Steps toward loss and restoration of Salvation

It may be worth investigating whether Adam has the Spirits indwelling or not. Note my position is to view that which scripture says. Whilst we may not understand what it means at least we seem to agree that is is God-breathed (no pun intended). There is little point in providing weight to your position by quoting what the early fathers thought (they weren't inerrant and although they may be expected to have a better insight we can't know where they erred and where they were accurate) Neither do what the 'vast majority of Christians think" add weight - for want of knowing who is or isn't a Christian. If they are not - then their view doesn't matter. If they are they may be wrong. The Sun is the best selling newspaper in England. It doesn't make it a good newspaper.For me the basis for our understanding must be internally shown from Scripture. But I don't know if that is sufficient for you. I don't hold that it is necessary that Adam went to hell in the end. It is irrelevant. My stance would be that when he fell, death came in. Death means a spiritual death, which means a break in the perfect relationship that existed between Adam and Eve and God prior to their sin. It also means physical death. What happened to Adam subsequently is not important. He became the first of many, separated from God by sin (spiritual death), going to die and like every other man, enter judgment. He, post-fall, is as much in need of salvation as anyone else. Whether he was ultimately saved in Christ or not we do not know (unless there is a case to be made for that - but like I say it is irrelevant).My premise is not rendered flawed by the existance of another premise. It remains to be seen which premise, if either, is correct Whatever Adam had with respect to the Spirit pre-fall, it is not like indwelling for those who are saved. What can we say about Adam:- a person who had no sin?
- a person who had no sinful nature?
- was not going to die physically?
- had an unsullied relationship with God?These are some differences between the person who has the indwelling of the spirit after begin reborn:- they still have sin operating in their flesh
- they are going to die physically
- their relationship with God is not perfect. They need disciplineComparing Adam pre-fall and man post-rebirth is comparing apples and pears. Spirit in one cannot be compared like for like. That Adam could lose what he had does not imply a person reborn could lose what they have. I don't see how that follows. There are any number of differences between Christ and Adam which would show us that "second Adam" can't be taken to mean that they shared anything but what they can be shown to share. Spirit in Christ is no more Spirit in unfallen Adam than it is Spirit in born again man than it is Spirit operating on unregenerate man to convict him of sin than it is Spirit operating on Balaam causing him to prophesy. One Spirit, many different motivations and ways of operating.Christ being the head and imputing righteousness to all in him would be sufficient to earn him the title "second Adam" - who imputed unrighteousness to everyone in him. There is no need to draw comparisons which cannot be scripturally shown to be the case. Again I think the parallel would need to be examined in the light that similarity does not mean same. There are, as I pointed out above enough disimilarities between Spirit 'in' sinless Adam and Spirit in sinful man to prevent us automatically taking as gospel that the reason and action for/of the Spirit in each to be equivilent.Thus Adams loss of position does not equate to a person born again being able to lose their position.By Adam the blank slate I mean that he had no sinful nature pre-fall. He had nothing working within him encouraging him to sin like we do. We sin because we are sinners. Adam wasn't in that position. He had a plain, unadulterated choice: obey God/disobey God. His choice.

