Did Adam have Eternal Life Pre-Fall?

[Clare73]

Says the shonky real estate lady.

She does well at it too!

 

[Clare73]

So you think you got your spirit, soul and body from your parents do you?

I give up, do I? . . .News to me.

You've equated the indwelling Holy Spirit as the imparting of eternal life.

Precisely. . .the Holy Spirit is eternal life, God's divine eternal life imparted to the immortal human spirit of the "born from above."

The Holy Spirit indwells the body. Eternal life is imparted to the spirit.

The Holy Spirit is that God's divine eternal life imparted to the immortal human spirit, which immortal human spirit of the "born from above," indwelt by the Holy Spirit, at physical death (departure of the indwelt human spirit, Jas 2:26) is then with God (2 Co 5:1-9).

The human spirit indwells the body, apart from which the body is dead (Jas 2:26), while the Holy Spirit indwells the human spirit of the "born from above," which indwelt immortal human spirit is with God at its departure from the human body (2 Co 5:1-9); i.e., death (Jas 2:26).

 

[Cassian]

So, you can't show it logically.

It is logical and most important, scriptural.

The rest of what you say there is only assertion.

Funny, you would say "the Church" has declared Calvinism heretical. Are not all the redeemed, The Church? or just EO?

Then you should follow that Church. The Body of Christ founded by His Apostles. Then you would not be promulgating false scriptural theories.

Nor can you show this. It is only a construction, based on self-determination.

Except that is what the Church has always believed. It is based on scripture which has always been believed.

 

[Cassian]

Why was God with Saul to begin with? Because God found favor with Saul. Read the whole preface to Saul becoming King. God working through Samuel dismissed others.

God gives his Spirit to unbelievers?????????

No, but He does remove His Spirit from them. Saul is a good example. Another OT person is Solomon, He found favor with God as well, but in His later life departed.

 

[Cassian]

I disagree with everything you have said here and I don't want our conversation to turn into a back and forth "game of table tennis" (so to speak). You have a nice day.

God bless you also.

 

[Clare73]

... Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again before the Holy Spirit was to be forgiven when we believe.

Jews did not receive the indwelling Holy Spirit at that time. Jesus was telling a Jew that he needed to be born again.
To make him become body, soul, and human spirit.

The body without the spirit is dead. (Jas 2:26)
That means if the Jews had no immortal human spirit at that time, they would be physically dead.

Please note the following:

On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, ​

“Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as ​

Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” By this he ​

meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to ​

that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." John 7:37-39​

The apostles received the Holy Spirit in Jn 20:22. The above refers to their special empowering on Pentecost to take the gospel to the world.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is logical and most important, scriptural.

Then you should follow that Church. The Body of Christ founded by His Apostles. Then you would not be promulgating false scriptural theories.

Except that is what the Church has always believed. It is based on scripture which has always been believed.

So, like I said before, you cannot show it logically, and here you only assert that it is logical.

In fact, all you say here is assertion. Merely declarative, and of loyalty to what you are comfortable with. But, enjoy.

 

[Clare73]

First thing (which may sound "weird") is to define "eternal life".

Is the "lack of death" really defined as "eternal life"?

"Eternal life" has the definition of being "from everlasting to everlasting";

Actually, in the NT eternal life is about the quality/kind of life; i.e., God's own divine life, which is eternal, and imparted to the immortal human spirit when it is born from above.

and since Adam and Eve had a beginning, they did not possess "eternal life", at least not in the redemptive sense; though they did possess the "lack of death" prior to the fall.

Lack of death is immortality.

In the NT, "eternal life" is not about duration, it is about God's own divine life, which is eternal because God is eternal,
just as my life is human because I am human, and my sweet puppy's life is animal life because he is animal, and the angel's life is spirit because it is spirit.

Now (you want another "mind bender" here); the state of existence that caused them to be potentially subject to corruption,

They were created physically immortal with God's eternal divine life within their immortal human spirit, they were not potentially subject to corruption.
They lost physical immortality (incorruption) as the result of their rebellion, and that immortality will be restored in the resurrection (1 Co 15:53).

was the fact that they weren't eternal. They were created as temporal beings;

Ge 2:17 - "Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)," indicates that the consequences of spiritual and physical death were a new thing, a departure from what they had, a loss, and not what they were created with.

which essentially is what made the fall inevitable. This is why those born of the Spirit of God have "eternal" life because God is eternal. And on the flip side of this; those who will face God's wrath for their sin; will never escape that condemnation because they are not eternal. Everything God created has "a beginning"; thus nothing in this cosmos (except God Himself) is eternal.

Does that make sense?

It doesn't account for eternal (everlasting) punishment (Mt 25:46), which requires living forever.

 

[Clare73]

I have a grasp of scriptural terms. I don't have a grasp of Calvinistic terms and definitions. The only theology that holds your view are those holding to all or some of Calvinism. That came in the 16th century. That makes it 15 hundred years the church never held such a view which is why it has been condemned since.

