Was Adam indwelled by the Holy Spirit before the fall?

[Handmaid for Jesus]

As I read it the context is in reference to the penalty for murder.

The reason why a life was required was because persons alive at that time were in God's image.

No, the Bible said Adam's offspring was in Adams image and likeness.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

sinning to the point of spiritual death is prevented

No. We are born spiritually dead in trespasses and sin. Scripture says we are made spiritually alive when we are born again. We are regenerated/quickened by the Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

 

[Guojing]

Some members strongly hold this view - your comments appreciated.

Since the bible is silent on this, my answer will be No.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No. We are born spiritually dead in trespasses and sin. Scripture says we are made spiritually alive when we are born again. We are regenerated/quickened by the Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Strange - you seem to want to make my statements into a disagreement when we agree...

Sadly you also seem to miss my point.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No, the Bible said Adam's offspring was in Adams image and likeness.

The bible also says men are in the image of God.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Since the bible is silent on this, my answer will be No.

A wise response...

Amazing how many want to present a strong theology with lack of biblical mention...

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Strange - you seem to want to make my statements into a disagreement when we agree...

Sadly you also seem to miss my point.

I may have misunderstood your point. I realy don't want us to disagree with each other. We are siblings in the Holy Spirit so we should touch and agree. . Now do you mind giving your point again?

 

[Carl Emerson]

I may have misunderstood your point. I realy don't want us to disagree with each other. We are siblings in the Holy Spirit so we should touch and agree. . Now do you mind giving your point again?

Hey, I like the way you described that...

Touch and agree...

I guess there is a time factor also - I have had folks come back to me six months after disagreeing and saying they finally 'got it'...

On the other hand if He gives correction I will openly indicate a shift of understanding for the sake of readers.

So we agree on much, and there is room to hold convictions lightly, being in mutual submission.

I particularly think that matters must be held lightly when the biblical support is scant and the matter is not at the heart of the Gospel.

Best to celebrate what we do agree on, but at the same time it is good to share reflections on the treasure which is His Word.

Going back to Genesis 9:.

God speaks to Noah after the flood.

1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every animal of the earth and on every bird of the sky; on everything that crawls on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea. They are handed over to you. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 I certainly will require your lifeblood; from every animal I will require it. And from every person, from every man as his brother I will require the life of a person.

6 Whoever sheds human blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made mankind.
7 As for you, be fruitful and multiply;

This is an interesting passage -

Blessing is given to Noah and his descendants.
Dominion is given to Noah and his descendants.
No longer are they to be only plant eaters.
But the meat they eat must not contain fresh blood (refer Acts 15)
Verse 5 seems to refer to His judgement on animals who take human life.
Then in 5b the reference is to humans taking human life.
The directive here is clear - take the life of the one who murders.

Why ???

This is not required with regard to the slaying of animals.

But humans must not kill humans - why ???

Because they are in the image of God (unlike the animals.)

That is what the text says.

So somehow the corruption from the curse of the fall results in a spiritual death yet the matter of humans being made in His image remains.

Personally I believe that the matter is better understood when looking at the basic difference between man and the animals.

Animals have a mortal soul - (mind, emotions and will) but not a spirit with the capacity to commune with God's Holy Spirit.

Somehow this is what being made in His image seems to mean.

All humans have a spirit which completes the created pattern from God.

The Logos - Christ came as a human.
The Spirit - immortality shared only with mankind. (not even angels)

It is interesting that looking at Job, Satan seems to want to prove to God that man is nothing more than an animal.

He wants to deny the special gift of immortality and direct communion with God that he does not have. This is fuelled by jealousy.

In fact the more Satan controls a life the more animal like they become - as if he is still trying to prove a point.

The point is that he thinks he has a right to being considered eternally special when this privilege was given to man.

Sorry for the long ramble (not usually my style).

We have both read a lot of scripture and there is always more to learn.

May we have the grace to hold our thoughts lightly and understand the division between soul and spirit that the Word brings.

This leads to the clear division between Gnosis and Epignosis which in Greek is a differentiation between what we receive by revelation (Epignosis) and what are facts without His breath.

Sincerely.

 

[Fervent]

The question of what Adam fell from is one that has plagued theology and is responsible for many divides.

I'm of the opinion that Adam was born innocent, rather than good. This would mean that he would not have been imbued with the Holy Spirit, but the option to receive would have been open to him depending on if he chose to obey God. The tree of knowledge of good and evil implies that Adam was naive to both, while the Holy Spirit would have given him knowledge of good. So I'd say Adam was not indwelled by the Holy Spirit before the fall.

 

[JAL]

So the New Covenant promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit to seal against disobedience didn't work for Adam and Eve ???

Jeremiah 32
40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts, so that they will not turn away from Me.

I agree with the Covenant Theology of the Protestant Reformation which doesn't differentiate OT and NT saints. All OT saints were under the same Promise/Covenant as Abraham (see Gal 3) - the Father-Son covenant per verse 3:16 - which included the promised Holy Spirit, who is Promised Land appropriated by faith by all OT and NT believers including Adam and Eve.

Throughout the OT, that one Promise/Covenant manifested itself in innumerably many promises/covenants (even includes promises that God speaks individually to you today). This includes Israel's Old Covenant and Israel's New Covenant, neither of which is made for we Gentiles although we do partake of many of Israel's New Covenant blessings in virtue of the overlaps (similar blessings) among the various covenants.

Back to the passage you cited from Jeremiah. Israel kept losing the land of Canaan due to disobedience. When her New Covenant is inaugurated in the eschaton (the next life), it will PERFECT the Israelites, hence no more backsliding, no more loss of land.

