I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."

Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.

__________________
Donald P. Grubb
theol46@embarqmail.com

Berean Baptist Church, Mansfield, OH
Mansfield, OH

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.
The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

I believe it is mentioned that he did in various extra-canonical books that the Jews had in Christ's time, but those are extra-canonical, so I don't know.

Hmm...This could be relevant:

And also...

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 05:45:20 EST-----

The extra-canonical books to which I was referring are included in the pseudepigrapha. A quick google search on "pseudepigrapha adam" yields a number of Jewish works that existed among the Jews in the Apostles' time. The Book of Adam is one that comes to mind, wherein Adam does repent.

None of that proves that Adam repented, since these books are non-canonical and many of them are quite ridiculous. What it does tell us is that it was probably common belief in Christ's time that Adam had repented.

__________________
Austin
EE student at Texas State University
Member of Church of the Cross (PCA) in San Marcos, TX
Ps. 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Adam better have.

__________________
Willie Grills
Trinity Presbyterian Church
OPC
Huntington, WV

Or by their mother, specifically to whom the covenant of grace was promised. (Gen. 3:15)

There is no mention of Adam repenting, but there is evidence of Eve believing the gospel promise. (Genesis 4:1, 25)

__________________
Ronda Rush
Church of the Redeemer
Independent Reformed
California


" . . .It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'" Matthew 4:4

Evidence of Adam's faith may be gleaned from his subsequent affirmation of God's promise in his naming his wife Eve, the mother of all living; for God had just before designated that from her would come Christ, the source of life and head of all the living.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Acknowledgement of physical lineage, is not necessarily the acknowledgment of spiritual lineage.

Adam is not listed in Hebrews Chapter 11; but the first born of A&E (Abel) is listed as a man of faith; as the first "seed" (faithful) produced by the woman who was given the gospel truth. He was not the Savior she hoped for in faith, but he was indeed the first of the Godly lineage who would produce the promised "Seed."

Nor are many other great saints of God who are spoken of in the Old Testament. This does not mean they were not men or women of faith. Why should we doubt that Adam and Eve's professions of the Lord's promise (Gen. 3:20, 4:1) expressed their faith in the true seed which the Lord had just mentioned, especially when the whole of the first several chapters of Genesis is so focused upon the promise of this seed?

Whence do you derive your confidence that he merely acknowledged physical lineage?

If you have acknowledged here that Eve had faith in the promise of the seed, would not she then be the first faithful, and not Abel?

I've always wondered about that.

__________________
Amber
South Woods Baptist Church http://southwoodsbc.org/
wife of Tyler; mother of Ashley, Nathaniel, Isaac, Jeremiah
O send out Your light and Your truth, let them lead me; let them bring me to Your holy hill and to Your dwelling places. Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy; and upon the lyre I shall praise You, O God, my God. Psalm 43:3

It is telling that Abel is the first mentioned. (Hebrews 11:4)

In that Godly lineage is delivered, as a rule, according to male lineage; omitting female participation, at all.

My point is Eve is named as the the mother of all physical mankind.

Is there reason to believe that Adam named Eve as the mother of only those who will know spiritual life?

Good point.

And if your point is to be taken, why are not both Adam and Eve named as the "first" faithful?

Are we just to assume both A&E were faithful ("elect"), or are we to assume that Eve produced the first faithful seed ("elect"), according to and manifesting God's promise of His Covenant of Grace (versus any kind of performance of faithful works), in the person of Abel?

Which is simply an assertion. It requires demonstration.

Yes, there is contextual reason. The naming of Eve, being a part of the curse/promise narrative, is intimately connected with the proceeding promise of the seed who was to come from her, who would reverse the curse and, by implication, bring in life. Adam has just been told that he will return to dust, and yet through the conquering seed yet live. There is a clear reason to separate the seed of the woman (which is to have true life), from the seed of the serpent (which shall not), which is established immediately prior to the naming of Eve. The subsequent Genesis narratives (for instance, Lamech's naming of Noah, or the explanation of the promise to Abraham) demonstrate how the promise was understood. It is fitting that Adam's pronouncement be understood in this light.

[quote=Prufrock;700790]Eve is not the mother of all humanity?

Well, I didn't say that. I simply stated that such is not the reason for her being named "Mother of all living." At least, it should not be seen as the chief reason. You asserted that she is so named because she is the physical mother of human kind. I think we should bow before a much greater and more sublime mystery which is contained in these words: that from Eve, or from the very woman who was deceived, shall come the promised seed, even as he came into the world very clearly and plainly by a woman who had known no man.

Dear friend,

What exact Scripture do you refer to, here?

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 10:05:15 EST-----

I am loathe to bow to mystery.

Eve was promised a faithful seed who would crush the head of the devil, which was the first gospel promise of grace from God.

There was nothing mentioned to Eve about the seed being produced by a virgin. Those revelations came later.

Eve simply believed that one of her male offspring would reverse the curse of sin. And she apparently taught her children of this promise, which one of the first sons (Abel) believed according to personal faith, and evidenced by his practice of right worship.