It's about neither theology nor "Calvinism."
It's about the NT usage of foreknowledge to mean God's foreknowledge, and about the meaning of predestination as shown in Ro 8:29-30, which requires a NT understanding of the words foreknowledge and predestination.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Actually, in the NT eternal life is about the quality/kind of life; i.e., God's own divine life, which is eternal, and imparted to the immortal human spirit when it is born from above.

Lack of death is immortality.

In the NT, "eternal life" is not about duration, it is about God's own divine life, which is eternal because God is eternal,
just as my life is human because I am human, and my sweet puppy's life is animal life because he is animal, and the angel's life is spirit because it is spirit.

They were created physically immortal with God's eternal divine life within their immortal human spirit, they were not potentially subject to corruption.
They lost physical immortality (incorruption) as the result of their rebellion, and that immortality will be restored in the resurrection (1 Co 15:53).

Ge 2:17 - "Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)," indicates that the consequences of spiritual and physical death were a new thing, a departure from what they had, a loss, and not what they were created with.

It doesn't account for eternal (everlasting) punishment (Mt 25:46), which requires living forever.

Seems to me, you totally missed what I said.

Other obvious issue is that "the righteous" (those who had been atoned for) were "named" starting with Abel; not Adam. (Matthew 23:35)

And obviously Adam was corruptible; because if he hadn't been; he wouldn't have fallen.

 

[Clare73]

Seems to me, you totally missed what I said.

It goes to your quite clear first statement about defining eternal life, upon which everything you said is built.

 

[The Righterzpen]

It goes to your quite clear first statement about defining eternal life, upon which everything you said is built.

But what you say, doesn't appear to me to contradict what my first statement was; thus why I say you missed the point of what I said.

"Eternal life" is different than "human immortality"; because "eternity" has no beginning.

Adam had a beginning. He did not possess the attributes of God. Thus why I said Adam was inherently corruptible on account of being a temporally created entity.

Also "lack of death" is not the same thing as immortality. Immortality is the quality of not being "killable". Adam did not possess immortality; although his initial existence was marked by "lack of death".

Also "not being corrupted" is different than being incorruptible.

 

[Clare73]

But what you say, doesn't appear to me to contradict what my first statement was; thus why I say you missed the point of what I said.
"Eternal life" is different than "human immortality"; because "eternity" has no beginning.
Adam had a beginning. He did not possess the attributes of God. Thus why I said Adam was inherently corruptible on account of being a temporally created entity.

You presented it in terms of its duration, making duration its qualifying characteristic, thereby excluding Adam who had a beginning,
to the neglect of the NT's presentation of its quality, nature as God's divine life imparted to the immortal human spirit of the born from above.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You presented it in terms of its duration, making duration its qualifying characteristic, thereby excluding Adam who had a beginning,
to the neglect of the NT's presentation of its quality, nature as God's divine life imparted to the immortal human spirit of the born from above.

"Immortal" is the quality of "not being killable". One who's atoned for is no longer killable because the atonement dealt with the reason why they were killable and condemnable in the first place. The atonement can make them no longer subject to death because He who accomplished the atonement is eternal.

The 2nd Person of the Trinity had no beginning and no end. He was "eternal".
Adam had a beginning. He was not "eternal".

The 2nd Person of the Trinity was "immortal". He wasn't subject to death because He had no sin. His human nature was subject to death because of the atonement. But if he hadn't atoned for sin; he would have been immortal also.

The 2nd Person of the Trinity was also not corruptible because He was God. Being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent makes one immortal and incorruptible.

Adam was "created in the image of God". Thus he was a temporal entity and not "God incarnate" and this is why he was "subject to corruption". The fact that anything God created was created in a temporal state is what made the fall inevitable. If the atonement hadn't taken place; everything God created would be destroyed because it had become corrupted. This is an important distinction to understand between the Creator and the created.

So yes, as it applies to the creation; "term of duration" is applicable in the OP's question as to whether Adam had "eternal life" before the fall.

The answer to his question is "no".

 

[Cassian]

It's about neither theology nor "Calvinism."
It's about the NT usage of foreknowledge to mean God's foreknowledge, and about the meaning of predestination as shown in Ro 8:29-30, which requires a NT understanding of the words foreknowledge and predestination.

