Did Adam and Eve have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It really is an interesting facet of religions that have sacred texts, particularly when the followers interpret those texts literally–theology can hinge on a comma or word order.

Actually, you are right. It can make a big difference.

However, the author of Hebrews also concludes in Hebrews 4:4…

And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.’

These words deeply correspond to Jesus’ words on the cross too…
John 19:30:

When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

This also corresponds to 2 Thessalonians 2:13 too…

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

There’s also this in 2 Timothy 1:8-10 too…

So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

And here’s another in Titus 1:1-3…

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior…

There’s also this in 1 John 1:1…

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

And this in 1 John 2:7 too…

Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard.

And also this in 1 John 3:8 as well…

He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.

There’s also this in Ephesians 1:4-6 as well…

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

And there’s also this too…
1 Peter 1:20:

He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

So, on the whole, I think the NIV passage seems to be a better translation than the KJV-- in my opinion anyway. Christ’s work, knowing the end from the beginning, has been finished since the very beginning.

And, in this sense, one can actually say that both are true.

Should this verse be interpreted to mean that the Lamb was slain at the creation of the world?

Yes.

Does it mean that the book of life belonged (from the beginning of the world) to the Lamb that was slain?

Yes.

Both things are true without distorting the text.

In other words, this verse should be interpreted to mean that the Lamb was slain at the creation of the world-- and that the book of life belonged (from the beginning of the world) to the Lamb that was slain at the creation of the world.

It’s not an either/or proposition. Both are simultaneously true.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hi Mr Ex Nihilo,
I probably should not have used the word “impression” since that allows for more leeway with scripture than I like to see in arguments one way or the other.

Alright then.

I would still be interested in which verses from Scripture you use to prove that Adam and Eve did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them.

More importantly, I would also still be interested in which verses from scripture you use to prove that anyone could be considered ‘good’ without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them.

I’m kind of in agreement with you on this last one. But there’s an important distinction that needs to me made.

brkn1:

Throughout the Bible, it is true faith (belief, trust, and loyalty) towards God and His promises that saves the elect.

I would disagree by a technicality on this one.

Throughout the Bible, it is the motion of the Holy Spirit whereby true faith (belief, trust, and loyalty) towards God and His promises reveals the work of the Spirit that saves the elect. In other words, belief, trust, and loyalty toward God is a visible sign whereby we recognize that the Holy Spirit is already at work in them.

Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

brkn1:

Our obedience naturally follows with the accompanied “fruits” of God’s Spirit, obedience being one of the fruits.

I would say that our obedience naturally follows the motion of the Holy Spirit, with the accompanied “fruits” of God’s Spirit, obedience being one of the fruits being a visible sign whereby we recognize that the Holy Spirit is already at work in them.

If one claims that they are saved by their faith, then they are claiming to have done something to save themselves.

If one claims that they are saved by the Holy Spirit, and their faith is a visible sign whereby we recognize that the Holy Spirit is already at work in them, then they are not claiming to have done something to save themselves-- they are in fact doing nothing but being moved by the Spirit toward salvation.

Therefore, if someone believes in God, this a work of the Holy Spirit-- and not a work of human effort.

brkn1:

The actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit is what happens starting at Pentecost.

Then why does Luke 1:14-16 say this about John the Baptist?

He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God.

It sounds as if John the Baptist has an indwelling of the Holy Spirit prior to the day of pentecost.

brkn1:

Prior to the day of Pentecost, the disciples who were to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit were already in a saved state or condition as shown by the following scripture:

(John 17:14) “…because they are not of this world, even as I am not…”

(Luke 10:20) "Their names were “…written in heaven.” as you already pointed out.

(John 15:3) They were spiritually “clean”.

(John 15:4,5) Jesus already considered them abiding with Him as “branches” to the vine.

Can a Samaritan also be considered as abiding with Him as “branches” to the vine?

brkn1:

Something very different must have happened to the Christian disciples on the day of Pentecost, that never occurred before.

I think that something very special happened on the day of pentecost. Despite the heretical claims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I can assure you that the Lord has already returned ‘in spirit’ to set up his kingdom well before 1914.

This actually happened on the Day of Pentecost.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

brkn1:

It was the birth of the Church and just like physical birth, spiritual birth (born-again) appears to be a permanent condition. There does not seem to be any provision in scripture describing “un-adoption”.

Yes. The Scriptures most certainly do make this provision for un-adoption.

For example, using the analogy of ingrafted braches, John 15:5-7 says…

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you."

The Apostle Paul further elaborates on how this ‘adoption’ applies to the Israelites in Romans 9 as follows…

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.

Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!

Amen.

Consequently, using this adoption as sons analogy expressed as ingrafted branches, we see that Romans 11 certainly indicates that this adoption can be be revoked in detail here…

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches.

If you do, consider this: **You do not support the root, but the root supports you. **

You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.”

Granted.

But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith.

Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.

For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Hebrews 12:7-9 goes one step further…

Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons.

For what son is not disciplined by his father?

If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.

Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it.

How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!

So it is not true to say that people can be un-adopted. Furthermore, they can not only be un-adopted.

They can also spiritually die too.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I can see that as a positive when choosing between it and a gnostic view of material creation as evil. To my mind, however, it paints God negatively as narcissistic.

Why is God wanting people to love one another, allow people to live, tell the truth, and generally be good to one another considered narcissistic?

The reflection from creation is one of totally giving of oneself to help others (ie., God is self-less and is not self-ish). That’s what I see in his creation anyway.