1.) That man still shall physically die is established by Gen. 3:19.
2.) That the promised seed as a collective head shall defeat death as his own is established by Gen. 3:15.
3.) I have already stated that I think it clear that, considered in the general thrust of the first chapters of Genesis, 3:20 shows Adam's appropriation and acceptance of this promise.
There seem to be many evidences of this. One is that we have a distinct division of two classes of people in Gen. 6 -- the sons of God and the daughters (sons) of men (see 1 John 3). It is worth noting that, when the ungodly line (the sons of men, or the seed of the serpent/devil) is delineated, it begins not with Adam, but with Cain; when the "sons of God" are listed, it begins not with Seth, but Adam.

Amen.
Nor have I ever so claimed. I did, however, point out the scriptural parallel between the two, evident to us know who can consider the harmonious whole of scripture. It might be worth pointing out, however, that several of our most honored Reformed exegetes do see Adam and Eve understanding the virgin birth from this first promise.
Again, Amen. Eve believed the promise. We have here all the elements of the glorious gospel of God -- the promised Christ who will reverse the curse and bring in the blessing of God; the belief of this promise; and the walking according to its rule, or teaching our house in the things of God.

I would dispute this on the basis of the teachings of Romans 5:12.

All humans are the sons of man; Adam; imputed with his sin.



Only those gifted with faith in the promised Son of God (the last "Adam") are listed as the faithful, beginning with Abel. (Hebrews 11:4)

My argument being, spiritual anti-thesis between the first Adam as federal head of all sinful mankind and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) as federal head of all the faithful elect of God, MUST be maintained.

This seems to have little bearing on the discussion; for, at least, in one sense (and arguably the pre-eminent sense) it is most plain that the world is divided into the Sons of God and the Sons of Men/serpent/devil (see, for example, Gen. 6:2 and 1 John 3:10 which plainly expounds upon Gen. 3 and 4).


I don't see why anyone would dispute this. But this doesn't mean, for the purpose of maintaining the antithesis, Adam must be reprobate. In fact, most Reformed exegetes (who developed the idea of the two federal heads) understood the naming of Eve to be a token of Adam's faith.

Further, you have already granted that Eve believed the promise and taught her children in the way; I am not sure upon what evidence you base that, which concomitantly disallows Adam's belief of the promise.

I know, but I do not see any evidence of Adamic faith clearly taught in Scripture.

Plus, does not such interpretation make the promise of grace to Eve to be a reward of Adam's faith, somehow?

I reject that notion. Such would not be a covenant of grace, at all!

What evidence of Adamic faith is exhibited or evidenced prior to God freely bestowing His promise of grace to Eve?

Rather, God's promise of grace to Eve is founded strictly on God's predetermined will to reverse the evil effects of the devil's temptations and Adam's resultant sin, for His own glory in the Person of His Son.

Not in anyway! Such would not even make logical sense, for how can faith precede the promise upon which it rests? God promised grace through the Seed; Adam believed and rested upon the given promise. So to ask "what evidence of Adamic faith is exhibited prior to God freely bestowing his promise" is not a right question -- for there could certainly be no faith prior thereunto.

Indeed.


My sticking point, is that the promise was given specifically to Eve and to her seed; not to Adam's seed, per se.



There is no Scripture that says so, or gives Adam credit for exhibiting such faith.

Adam is only held accountable for bringing death and sin upon the human race. Romans 5:12

That's absolutely right! It was promised to the seed of the woman, not the seed of the man; for Christ is not the seed of Adam, but of Eve. But all who believe in Christ are members of his body, and are mystically that seed, being included in Him their head, for all who are baptized [believe] into Christ have put on Christ. There is nothing which in anyway prevents Adam from, spiritually, being considered a member of the seed of the woman.

This we have already been over; I think there is much evidence that Adam exhibited such faith.

But what more would you like Adam to be held accountable for? I have not made him accountable in anyway for bringing in the promise. No one will contest this statement you have offered.

Hmmmm. I am not all sure we know that. Heb. 11:4 attributes the superiority of Abel's offering to his faith, not the offering itself.

In any even, regardless of whether Adam repented, my hope is in the Second Adam.

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 11:31:45 EST-----

TT, I would add that the seed of the Woman was a spiritual, not physical lineage. Adam could have been of the seed of the Woman, though not descended from her. For that matter, Adam could be in Christ and not in Adam!

Either way, it is significant to me that God clothes both Adam and Eve at the end of chapter 3, in effect antoning for their sins with the blood on an innocent animal.

__________________
Rev. R. Kevin Carroll
Pastor Elect
Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Wheat Ridge, CO
Blog: Reformed and Loving It

Yes, and I was probably around 17 or 18 years of age when God in His goodness granted me repentance

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

It's hard to exhibit faith when you're offering the wrong stuff.

It was mentioned in Genesis that their offerings differed as to the substance, I think this was mentioned for a reason.