Having read some of your links I'm not sure that the word 'exactly' can be easily applied. I agree that God breathed something of himself into man which made him in his image and likeness but the biblical material available is too limited to tell us precisely what was involved. I would agree that it was Gods Spirit that entered man. But how that took effect on man I do not know. The word 'indwelling' of the Spirit has it's in/outworkings fairly clearly described in the context of a person who has been justified by fait. But what that has to do with "indwelling" of the Spirit as it pertained to Adam I don't know. The use of the word indwelling is to my mind inappropriate as it is not described as having the characteristics and purposes associated with NT indwelling. The person who receives the indwelling in the latter case is a completely different case from Adam. Their starting from 2 different vantage points: 1 is fallen the other at the time of receipt, wasn't.This message has been edited by iano, 20-Dec-2005 11:15 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 20-Dec-2005 04:57 PM

Sorry, yes of course it was the Holy Spirit I don't know. There doesn't appear to be anything written about Adam being justified by faith in God as far as I can tell. And in order to have faith in a saviour I suppose one would need to recognise their need of a savior. I don't see where Adam expressed this need in word or deed. It is not just what is applied but what it is applied to which forms the whole, I hold. A spanner applied to a crankshaft will turn the crankshaft. A spanner applied to a bolt with loosen a bolt. Same tool, same rotary action - different result. Sinless Adam/sinful man. The imparting of the Holy Spirit can't be shown to have equivilent purpose or result. I would see the Holy Spirit operating in parallel ways in Old and New Testaments. But this discussion revolves around Holy Spirit at he pertained to a unique man, Adam and the rest of us. The discussion is a preliminary basis for a discussion on a person (like me for instance) losing the Holy Spirit/salvation (or so I gathered. The area of interest is drawing parallels between the Spirits indwelling in me (who holds that this cannot be lost) with the 'indwelling' in Adam - who presumably lost the Holy Spirit. I argue that there are no parallels to be drawn between the two indwellings. No. I was saying that the Spirit as it pertained to Adam was given to a man who knew no sin. The Spirit indwelling in me was given to a man who did know sin (in the pre-born again state) and who does know sin (in so far as it is applicable in the post born-again state). In other words the Spirit as I have it is not the same as the way Adam had it. If the way I have it is described as indwelling and that is different to that which Adam had then Adam, whatever way he had the spirit, didn't have it as indwelling in the same way I have. Adam losing (assuming you hold that he did) cannot thus be used to suppose that I could lose. They are different things: crankshaft/boltThis message has been edited by iano, 21-Dec-2005 07:00 PM

Amen. I agree. Trintity is inferred. The doctrine of sanctification is largely inferred etc. I just don't infer that Adam was justified The scriptures specifically state that if a person is justified they shall be saved from wrath. This doesn't mean people won't discuss long and hard about salvation by works/obedience. The law ends its central role when it has been used effectively to convict a person of sin either before they die (justification) or after they die (damnation). It is meant to show the person their need of salvation. The law by itself reveals nothing. It is a tool. It would be incorrect though understandable to say that the purpose of a spanner was to disassemble an engine (overall goal). It is more accurate however to say the purpose of a spanner is to apply torque to a bolt or nut. The law is a tool only. It has no life of its own. The purpose of it is only those things to which it can be applied. It would be better stated that the purpose of God is to use the law as a tool to reveal Christ.That is how I infer the purpose of law. I don't think your view is wrong but just that mine is more precise. Us engineers have a thing about that. The mechanics of things. (That's one thing I love about the Bible. It's so mechanical, so precise at times) I trust the above comments clarify how I infer what I do. Neither of us are miles of the mark I just hold like I said a different slant on 'sole purpose'. When it comes to Adam it may well be that he was justified by faith. It's just that I can see nothing at all to indicate that he was. Inferance does need at least something to infer with. What do you suppose that to be? I'm tempted to say works - just for the fun of it Although I think I know what you mean it is not salvation by faith. It is justification by faith. Just a nit pick. Going with that terminology there is no way to be saved other than to be justified by faith. What scripture is clear about is that Adam sinned. And unless he was justified he was damned. I infer this because if justification is required in order to be saved then lack of justification means a person will be damned. And we know that it wasn't justification that came to all men from Adam. It was sin. All men sin. Until they are justified on a road to damnation they must be. There is no other road to be on. Whether Adam was justified at some point doesn't really matter to anyone except him. A person who is justified doesn't interupt sin coming to all men through Adam. I wholeheartedly agree that the passage promises a saviour in our Lord Jesus Christ. I wouldn't be as quick to