God does not need to predestine everything. We know from scripture He did not predestine any person to become a believer. That would be against his essence that He is love. It also denies His Sovereign will to create man in His Image to be able to freely love. To freely return His love, not by force, or predestination.
God also does not need to foreordain anything in order to know.
Calvinism is the only interpretative theory that employs a total disconnect from scripture. He did not understand predestination in relation to foreknowledge. Then he developed a system based on it which was more clearly defined at the Council of Trent, I believe, in arguments of Armenius. The whole acronym of TULIP is totally unscriptural. Just to point out, man is not totally depraved, scripture denies that in Rom1:18-24.
Unconditional election is based on his false understanding of predestination/foreknowledge, Limited Atonement is a direct denial of the Incarnation of Christ who bore our human natures. Scripture shows in many places man can clearly resist God's grace. And from that tenet perseverance of the saints would also be unscriptural.
You can say they are scriptural and you would be correct. Every single false teaching that has cropped up within the Church historically have all been based on scripture. But whether it has always been the meaning of scripture from the beginning you cannot do.
All I am doing is explaining what the Church has always understood regarding the meaning of scripture.

 

[Clare73]

"Immortal" is the quality of "not being killable".

We're talking about eternal. . .they aren't the same thing.

 

[Clare73]

God does not need to predestine everything.

Agreed. . .God does not need to do anything.
It's not about what he needs to do, it's about what he has sovereignly willed to do.

We know from scripture He did not predestine any person to become a believer.

We know precisely the opposite from Ro 8:29-30, where "predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" means believer/faith.

That would be against his essence that He is love. It also denies His Sovereign will to create man in His Image to be able to freely love. To freely return His love, not by force, or predestination.

That is fallen human reasoning set against the plain word of God in Ro 8:29-30:

"For those God foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son. . .and those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.". . .past tense. . .done deal. . .forever settled in heaven.

 

[sawdust]

I give up, do I? . . .News to me.

I don't know, that's why I asked the question. You said:

"flesh gives birth to fleshly life (human life within the natural body),"

Human life isn't just our body, so how am I suppose to understand your statement above?

 

[sawdust]

She does well at it too!

Confession is between you and the Lord. You don't need to tell us you're good at being shonky.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Cassian said:
That would be against his essence that He is love. It also denies His Sovereign will to create man in His Image to be able to freely love. To freely return His love, not by force, or predestination.

Agreed. . .God does not need to do anything.
It's not about what he needs to do, it's about what he has sovereignly willed to do.

We know precisely the opposite from Ro 8:29-30, where "predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" means believer/faith.

That is fallen human reasoning set against the plain word of God in Ro 8:29-30:

"For those God foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son. . .and those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.". . .past tense. . .done deal. . .forever settled in heaven.

To Cassian, not that logic is needed to nail down anything in Scripture, but since we are human:

1) You cannot build, nor even deny, doctrine, based on whether or not it supports your notion of "love". PARTICULARLY when we are referring to GOD'S love. (God's love does not exist, for example, apart from his justice. There's just too much about God that we can't wrap our heads around as yet.)

2) Your second statement, "It also denies His Sovereign will to create man in His Image to be able to freely love.", is either (a) illogical, if you support 'freely loving' (whatever you mean by that), unless you deny "His Sovereign will"; or (b) it denies 'freely loving' which, based on the next, you seem to try to support and not deny. I expect you will want to rewrite that, since as written it is pretty condemning of your "doctrine".

3) There are way too many assumptions and too much construction in this last bit to avoid the appearance of 'false', "To freely return His love, not by force, or predestination." To make sense of it, I assume you mean, "not by force, i.e. not by predestination".
(a) We are not capable of "freely return[ing] His love" in any worthy sense.
(b) Here you assume that it is necessary to 'freely return his love', whatever you mean by that. That we must love him, there is no doubt, but 'freely'? What does that even mean?
(c) Since (as I must guess) you are here equating 'predestination' with 'force', or at least trying to logically tie 'predestination' to 'force', you are there just plain wrong. Were you forced to be born the first time? Was your first birth predestined, or just random? Did God not know if was going to happen? What about your second, then?
(d) Where do you come up with this construction in Scripture?

4) Now the main thing where you depart from logic to assumption, apparently by your 'self-determination' POV, or maybe by your Feels-Nice Doctrine: What I touched on in 3)(b), is that you equate "free" with "valid" or "real". It is simply not so.
(a) As surely as there is no such thing as mere 'Chance', nor, obviously, as 'determination by Chance', the notion of freedom from God's ultimate causation is logically vapid. Bogus. Thus, what we think, choose, do, is ONLY valid or real, if established by God. This is what is known as 'God's Decree' or even 'God's word'. Nothing can happen, unless God says it happens.
(b) 'Self-Determination' walks in lockstep with the false notion that we can measure-up, even earn a standing, with God. "The bed is too short, the blanket too narrow to wrap around oneself.", (not to mention that it sets itself against Scripture and against Grace. Truth is, the two-part harmony there is an invention, and not of God. We are IN CHRIST. Not 'in addition to Christ —("well, yes, with his help ...but")').
(c) As in 4)(b), 'self-determination' makes us more than moral agents. It makes us first causes, which is logically self-contradictory, not to mention that it raises us to the same sort of being that God is. We don't live on Mt. Olympus.

5) There is much, much, more, related to Scripture, and the philosophy behind your POV, but this is enough for now.