PDA

View Full Version : Would Adam have lived forever?


Roy1
07-23-2004, 06:00 AM
Here is a thought that I had today and would like run it by you all.

Do you believe that Adam would lived forever if he had not eaten the fruit of the tree?

If so would his children have lived forever?

If God was willing to let the ALL the descendants of Adam live forever before the fall. Why would He limit it after the fall to an elect few (I use few in proportion to those that are the none elect)?

It may sound strange but think on it and let me know what conclusion you come to.

Roy.

Joseph_Botwinick
07-23-2004, 07:17 AM
I don't know. Does the Bible say anything about this issue? If it does, go with that. If not, don't worry about it. It is mere speculation.

It does talk about the tree of life during the punishment of Adam and Eve and how God prevented them from eating the fruit of this tree, lest they live forever. But, somehow, I don't think this is what you are talking about?

Joseph Botwinick

Stratiotes
07-23-2004, 07:38 AM
Joseph and I rarely agree ;) but here's one place we do.

If God knew the whole story before hand then the question misses that point. He *knew* beforehand that neither Adam nor his descendants would live forever. And so, for that reason, I don't think scripture makes any effort to explain what might have been.

C4K
07-23-2004, 08:04 AM
Sorry, my friend. I was asked this question at my ordination and have to give the same answer today...I don't know. smile.gif

npetreley
07-23-2004, 10:18 AM
What about this? Would Jesus have lived forever?

Philippians 2:8
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

The way it's worded, it almost sounds like Jesus would not have had to die because He was sinless. But he was obedient to the point of accepting his undeserved death -- and not only that, but EVEN the humiliating death of the cross.

I know it can be interpreted differently than that, but that's how it "sounds" to me.

Pastor Larry
07-23-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Roy1:
Do you believe that Adam would lived forever if he had not eaten the fruit of the tree? Yes, since the Bible says that death came only by sin.

If so would his children have lived forever? Yes, if they had been conceived prior to the fall.

If God was willing to let the ALL the descendants of Adam live forever before the fall. Why would He limit it after the fall to an elect few (I use few in proportion to those that are the none elect)? Because life is based on righteousness. Had Adam passed the probationary test, all would have been willingly righteous. Since Adam failed, all are willingly sinful and deserving of death. God in his mercy and grace has decided to save some. For that, we can only bow in awe and worship.

Why did he do it? Because he wanted to magnify his own glory (Eph 1).
Why did he do it the way he did it? Who knows ...

Roy1
07-23-2004, 12:56 PM
Thanks Pastor Larry,

I thought some one would take a stand on the fact that if Adam had not sinned he would had lived forever, and his children as well.

The only thing I would disagree on is the fact that God only desired to save some after the fall.

But thanks for an otherwise interesting answer.

Roy.

graemlins/thumbs.gif

Stratiotes
07-23-2004, 01:23 PM
If it is an ordination question as C4K's was, I think my smart-mouth would come out with the story that Calvin told in the Institutes:

A man asked, "What was God doing before he created Adam and Eve?" the response: "Creating a hell for the overly curious." The point being Joseph's - that whatever God did not choose to reveal in his revelation to us, is apparently something he did not care for us to know and following the road of speculation too far oft leads to doctrines that have no basis in scripture and even grave error. - I think it falls somewhat into the prohibition against adding or taking away from the word. From a logical point of view one might argue as you did, Roy, that without sin there would be no death but the fact would remain that that is our "thought experiment" coming to that conclusion and not the same as something we know from specific scriptural evidence. It isn't necessarily wrong to speculate but our speculation cannot go so far as to create doctrine that is not there either. We can say for certain that the wages of sin is death but attempting to conjecture about what that would imply about a world without sin is purely conjecture....scripture would be entirely different anyhow since it presupposes no such world exists nor was such a world ever anticipated ;)

Pastor Larry
07-23-2004, 01:32 PM
From a logical point of view one might argue as you did, Roy, that without sin there would be no death but the fact would remain that that is our "thought experiment" coming to that conclusion and not the same as something we know from specific scriptural evidence.But Strat ... there is explicity biblical evidence that death does come form sin (Rom 5). It is not speculation to assert such. It is adherence to the word of God.

Roy, I didn't say he "desired to save some." I said "he decided to save some" and there is a difference. I didn't not even commnet on the mechanics of that decision.

JamesJ
07-23-2004, 01:34 PM
I have oftentimes wondered about why the text in Genesis 3:21 contains "...The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and live forever."

It is my belief that Adam would not have lived forever UNLESS he actually ate from the tree of life. But then, we'll never know (unless God reveals it to us later) so no need to be dogmatic about it. I believe that if Adam were created to be capable of living forever, what is the need for a "tree of life"?

Stratiotes
07-23-2004, 04:15 PM
Larry,

I understand your point - the problem is, if the world was without sin, the scriptures would be entirely different. They contain what they contain now because the world is not without sin. So, to say what would have been is to speculate.

Roy1
07-24-2004, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Roy, I didn't say he "desired to save some." I said "he decided to save some" and there is a difference. I didn't not even commnet on the mechanics of that decision. Pastor Larry sorry for the misquote. "desired to save some." Instead of "he decided to save some. I still disagree.

For those who the rest is just speculation confusion reigns!!!!!!

Death came because of sin. If not then Adam was going to die anyway, so when God warned him not to eat of the tree in Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It was not really needed. Unless we speculate that God was just talking about spiritual death.