say redemption is from the serpent. It is not at all possible to infer this. There is nothing about Adams reaction to indicate how he took this news. All the passage gives Adam (and us) is a promise. We know that "Abraham believed God ('s promise) and it was etc, etc" There is nothing with which to infer Adam did the same herre. To hold that is to hold that because I promise someone something means that they believe me and expect it to happen.No information to make a inferance mean one cannot infer anything. It is possible that he was in this group. There is nothing to give us any level of probablility. We simply do not know. We cannot infer But like I said above, it matters not whether Adam was justified at some point. We are told sin came to all men through him - not justification. I fail to see what evidence "a type" offers to infer that Adam was one of those in the group who called on the name of the Lord. Adam was a type Indeed. Adam was given dominion and lost it. Christ is given dominion and won't ever. Death through Adam, life through Christ etc. As far as type goes it is the opposites that are drawn out. Two sides of a coin.Could you explain briefly why you think it makes any difference whether or not Adam was indeed justified There are three available to us to discuss - I thought it was the Spirit as it pertained to Adam vs the Spirit as it pertains to us. Sorry that I misunderstood. I understand now. "Christs indwelling of the Holy Spirit" means the spirit as it pertained to Christ and thus we're going to track along Spirit pertaining to Adam vs Spirit pertaining to Christ. I'm not sure where your headed with it but I'm sure I'll find out Reconfirming that I finally get you So as there isn't even the merest shadow of a doubt. Yes Adam had the Holy Spirit - as it pertained to him.Spirit 'indwelling' in Adam vs Spirit indwelling in ChristForwaaaaaaaardThis message has been edited by iano, 22-Dec-2005 01:55 PM

A reversal?. Not really. The issue under discussion (I thought) is whether or not there is a parallel between indwelling as it pertains to a Christian - the function of which is amply described in the NT - and the Spirit as it pertained to Adam. The use of the term 'have the Holy Spirit' is used for the sake of discussion. I don't imply a parallel between Adam and a Christian by the use of the expression. I think that God breathed his spirit into Adam and it this life of God which separates us from the animals. What exactly that means has yet to be establihed but I don't hold that the spirit as it pertained to Adam has the same function as it does in the Christian. It is. Although I thought you wanted to compare Adam and Jesus in terms of the spirit as it pertained to both Me too I agree. All men will face judgement for what they have done in this life. But judgement is not a place where salvation is discussed. Judgement there, as here, is simply the place where the verdict is declared. But that's another story... You say physical death came to Adam. But physical death doesn't just mean the body stops working. Something else happens too. The spirit is separated from the body on physical death. An more accurate meaning of biblical death is separation between two things. A person can be separated from the the grip of the law by becoming dead to the law, a person can become separated from his wife by dying. A person can also become dead to sin. Death means separation.We know death came to all men through Adam. The question is what kinds of death. We agree on physical death. But is that all?Matthew 8:2 "But Jesus said to him, "Follow me and allow the dead to bury their own dead."So people can be dead in ways other than physically. What other part of a person can be dead besides their body? As far as I know man is only body and soul. So Jesus is referring to spiritually dead people burying physically dead peopleRom 6:2 "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"It is clear that Paul doesn't mean physically dead to sin. He goes on to tell us not to let sin reign in our mortal flesh. Mortal flesh clearly isn't separated from sin in this circumstance. It can only be the spirit that died to sin. And only a spirit that is alive to sin can die to sin.Romans 6:11 "Even so consider yourselves to be dead (separated) to sin, but alive (united) to God in Christ Jesus."As Romans 6:2 shows, the above isn't making a physical comparison but a spiritual one. (spiritual) Death to sin allied with (spiritual) life to God. If death is separation from something, then the opposite is true - life means being united to something. In this verse dead to sin cohabits with alive to God. The opposite could also be stated. "Consider yourself alive (united) to sin and dead (separated) to God in Adam.Death came through one man (Adam). The context in which we are told this in Romans has repeatedly to do with spiritual death and life. There is little reason to think Paul is making an isolated reference to physical only.This message has been edited by iano, 04-Jan-2006 08:47 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 04-Jan-2006 08:50 PM

