Steps toward loss and restoration of Salvation

Please note, I'm not claiming it to be of strictly Jewish origin. I certainly am not of the opinion that Solomon penned it.However, even if the date of its composition were pushed to 100 C.E., it would still predate Saint Augustine by a couple of centuries -- and some church fathers before Saint Augustine apparently did quote the Wisdom of Solomon well before Saint Augustine came up with his own ideas of original sin as originally expressed by Saint Paul.

I am not going to argue that. It just is not very traditionally Jewish.. but definately has hellenistic influences , according to the source I saw....Many religions influenced each other .. and this concept seems to have come more from the Greeks than the Jews.

I agree with you on this.Interestingly, that was exactly what Saint Jerome thought when he first read it too -- he actually insisted on the Hellenistic character of the work, especially as regards the book's oratory. It's also interesting to note that this is probably the first recorded case of the application to a biblical book of the method of the history of literary genres. Here's more information if you're interested... Wisdom of SolomonThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 12-22-2005 10:18 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 12-22-2005 10:20 PM

I'll note that this is a sharp reversal of your formal position which lead to this very question. If I recall correctly, you seemed to be stressing Adam did not have the Holy Spirit at all.Just to make this clear, now you're saying he did?If so, is it ok to move on to exactly what happened as a result of Adam's sin?I believe that physical death came to Adam as a result of his sin.I'm willing to explain why if you wish me too. I don't think "judgment" necessarilly strictly implies "damnation" as the same word is also used in a favorable light for those who are "judged" favorably at the end.You beleive that spiritual death came to Adam -- implying damnation, correct? If so, could you point out the Scriptures which indicate this?For this part I suspect that both of us will be quoting the same Scriptural passages. However, on a closer inspection, I suspect that key words like "damnation" will be missing from your "proof texts" -- whereas key words like "death" will be found in the very same "proof texts" you quote in favor of my position.

That is where I was reading up on it. .. VERY nice site. I don't always agree with Peter Kirby's opnion, I find his presentation of both sides of the arguement, and his documentation and sources excellent. His other site (Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers) is equally well documented.

There is a slight descrepency about the view physical death came to adam because of his sin.If you look at the section of Genesis where Adam and Eve were driven out, it says

quote:

---

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

---

That implys he did not eat from the tree of life yet.

It could imply that, or it could imply that they were accustomed to eating from that tree as long as they were in God's good graces, but when they fell it became dangerous to eat from it as it would only confirm them in their evil sin nature forever.

Since we seem to be determined to talk about this I will admit that my own personal view was that Adam and Eve had not yet partaken in the tree of life. In this sense, the tree of life was going to be the potential element, something akin to some biological agent which would multiply their telomeres and prolong them into their eternal life after they had passed the test (so to speak).According to the University of Utah, telomeres have been compared with the plastic tips on shoelaces because they prevent chromosome ends from fraying and sticking to each other, which would scramble an organism's genetic information to cause cancer, other diseases or death.Yet, each time a cell divides, the telomeres get shorter. When they get too short, the cell no longer can divide and becomes inactive or "senescent" or dies. This process is associated with aging, cancer and a higher risk of death. So telomeres also have been compared with a bomb fuse.Using this analogy, it seems to me that the tree of life would've been the agent that somehow prevented the telomeres from fraying, staying the same length after division, effectively giving the consumer of the fruit of the tree access to perpetual life (or eternal life, as the Scriptures call it).My own view is that the Apocalypse of St. John the Divine actually alludes to this future perpetual life as follows: Technically speaking, I agree with Faith in some respects. In my own view, God withheld Adam and Eve from partaking from the tree of life due to their sinful state after their "fall from grace".Perhaps unlike Faith, I don't believe that God withheld the tree of life as a punishment at all. When someone points to this as a source of damnation, I persoanlly suspect they're missing the bigger picture.I believe that God withheld the tree of life as a way of protecting Adam and Eve until they were ready for the tree of life. The question of damnation, in this sense, shouldn't even be brought as far as I can tell. God did it so that Adamn and Eve would not become trapped in their "sins" forever. Physical death, in this sense, was a blessing in disguise -- and we should thank him that he allowed this to happen to us (because the alternative would be horrifying).That's my $0.02 Canadian anyway.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 12-24-2005 08:15 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

Yes. Really.At least that's how it appears to me.This was from our previous discussion: So here you're saying Adam is a blank slate, correct?However, within this thread we're in now you noted the following: So here you agree that God breathed something "into" Adam, correct?When we read further we read... As far as I can tell, it seems to me that you've eventually admitted that God breathed the Holy Spirit into Adam.So, before we go any further, do you agree that Adam had the Holy Spirit "in him" or not?
______________________________________________Edit: If we can agree that Adam had the Spirit's indwelling, then I'd like to move to the next step -- how did Adam lose the Spirit's indwelling -- or did he?I posted this in another thread directing it to Faith -- but I think it fairly well sums up some of my thoughts on Adam and Eve and fits very well within the framework of this discussion: If we can agree that Adam had the Spirit's indwelling, then please let me know your thoughts on my understanding of "the fall" quoted above. I suspect that there are many things they we do agree upon -- and some things we probably do not.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-05-2006 12:53 AM