If Adam did have repentance and saving faith, would that make any difference toi the vital distinction between being "in Adam" or "in Christ"?
I'm not making a point, just asking, because I don't see clearly.
It rather makes the idea of being in Adam seem less calamitous!

__________________
JennyG
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Fife, Scotland

You are reading a lot into the text. Both Cain's and Abel's offerings have their counterparts in the Levitical system, so it is hard to say that Cain's offering was the "wrong stuff."

I think it is much better to look at it the way Genesis 4 does. Cain clearly had a heart problem that manifested itself in envy and anger, culminating in murder.

From a typological point of view, we might think that Abel's sacrifice was superior, but the NT doesn't focus on the typology, it focuses on the hearts.

-----Added 10/13/2009 at 10:46:22 EST-----

I'm not sure that it would, Jenny. Being "in Adam" or "in Christ" is a covenantal relationship. Adam could be "in Christ" in that he was redeemed.

"By faith Abel offered to God . . ."

An offering made apart from faith, is worthless. Faith is the context and teaching of Hebrews 11:4. Abel is the first listed as being a man of faith. God Himself testifies of Abel's "righteousness," which means Abel was indeed saved by faith in God's promises.

My "thank you" was in response to this statement.


???

Eve is the mother of all the human race; the spiritual Seed promised her was the Christ. The latter part of your statement does not compute with me . . . sorry.

God provided A&E with temporal atonement; however the blood of the animals did not accomplish remission of their sin. God made this provision in order to allow for A&E to produce all of humanity as decreed and commanded. (Genesis 1:28)

The sin of Adam did not, nor could not thwart the will and purposes of God.

Is the actual act of repenting spoken of for many of Biblical people? Did Peter repent after denying our Lord? Is there a record of Paul repenting? Did Solomon? Please do not hear what I am not saying, I am not saying repentance is optional.. What I am saying is recording the saints repentance seems to be optional.

__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI

"Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

[QUOTE=TeachingTulip;700973
Eve is the mother of all the human race; the spiritual Seed promised her was the Christ. The latter part of your statement does not compute with me . . . sorry. [/QUOTE]

The promise of Gen. 3:15 has more than one reference. I believe it points to all of the righteous, but ultimately points to Christ.

Hmmmm.......
Alright, then.

At any rate, when we repent, we turn away from the known sin, yet often must live out the consequences. From Adam's point of view the consequences were

It is true that Abel offered with faith.

But, this does not negate that there is a high probability that the manifestation of Cain's lack of faith included offering the wrong thing, especially since the example of Adam and Eve was that they first tried to cover their nakedness with leaves, and God covered them with dead flesh, and Genesis sees fit to mention the different substance of the sacrifices as well.

It is mentioned by Scripture, so it is of some importance - even if of a secondary importance or as an external manifestation of Cain's lack of internal faith.

A.W. Pink regarding this subject:

PART TWO: THE ADAMIC COVENANT

Ronda,

Unless I remember very incorrectly, the work from Pink which you have linked is on an unrelated topic: it pertains to the prefall covenant of works made with Adam as a federal head and has no bearing on post-fall faith in the promise. Unless, of course, there is a specific section from that chapter which you are attempting to highlight.

In direct answer to the OP, Pink held the view that Adam did not evidence repentance:

"Contrary to the prevailing idea, I believe that Adam was eternally lost. He is mentioned only once again in Genesis, where we read: “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness” (5:3). He is solemnly missing from the witnesses of faith in Hebrews 11! He is uniformly presented in the New Testament as the fountainhead of death, as Christ is of life (Rom. 5:12 19; 1 Cor. 15:22)."

A.W. Pink; Part Two Adamic Covenant


(The linked article gives Pink's thorough basis for this stated opinion and conclusion.)

Thanks for clarifying why you linked that! I used the search function to find the section you quoted. It is, at least, certainly worth noting that he admits right at the start that he is teaching "Contrary to the prevailing idea."

In the section in which I found the sentence you quoted, it is in fact the only statement he makes in the near proximity on the topic of Adam's repentance or lack thereof. I'm assuming there is more, since you mentioned his thorough basis; I would like to read it, if you would point me to where in the article I might find it. A phrase to do a search for would be great. Thanks!

Pink's argument is a whole piece; primarily having to do with the ordained federal headships of the two Adams under the two covenants; which IMO is deserving of an entire read for anyone truly interested in the truth of the matter.

Not a "high probability," but a possibility. All we can know for sure is what the text says. Since, as I pointed out, both types of sacrifices were acceptable under the Levitical system, you simply do not have a firm leg to stand on here.

Perhaps you are simply infinitely more astute than I am (which is a real possibility!) but I fail to see what bearing Adam's federal headship under the covenant of works could possibly have upon forgiveness he could have subsequently received in the Covenant of Grace. Nor do I know of anyone else who has made the connection; nor does that seem integral at all to what Pink is saying.

Either way, I will now respectfully withdraw from the thread, as I simply do not have the time to keep up on it.