Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Adam's Trial Period in the Garden
Adam's Trial Period in the Garden
This doctrine of a trial period is derived from comparing Genesis 1-3 with Romans 5:12 and forward. If Christ doesn't remain in a perpetual state of trial (i.e., he is glorified), neither would Adam have: he would have been glorified had he obeyed through the probationary period. I think that's the simplest way of explaining it. It is clear that Adam broke Covenant with God and all fell in him. Moreover, we can see that the Tree of Life is a reward below:
Rev 2:7:
7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
Rev 22
2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations
14 Blessed are those who do His commandments,[g] that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
Both trees had a sacramental function. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) was a tree NOT to be eaten of. The nature of that sacrament was negative—as Adam obeyed God, he would gain "Godlike" understanding of good and evil. God, after all, knows evil himself NOT experimentally either, that is, knowledge by negation.
The Tree of Life (ToL) would have functioned in a manner similar to the other sacramental meals (Passover, Communion). By partaking with God, man would be confirmed or strengthened in his faith. I do not think that eating of the Tree of Life was a kind of "portal" to eternal life.
We do not know 1) how long the period of probation would have been, or 2) actually was. Nor 3) do we know whether Adam ever had his first taste of the ToL—I tend to think "never", because I think the fall happened soon. But even if this supposition is incorrect, and Adam did have at least one fellowship meal prior to the fall, that would simply show that a single meal was not finally "confirmatory".
I do think the notion of a trial period, hence probationary, is a necessary implication derived from two facts:
1) That Jesus obedience on our behalf is that period of his earthly life, that is, a specified period. His ongoing mediation is an application of obedience and sacrifice already wrought for us, not MORE obedience for us.
2) That we are not promised restoration to the Adamic condition, but to a superior condition in which another Fall is impossible. Therefore, Adam would also have awareness that his creation state, being mutable, was less perfect or desirable than an impeccably immutable one.
It is not impossible to conceive of an interminable status of "do this and live," and certainly our present, fallen condition makes the thought of that prospect somewhat wearisome—more so than if we were currently perfect actors. But all the same, it is vain to ignore the sheer goodness of God made evident in the potential elimination of an impediment to endless bliss, namely its mutable character. Even if by "practice" of holiness the likelihood of falling were reduced to statistical insignificance, the difference between "able to fall" and "not able to fall" is the difference between servanthood and sonship. It is not a thing one could ever work for within the bounds of creaturehood, either. It would have to be a matter of divine raise.
I would not hesitate (In other words, I would teach it as a truth) to call the man's first estate in the Garden "probationary", that is, temporary with the prospect of glory. I believe it adds immeasurably to our appreciation of the whole concept of the story of Redemption. While it compounds Adam's failure, it also compounds Christ's saving efficacy.
AMR
Adam's Trial Period in the Garden
God gave him but one command. Implied therein was the promise of eternal life and communion with God should he keep the command. We are not told how long he had to demonstrate his obedience, but it was soon afterwards that Adam disobeyed. Do this and live was the essence of the command. A covenant of works between God and the moral creature, Adam. As discussed below, the word probation aptly describes the situation Adam was in at the time.Thanks for responding, AMR.
Except for one minor detail. Adam sinned while in that supposedly uncorrupt or unfallen nature. And where do you get the idea that he was "in his probation".
This doctrine of a trial period is derived from comparing Genesis 1-3 with Romans 5:12 and forward. If Christ doesn't remain in a perpetual state of trial (i.e., he is glorified), neither would Adam have: he would have been glorified had he obeyed through the probationary period. I think that's the simplest way of explaining it. It is clear that Adam broke Covenant with God and all fell in him. Moreover, we can see that the Tree of Life is a reward below:
Rev 2:7:
7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
Rev 22
2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations
14 Blessed are those who do His commandments,[g] that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
Both trees had a sacramental function. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) was a tree NOT to be eaten of. The nature of that sacrament was negative—as Adam obeyed God, he would gain "Godlike" understanding of good and evil. God, after all, knows evil himself NOT experimentally either, that is, knowledge by negation.
The Tree of Life (ToL) would have functioned in a manner similar to the other sacramental meals (Passover, Communion). By partaking with God, man would be confirmed or strengthened in his faith. I do not think that eating of the Tree of Life was a kind of "portal" to eternal life.
We do not know 1) how long the period of probation would have been, or 2) actually was. Nor 3) do we know whether Adam ever had his first taste of the ToL—I tend to think "never", because I think the fall happened soon. But even if this supposition is incorrect, and Adam did have at least one fellowship meal prior to the fall, that would simply show that a single meal was not finally "confirmatory".
I do think the notion of a trial period, hence probationary, is a necessary implication derived from two facts:
1) That Jesus obedience on our behalf is that period of his earthly life, that is, a specified period. His ongoing mediation is an application of obedience and sacrifice already wrought for us, not MORE obedience for us.
2) That we are not promised restoration to the Adamic condition, but to a superior condition in which another Fall is impossible. Therefore, Adam would also have awareness that his creation state, being mutable, was less perfect or desirable than an impeccably immutable one.
It is not impossible to conceive of an interminable status of "do this and live," and certainly our present, fallen condition makes the thought of that prospect somewhat wearisome—more so than if we were currently perfect actors. But all the same, it is vain to ignore the sheer goodness of God made evident in the potential elimination of an impediment to endless bliss, namely its mutable character. Even if by "practice" of holiness the likelihood of falling were reduced to statistical insignificance, the difference between "able to fall" and "not able to fall" is the difference between servanthood and sonship. It is not a thing one could ever work for within the bounds of creaturehood, either. It would have to be a matter of divine raise.
I would not hesitate (In other words, I would teach it as a truth) to call the man's first estate in the Garden "probationary", that is, temporary with the prospect of glory. I believe it adds immeasurably to our appreciation of the whole concept of the story of Redemption. While it compounds Adam's failure, it also compounds Christ's saving efficacy.
Not quite following the grammar there. You do not agree that "in Adam" implies just being in a body of flesh? Nor do I. I suspect you meant to say, that you consider "in Adam" to mean only to refer to being in a body of flesh. If so, to disagree with that last bit is to do injustice to the parallels Paul draws between the First and the Second Adam in Romans 5:12-21, 1 Cor 15:48-49, Php. 3:21, and 1 John 3:22. Being "in Adam" is a moral and physical state of being. So is being "in Christ".
AMR