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

Follow up... Where in the Christian Scriptures can you show me a passage which speaks in this manner -- one that cannot be similarly displayed in the Hebrew Scriptures? What are they and where are they?Can any of them not be correlated with believers within the Hebrew Scriptures? But neither was Christ a sinner when he received the Spirit.Remember our starting point: sinless Adam / sinless Christ... How so? But the Spirit can also act within a person who is saved too - the Spirit can also convict the saved of their sin as well. It seems to me to be the same effect within both. *sigh*Remember: Sinless Adam / Sinless Christ You're still getting ahead here.Looking ahead, I've seen no reason to conclude that Adam didn't have the Holy Spirit's indwelling. The mechanisms seem to be the same -- the Spirit went into Adam just as the Spirit went into Christ. The examples I've already displayed seem to show the Spirit doing the same actions in both -- both believers and unbelievers seem to be convicted of thier sin by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Spirit in both cases seem to be from God himself -- and producing similar gifts of the Spirit: prophecy for example is strong theme within both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (and the Christian Scriptures even seem to be enunciating quite strongly the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures were uttering by the power of the Holy Spirit).What else is there to note?If you're claiming that only Christians have the Spirit's indwelling, then at least provide the Scriptural passages which indicate this. BUT I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT EQUIVILENCY BETWEEN YOU AND ADAM.REMEMBER: SINLESS ADAM / SINLESS CHRIST. Fine.Since you seem to be determined to skip over and simply not discuss sinless Adam / sinless Christ, let's get into the discussion of sinless Adam /sinful believer.I see no reason to assume any difference based on what I've read and presented so far. There is, however, some kind of weird inversion happening here.In fact, oddly enough, Adam starts off perfect with the Spirit's indwelling -- and then clearly falls from grace.On the other hand, sinful man starts off imperfect and only later receive's the Spirit's indwelling -- and then it's assumed, oddly enough, that they can never fall from grace.Based on your assumptions, why is it that something which starts of "perfect with the Spirit's indwelling" is more capable of failing than something which starts off "imperfect and is initially without the Spirit's indwelling"?Scriptures please. It seems a fairly reasonable conclusion to me -- because there are plenty of passages which do warn the Christian believer to not fall away from the faith.I may not necessarilly agree with all these passage below. However, for example, let's get some feed-back on these passages here: Apostasy, Falling AwayHere's another link: Can a Christian Fall Away From Christ and Be Lost?And here's another one: SALVATION
Sound's like it's all apples to me. I don't exactly understand what you're saying here. For the record, I don't believe that you will ever loose the Holy Spirit iano. Of this we are most certainly in agreement.However, the rest of what you've said below assumes so many things. Exactly how literal are you reading this story?Doesn't the thought to sin proceed the action of sinning?Are you saying that Adam and Eve didn't even realize they were doing something wrong until after they ate from the tree? No. They weren't, for example, allowed to lie, steal or kill either. Did you even read what I said before? And you were accusing me of making Adam and Eve into automations? You seem to be suggesting that Adam and Eve had absolutely no free will except in response to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. No one does anything good except by the power of the Holy Spirit iano.*scratches head*How can you even suggest that Adam and Eve had the capacity to do good without the Holy Spirit guiding them -- and then turn around and give other people a hard time about any doctrine which suggests that man can do good without the Holy Spirit?Or, expressed differently, how can you suggest that Adam and Eve were created "saved" yet "without" the Holy Spirit and then turn around and say that no one is "saved without" the Holy Spirit?Furthermore, if you're trying to suggest that Adam and Eve were not created "saved", then that means that you think that God created them "damned" or "neutral" even through the Hebrew Scriptures say that everything was created "good".Or, you seem to be saying that Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong in the first place (since they had no Spirit to convict them of right from wrong in your view) -- so God effectively made two lumps of clay with no free-will, called them humans, and effectively predestined them to be slammed against the "tree of knowledge" so that he could turn around and blame them for not knowing right from wrong -- which is exactly the way he made them in the first place?wow...my head hurts.Edit: yuck!i'm going to politely step back from this discussion because I really don't understand what you're trying to say here...If you could clarify exactly what you mean, it would be much appreciated.God bless you iano.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-06-2006 12:29 AMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-07-2006 04:07 AMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-19-2006 02:05 AM

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?

Ok...let's get into this right proper.First of all, what exactly is there to think that there is not equivalency between the two examples?Second of all, since the Spirit seems to be doing the same thing both before and after Christ, it seems rather safe to assume that the same effects are being produced in both situations.But since you want to argue this point let's discuss a little bit from "your" angle here. Actually, I'd say it's Adam compared to Christ...or Adam contrasted to Christ...but not Adam vs. Christ. Actually, the Spirit was in Christ from his conception iano. In fact, Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit if I recall correctly. Furthermore, according to traditional Christian thought, Christ was around before his conception anyway -- because his "incarnation" is simply viewed as his temporal time-space placement within his mortal human form. Being true God and true man, you can't get much more "in" the Spirit than Jesus -- because, according to John 4:24, God is spirit.God is Spirit iano.Are you suggesting that the Spirit was not "in" Christ before his baptism? Or, stated differently, are you trying to suggest that Jesus was not God the Son in human flesh?