect is the type! It was the Lord God who furnished the skins, made them into coats and clothed our first parents. They did nothing. God did it all. They were entirely passive. The same blessed truth is illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. When the wanderer had taken the place of a lost and undone creature and had owned his sin, the grace of the father’s heart was displayed. "But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him" (Luke 15:22). The prodigal did not have to furnish the robe, nor did he have put it on himself, all was done for him. And so it is with every sinner. "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). Well may we sing, "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness" (Isa. 61:10).

"So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword w


----------



## Barnpreacher (Oct 2, 2007)

sastark said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > aleksanderpolo said:
> ...


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Oct 2, 2007)

*forgive me...but*



kbergsing said:


> The bible isn't clear on Adam's fate but I have to ask: Is Adam in Heaven?



The Bible is silent on it, so...I'll go parse verbs.

John


----------



## Barnpreacher (Oct 2, 2007)

Pink in _Our Accountability to God _:



> We by no means share the popular idea that the Lord saved Adam very soon after his fall; rather we take decided exception to that theory. We cannot find anything whatever in Holy Writ on which to base such a belief; in fact, we find much to the contrary. First it is clear that Adam's sin was not one of infirmity, but instead a presumptuous one, pertaining to that class of willful sins and open defiance of God for which no sacrifice was provided (Ex. 21:14; Num. 15:30-31; Deut. 17:12; Heb. 10:26-29), and which was therefore an unpardonable sin. There is not the slightest sing that he ever repented of his sin, nor any record of his confessing it to God. On the contrary, when charged with it, he attempted to excuse and extenuate it. Genesis 3 closes with the awful statement "So he drove out the man." Nothing whatever is mentioned to Adam's credit afterward: no offering of sacrifice, no acts of faith or obedience. Instead we are merely told that he knew his wife (4:1, 25), begat a son in his own likeness, an died (5:3-5). If the reader can see in those statements any intimation or indication that Adam was a regenerated man, then he has much better eyes than the writer - or possibly a more lively imagination.
> 
> Nor is there a single word in Adam's favor in later Scriptures, rather is everything to his condemnation.... In the New Testament he is contrasted in considerable detail with Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; I Cor. 15:22, 45-47); and if he were saved, then the antithesis would fail as its principlal point. Moreover, such an anomaly - that the great majority of those whom he represented should eternally perish, while the responsible head should be recovered - is quite out of keeping with what is revealed of God's justice.



I don't agree with Pink here, but I knew I read that some time ago.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Oct 2, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> Pink in _Our Accountability to God _:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This also seems to be in stark contrast to what christiana quoted in Pink's _Gleanings In Genesis_. I think that _Our Accountability to God _was written later, so Pink must have had a change of mind somewhere along the line when it came to Adam.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 2, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> This also seems to be in stark contrast to what christiana quoted in Pink's _Gleanings In Genesis_. I think that _Our Accountability to God _was written later, so Pink must have had a change of mind somewhere along the line when it came to Adam.



I don't think the two are in conflict such that Pink had to change his mind. That the animal coverings over Adam were a type of Christ's covering does not necessitate that Adam's sins would be covered. For example, the nation of Israel was a type of the elect, and all Israelites are not elect.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 2, 2007)

all signs point to Adam and Eve being saved.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 3, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> Pink in _Our Accountability to God _:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is exactly where I tend to have problems with Pink - he often fails to grasp the profound nature of the application of grace.


----------



## Dennis1963 (Oct 7, 2007)

kbergsing said:


> The bible isn't clear on Adam's fate but I have to ask: Is Adam in Heaven?


Not explicitly clear but, When they fell and both of their eyes were opened, they in their own efforts sewn fig leaves together to hide their shame, mans best efforts! But they did know, and saw their shame (sin) Gen 3:7, someone who is not saved wouldn't even care. Adam and Eve were the first two people to hear the gospel, the coming of Christ Genesis 3:15. To demonstrate what Christ will do for his people God made garments of skin and covered them, as we will be covered in Christ, Gen 3:21. God allowed the fall, it was part of His will, other wise it would have never happened. Not that Adam and Eve were not responsible, they in fact were, But God demonstrates with them His plan of redemption. Look at Genesis 3:9-11 God called Adam, Adam hid. God already knew he just wanted Adam to be responsible for his actions, and as we know he blamed it on Eve v12, and in turn Eve blamed it on the serpent. they were both guilty and ashamed, what unbeliever do you know who is convicted of their guilt and is shameful when breaking one of God's laws? I don't know any. They also had continued belief and faith in God Gen 4:1 "i have gotten the man child with the help of the LORD", Gen 4:25 "God has appointed me another offspring". God was continually in their lives, they recognized the blessings of a child as from God. Something only a believer will do, at least in the true sense. ---Interesting, God still came to them in the garden after the fall and called to them, He had never forsaken them, With the conviction of their sin and guilt, they hid from Him, but they were restored, by God Himself.


----------



## christiana (Oct 7, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> > Pink in _Our Accountability to God _:
> ...



Wow, I actually came to know of and understand 'grace' via the reading of Pink! His book, The Sovereignty of God was one big 'wow' moment for me and introduced me to the doctrines of grace! I love reading Pink and he is willing to change his view with added knowledge and/or light and doesnt get 'locked in' to his earlier views and refuse to change as so many theologians do once they feel they have obtained knowledge! We all must continue to search the scriptures daily and be willing to be changed by them as we grow in grace and the knowledge of Christ.
Just my


----------