But we believe that spiritual death was instantaneous, but God is referring to a process here, in dieing you will die.


JamesJ said,
It is my belief that Adam would not have lived forever UNLESS he actually ate from the tree of life. But then, we'll never know (unless God reveals it to us later) so no need to be dogmatic about it. I believe that if Adam were created to be capable of living forever, what is the need for a "tree of life"?

Remember this was a post fall statement. Can we speculate that Adam could have reversed the physical death process by eating of the tree of life, and live forever in sin, now that is a horrible picture.

What was the need of any tree??? Why place the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden??? We know that the trees were there, we know that Adam made a choice; we know the consequences, but the promise of blessing in trusting in God was genuine but Adam chose not to trust. Thus loosing all the blessings of being in the garden. God was not going to let Adam eat of the tree of life and live forever in his sinful sate on the earth.

Roy.

Stratiotes
07-24-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Roy1:

For those who the rest is just speculation confusion reigns!!!!!!
Which is exactly the point I was trying to make....speculation more often leads to confusion than to anything of any value. Speculation leads to further speculation ad infinitum.

Pastor Larry
07-24-2004, 11:32 AM
I understand your point - the problem is, if the world was without sin, the scriptures would be entirely different. They contain what they contain now because the world is not without sin. So, to say what would have been is to speculate.Yes, but it is not speculation to say that death is the result of sin. That is a clear statement of Scritpure. It is speculation to say what state Adam would have lived for ever in, or what age he would have appeared as. Those things are speculation. The fact that his death came becuase of his sin is not speculation in the least.

Pastor Larry sorry for the misquote. "desired to save some." Instead of "he decided to save some. I still disagree.You don't think God decided to save some???? How in the world did anyone get saved if God didn't decide to save people??

For those who the rest is just speculation confusion reigns!!!!!! The confusion comes when people hold speculation at the same level they do revealed truth, or when people hold revealed truth as mere speculation. We cannot do either. We must speak clearly where Scripture does and gently where it does not.

BobRyan
07-25-2004, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Roy1:
Here is a thought that I had today and would like run it by you all.

Do you believe that Adam would lived forever if he had not eaten the fruit of the tree?

If so would his children have lived forever?
Yes


If God was willing to let the ALL the descendants of Adam live forever before the fall. Why would He limit it after the fall to an elect few (I use few in proportion to those that are the none elect)?

Roy. Good point.

"God so Loved the WORLD that He gave..."

Not simply the arbitrarily select few of Matt 7 (vs the many of Matt 7).

In Christ,

Bob

Roy1
07-25-2004, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QUOTE]You don't think God decided to save some???? How in the world did anyone get saved if God didn't decide to save people??Now Pastor Larry,

Know better than that. You know that was not what I was saying. I will type this slowly so that you can hear and understand.

This is a Calvinism/ Arminian discussion. So when you mentioned “decided to save some,” you had in mind an elect few, is that correct?

I believe that God desired to save all that would come to Him. I do not believe He did an extra work of grace in the lives of a select few whilst letting everyone else go to Hell.

But to try and answer your question, No one would be saved except God decided to save them, but I believe that that decided & desired to save all that would come.

But let’s not get too far away from the original question.

Roy.

[Edited only to fix the formatting of the original quote]

[ July 26, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

Pastor Larry
07-26-2004, 09:13 AM
No, actually, Roy, I didn't know what you were saying. That is why I asked.

This is a Calvinism/ Arminian discussion. So when you mentioned “decided to save some,” you had in mind an elect few, is that correct? No, that is incorrect. On page 1, I said, I said "he decided to save some" and there is a difference. I didn't not even commnet on the mechanics of that decision. I was not commenting on that issue, but merely on the fact that God decided to save sinners.

I believe that God desired to save all that would come to Him. As do I, and most other Calvinists I know.

Roy1
07-26-2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

[QUOTE]Because life is based on righteousness. Had Adam passed the probationary test, all would have been willingly righteous. Since Adam failed, all are willingly sinful and deserving of death. God in his mercy and grace has decided to save some. For that, we can only bow in awe and worship.

Why did he do it? Because he wanted to magnify his own glory (Eph 1).
Why did he do it the way he did it? Who knows ..Lets not play with semantics,

You stated that God decided to save some.

I took it you meant the elect?

I said that God would save those that came to Him.

You agree, but it looks like we differ on the mechanics of that coming.

I take it that you believe that all that will come are the elect, those chosen to come, whilst others are not chosen?

Is that a fair assessment of where you stand?

If all that you were saying is that God decided to save sinners, then please accept my apologies, but it did not come across on that part of your post.

In Him

Roy.

npetreley
07-26-2004, 02:17 PM
If all that you were saying is that God decided to save sinnersWhat are the options? Saving the righteous would be kind of a waste of time, wouldn't it? ;)

[this is a joke. this is only a joke. we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread]

Pastor Larry
07-26-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Roy1:
You stated that God decided to save some.

I took it you meant the elect? I believe that, but that is not what I was saying in that post, and indeed posted a sentence of clarification about it.

I said that God would save those that came to Him. And I agree

I take it that you believe that all that will come are the elect, those chosen to come, whilst others are not chosen? The others are left to do what they want to do.

Is that a fair assessment of where you stand? Fair enough ...

If all that you were saying is that God decided to save sinners, then please accept my apologies, but it did not come across on that part of your post. That is all I was saying in that post. What you have said above is what I believe, but that is not what I was saying in my statement. I was mkaing a generic statement.