The reason I disagreed with you was your choice of terminology. Indwelling is a term which is applied to believers. The actions of the Spirit associated with indwelling are well described. The term indwelling cannot be used of Adam because his is a different case. He was not a sinner when he recieved the Spirit. Nor was the Spirits action prior to his sin the same as in a sinner, for example.The Spirit can act within a person who is not saved to - in order to convict them of their sin. This is not indwelling, yet it is the same Spirit working. What effect or purpose the Spirit had in relation to Adam is not the same as the effect or purpose of the Spirit on a believer by indwelling. That is what I object to then and now. Unless of course, equivilency between what Adam had and what I, for instance, have, is shown. I have already agreed. You can call it what you like, have, indwelling, in him - whatever - so long as you don't assume the above Adam/believer equivilency at some point. This has not yet been established. For instance, if you show that Adam lost the spirits indwelling as a result of his sin, this in no way infers a believer can lose the spirits indwelling. This on the basis that you are comparing apples and pears. I don't know if this is your tack - I just give it as an exampleAgreed?Oops...a meeting to go to. Will come backI'll print off your piece and have a think about it Mr X. My first impression however is that it is necessarily speculative given the lack of information available as to the precise workings of the Spirit in Adam. This will, I think, cause a problem should we ever come to the holy spirit in the believer and any possibility of a believer losing the holy spirit - if that is indeed our end goal in this discussion. A couple of speculative thoughts of my own for nowFirstly I don't see any need for the 'leading' by the holy spirit prior to A&E's sinning. Adam and Eve had no sinful nature for a start and failing the single commandment that God gave there was nothing they could do that was wrong. They couldn't lie, cheat, steal or do anything to offend God. They were allowed anything (bar one thing) in the Garden after all - which might help to support that view.Although sin was in the world there was nothing available to it which would allow it to express itself in man. If sin could be considered a force, then it is need of a lever, in the form of the Law, in order to achieve anything (Romans tells us how sin uses the law in this fashion) Without a means of application, force is useless. And there was only one law. "Don't eat that fruit". That was the only lever available to sin. This is the second reason why I think the there was no need for the spirits leading in a general, everyday sense.So. Bar for one way, Adam and Eve could not sin. IOW, every choice they made was the right one. You don't need to lead someone if any direction they take is the right one. They could make their own choices, name the animals any way they wanted to, for example - and it would be all fine with God.The single commandment as well as providing sin with a means to express itself has a function which is even more important. It provides one central and necessary element. The opportunity for free choice. Free choice is an illusion if it is made within the confines of all choices being the right ones. In order to have true choice A&E needed to be able to chose for God as well as against God. This was a primary purpose of God. His creation although completed then in scene setting terms, isn't truly complete until man makes the choice to love God of his own free will. God giving man true free will: Good/Evil Eat/Don't eat For God/Against God is an essential step towards that yet-to-be-completed goal.The only leading necessary for Adam and Eve was to provide a balanced choice. The spirits drawing in one area and one only: to provide a perfectly balanced counter for the temptation of the serpent. The spirit pulling one way, the serpent pulling the other. A choice to be made. If there was any propensity in A&E to chose one way or the other from anything but own will, then God has stacked the deck.I've used the illustration of a cone balanced on it's tip on a knife edge. Both the spirits pull and the serpents pull has Adam and Eve balanced perfectly on the knife edge. It is their own internal shifting which caused them, the cone, to tip in the direction that it did.That is the extent of the spirit leading in Adam and Eve, I thinkThis message has been edited by iano, 05-Jan-2006 03:34 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 05-Jan-2006 03:42 PM

How could I forget?!! *sigh* It seems that both of us are waiting to get started. I can't see why we don't. I am quite willing (and have been for a while now) for the term indwelling to be used - I have just warned that use of the phrase doesn't imply equivilency between anyone. The purpose of the discussion is to discuss possible equivilency - not presume it. If it is equivilency between Adam/Jesus that you want to discuss then lets. Presuming you do, I'll deal with Spirit in Adam/Jesus and equivilency between them inyour post(s).ADAM VS CHRIST Firstly the spirit was breathed into Adam. It alighted on Christ. The mechanisms seem different. Besides,if these instances are to be taken as receiving the spirit as indwelling, what do we do about Jesus prior to this. He never sinned. He was aware who his father was. He seemed to have understanding of scripture at the age of twelve sufficient to astound people. How did he accomplish this without being led by the spirit all his life? Was he led by the spirit all his life.Are we right in drawing a parallel between God breathing his spirit into Adam - which is the point at which we both seem to think Adam became spiritually alive and the dove alighting on Jesus - who already had spiritual life?SPIRIT LEADING ADAM (summary at end in case this is too long) My quote above isn't adequate on it's own. Sorry. As I stated later in that post "The only leading necessary for Adam and Eve.... The spirits drawing in one area and one only". Generally God dealt with Adam and Eve directly: talking to them, walking with them in the cool of the garden. The relationship was directly personal with the Father. So spiritual leading by