Even dispensationalists agree with me that Israel's New Covenant is made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Heb 8:8) and thus NOT with we Gentiles. Why then did Jesus refer to the "new covenant in my blood"? Consider this. If that statement was inaugural, why wait till Pentecost for the outpouring? Makes no sense. Recall that the one Promise/Covenant is the ground of innumerable promises/covenants (including the covenant of circumcision). Taking advantage of this fact, Christ's statement inaugurated the Eucharist as (yet another) new covenant AND as a clever way to notify His disciples that OT ceremonies were effectively obsolete. Here too, even dispensationalists agree with me.

 

[disciple Clint]

I don’t think this is the case because for me personally I feel that the Holy Spirit had been calling me to Christ for most of my life. I think many people may have experienced this where they were called several times over a long period of time.

I would suggest that you never truly rejected the Holy Spirit so he kept trying until you were ready.

 

[Guojing]

Even dispensationalists agree with me that Israel's New Covenant is made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Heb 8:8) and thus NOT with we Gentiles. Why then did Jesus refer to the "new covenant in my blood"?

There is a simple and direct answer to this question, which is found in Matthew 15:24.

In Jesus first coming, he was only speaking to the House of Israel, and not us gentiles.

So when Jesus stated that in the Last supper, it is consistent with what you stated "Israel's New Covenant is made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah", and not us gentiles.

 

[JAL]

There is a simple and direct answer to this question, which is found in Matthew 15:24.

In Jesus first coming, he was only speaking to the House of Israel, and not us gentiles.

So when Jesus stated that in the Last supper, it is consistent with what you stated "Israel's New Covenant is made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah", and not us gentiles.

I'm not sure of your point here, because I'm not even sure where you stand on these issues.

Again, Covenant Theology is the position that there is really nothing new since OT and NT saints are under the same Abrahamic Covenant per Gal 3. Do you agree or disagree? If you think there is something new, feel free to say what it is, and explain how it fits with Paul's claim in Gal 3 that we are all under the same old Abrahamic covenant.

 

[Guojing]

I'm not sure of your point here, because I'm not even sure where you stand on these issues.

Again, Covenant Theology is the position that there is really nothing new since OT and NT saints are under the same Abrahamic Covenant per Gal 3. Do you agree or disagree? If you think there is something new, feel free to say what it is, and explain how it fits with Paul's claim in Gal 3 that we are all under the same old Abrahamic covenant.

I was answering your specific question that I quoted in your post.

 

[JAL]

I was answering your specific question that I quoted in your post.

And, as I indicated, I didn't get the point you are making, how it answers my question, or the relevance to this discussion overall. But if you prefer to remain not-understood, fine with me.

 

[Guojing]

And, as I indicated, I didn't get the point you are making, how it answers my question, or the relevance to this discussion overall. But if you prefer to remain not-understood, fine with me.

Wasn't this what you were asking?

1. Israel's New Covenant is made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Heb 8:8) and thus NOT with we Gentiles.
2. Why then did Jesus refer to the "new covenant in my blood"?

My answer is that Jesus was only talking to the House of Israel when he stated "this is the new covenant in my blood"

Which part of my point do you not understand?

 

[JAL]

Wasn't this what you were asking?

1. Israel's New Covenant is made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Heb 8:8) and thus NOT with we Gentiles.
2. Why then did Jesus refer to the "new covenant in my blood"?

My answer is that Jesus was only talking to the House of Israel when he stated "this is the new covenant in my blood"

Which part of my point do you not understand?

Again, you haven't extrapolated your claim and thus it's hard to see where it fits among the various possible positions such as Covenant Theology, Dispesnationalism, etc. For example, if Christ's words were for Israel as you say (not for the church), does that mean He implemented the Eucharist for Israel, and NOT for we Gentiles? And, did a New Covenant begin at that moment for Israel? If not, when did it begin?

Again, I don't see anything particularly clear in your response.

 

[Guojing]

Again, you haven't extrapolated your claim and thus it's hard to see where it fits among the various possible positions such as Covenant Theology, Dispesnationalism, etc. For example, if Christ's words were for Israel as you say (not for the church), does that mean He implemented the Eucharist for Israel, and NOT for we Gentiles? And, did a New Covenant begin at that moment for Israel? If not, when did it begin?

Again, I don't see anything particularly clear in your response.

Since you mention dispensationalists, I presume you are aware of their framework for scripture interpretation?

To answer your specific questions

1. Gentiles like us are saved under the gospel given to Paul by the ascended Christ. So our doctrine is to be taken from Romans to Philemon. Of course, that does not mean we cannot learn from other parts of the Bible.
2. The New Covenant was offered to Israel by Peter and the other 11 during early Acts. But by Acts 7, Israel leaders chose to stone Stephen instead, so the New covenant could not begin for them. Currently the nation of Israel has fallen, but good news for us gentiles is that, thru that fall, we gentiles are now offered salvation without Israel (Romans 11:11), thru being in the Body of Christ.

 

[disciple Clint]

So the New Covenant promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit to seal against disobedience didn't work for Adam and Eve ???

Jeremiah 32
40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts, so that they will not turn away from Me.

Are they working today? Do people who are filled with the Holy Spirit still sin?

 

[Carl Emerson]

All OT saints were under the same Promise/Covenant as Abraham (see Gal 3) - the Father-Son covenant per verse 3:16 - which included the promised Holy Spirit

Can you then explain why Jesus said...

John 14:
16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, so that He may be with you forever; 17 the Helper is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him; but you know Him because He remains with you and will be in you.

Jesus speaking to Jews.

The Holy Spirit was with them but not in them.

Post resurrection the indwelling presence was given.