the spirit was unnecessary.The only leading I can see which would be necessary by agency of the spirit is the scene of the fall. They could hardly be expected to make a free choice if the Father was standing right next beside them. The Father wasn't personally present. He didn't desert them but was by his spirit there with a force adequate to counter balance the temptation of the serpent. Why do you think this? I imagine they would have been unable. They had no sinful nature which would be working away in them "to invent ways of sinning". There is no temptation mentioned to let us suppose that sinning crossed their minds. We are told they were allowed everything except one thing. Can that not suffice? I did. And am providing some alternative views.In which way does sin get access to a sinless man if not by temptation to break the law? Is there any mechanism by which it can seek entry into sinless man other than by temptation to break the law? I know of none. You state that you think Adam and Eve sinned which is why God left them prior to the apple. But in speculating so (as I do with my alternative reason for leaving them above) you don't provide any rational for how sin gained access to them. We don't know anything about them being able to choose not to obey the spirit "at any time". The one time when we know they could chose wasn't any old time, it was a time when temptation was present. I would suggest that far from being free-willed individuals prior to the temptation, they were cosseted and protected until the time which God knew of in advance when he would allow them to make a true choice. Until such time as they could chose in ultimate terms: for God/against God, they weren't truly free-willed individuals....thus in a manner of speaking, ...I AM.(Although I would rearrange your words to say "no absolute free-will until...") Nobody does any bad unless they sin. And we do not know by what means Adam and Eve could sin prior to the scene of the fall. I suggest again that this occasion is when Adam and Eve truly became free willed individuals - once they exercised it. And they immediately lost free will and became slaves to sin. If you limit a persons choices so that no bad is possible then they can only do good. They were people alright but just not given the opportunity to be absolutely free-willed prior to the fall scence. As it happens the words "good" and "saved" have meaning because of the existance of their opposites: bad and damned. Prior to the fall there was no 'bad' for Adam and Eve to know what 'good' was. What was was just what was. They would have enjoyed it but would not know there was anything else. There was no 'saved' for them because there was nothing to save them from. The holy spirit is a seal and agent of salvation for those who are in need of salvation - not those who are not.Perfect communion with the father: speaking, walking, enjoyingNo bad or evil aroundNo choice to make which could offend the father...what need is there of the spirits leading them prior to the fall scene? No saved or damned because such concepts were unnecessary to be considered prior to the fall (for humans). Had they not sinned they wouldn't have died. They would have lived for ever. Saved from nothing, damned for nothing. How could they do wrong? Wrong is sin. How could they sin before there was a means to sin? The first occasion where it was possible to sin meant the introduction of the possibility of right (obeying God) and wrong (disobeying God). At which point they would have had the spirit working - through conscience I suppose - to supply a "you ought not to eat" as a counter to temptation. Any more would be interfering with free will God had intended to give them.I don't see them as automatons before that. They were exercising choices but in an environment where none were wrong - although some better than others. Consider it a training ground for the day when they could exercise absolute free will.Adam named a tiger an "elephant" - showing that although no choice was wrong - some are better than others SUMMARYAdam in Eve in perfect communion with the Father. Perfect communion implies no leading necessary. You don't need to be led if you already know because that is how perfect the relationship is.The Father intending that humans be given the opportunity to chose for against him. Love only love if freely given. Adam and Eve not absolutely free-willed individuals prior to the fall scene.The time prior to the fall was a time when no sin was possible. Sin had no entry into sinless man except through temptation and submitting to temptation. Adam and Eve permitted all simply because there was nothing to cause them to do wrong. There was nothing to tempt them. Forbidden to eat of the tree doesn't imply they would be tempted to eat of the tree of themselves. They had no sinful nature, we know nothing of satan working prior to the fall scene. It was just a command. There was no reason to be curious, enquiring etcI suggest a reason for God leaving them alone in the garden was in order to allow them a free choice. He, by his spirit remained in order to balance (perfectly) the serpents temptation. So finely so, as to result in the choice being perfectly Adam and Eves.There is one area we may suspect them being led by the spirit in the garden. Eve responded to the serpents temptation by saying "But God said" I suggest this was the spirit leading them with "ought not" This action arises at a time when sinless man comes face to face with the temptation to law break. The spirit came upon Jesus just as he was about to enter his ministry - and the first thing he did was enter the wilderness to undergo temptationA parallel perhaps?