 

[brkn1]

The Person of the Holy Spirit was at work in both the OT and the NT with very similar but not identical results regarding the bringing about of God’s will.

The prophecy of (Joel 2:28-32) describes the difference between how the Holy Spirit works in us now (NT) as compared to the OT.

John the Baptist’s being “filled with the Holy Spirit” has to do with his prophetic assignment by God. The OT work of the Holy Spirit was more of a matter of prophecy and the setting up for the times when the Spirit could become a present enjoyment of those who become indwelt and sealed by the Spirit. Joel seems to indicate that such indwelling did not exist prior to Pentecost.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The Person of the Holy Spirit was at work in both the OT and the NT with very similar but not identical results regarding the bringing about of God’s will.

The prophecy of (Joel 2:28-32) describes the difference between how the Holy Spirit works in us now (NT) as compared to the OT.

John the Baptist’s being “filled with the Holy Spirit” has to do with his prophetic assignment by God. The OT work of the Holy Spirit was more of a matter of prophecy and the setting up for the times when the Spirit could become a present enjoyment of those who become indwelt and sealed by the Spirit. Joel seems to indicate that such indwelling did not exist prior to Pentecost.

My contention is that the Holy Spirit was at work in Adam in a way similar to the Holy Spirit being at work in Christ-- both were created perfect without sin and, by default, moving by the Spirit.

The first man Adam became a living being. Adam, however, as a mere man, lost the the Spirit’s indwelling for humanity.

Jesus, as true God and true man, regained the Spirit’s indwelling for humanity-- the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

I am thinking Adam and Eve were created in God’s image.

They had fellowship with God.

Based on Genesis 6:3 God took his spirit away from mankind in general, so likely htey had the Holy Spirit.

 

[brkn1]

My contention is that the Holy Spirit was at work in Adam in a way similar to the Holy Spirit being at work in Christ-- both were created perfect without sin and, by default, moving by the Spirit.

The first man Adam became a living being. Adam, however, as a mere man, lost the the Spirit’s indwelling for humanity.

Jesus, as true God and true man, regained the Spirit’s indwelling for humanity-- the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

This way of putting it makes sense to me and you will get no argument from me here. Some of the applications might give us a bit of trouble, but I suspect that we are more in agreement over much of the basics than either of us realize.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I could go along with this if we were indeed translating from one language to another. Instead, we are all (presumably) speaking English (in this case, even more specifically, American English).

Yes. But look at the difference between modern English and the English of the middle ages for example. Even within the same language, the meaning of words can often change over the centuries.

For just a brief example, a hobo used to be considered a male prostitute. We don’t think of a hobo like this in our modern age. In contemporary English a hobo is often viewed as a homeless person wandering from town to town-- a very different meaning from the older definition for hobo.

Likewise, a shooting star used to be a celebrity with gun. We definitely don’t used this phrase in our modern say to designate this.

Take a look at what the word heterosexual used to mean. When it was first used it implied someone who was a sexual deviant. Now, however, a heterosexual person actually designates a person with a “normal” sexual desire-- which should tell us something about how our attitudes of sex have changed even since the 1800’s.

Once could look at the word “gay” too. Compare the old meaning of gay to the modern meaning of gay and I think you’ll get my point.

The meaning of words, for whatever reason, do indeed change over time. Likewise, when used within the context of certain culture, the words do indeed take on an entirely different meaning than how the surrounding cultures use them.

Even the ancient Israelites borrowed pagan names for God (such as 'El" for example) before they could assert their own distinctly Hebrew meaning of these names.

More often, over time, a word’s meaning tends to experience either pejoration or else amelioration.

Pejoration is the process by which a word’s meaning worsens or degenerates, coming to represent something less favorable than it originally did.

Amelioration is the process by which a word’s meaning improves or becomes elevated, coming to represent something more favorable than it originally referred to.

I think these words are important to acknowledge before on makes the claim that someone has to use the same defnitions that the surrounding cultures use.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

KarenNC:

If Christians want to use “omnipotence” when speaking English to mean something other than what the general English speaker understands it to mean, then they need to be clear that they are doing so.

Well, to be fair, I am doing that right now.

The word rosary, for example, was originally was Latin for “a rose garden”. This word has since been apprehended by Christianity and now designates a deeper sacramental gift from God whereby we place our supplications before the God. In other words, this word now designates when we pray along with the Virgin as she prays for us before Christ in heaven.

In regards to Christian concepts of omnipotence, I’ve specifically told you that the word omnipotence, within Christian circles, does not mean what you think it means.

You can check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church for further clarification too…

Paragraph 3. The Almighty

268 Of all the divine attributes, only God’s omnipotence is named in the Creed: to confess this power has great bearing on our lives. We believe that his might is universal, for God who created everything also rules everything and can do everything. God’s power is loving, for he is our Father, and mysterious, for only faith can discern it when it “is made perfect in weakness”.103

"He does whatever he pleases"104

269 The Holy Scriptures repeatedly confess the universal power of God. He is called the “Mighty One of Jacob”, the “LORD of hosts”, the “strong and mighty” one. If God is almighty “in heaven and on earth”, it is because he made them.105 Nothing is impossible with God, who disposes his works according to his will.106 He is the Lord of the universe, whose order he established and which remains wholly subject to him and at his disposal. He is master of history, governing hearts and events in keeping with his will: "It is always in your power to show great strength, and who can withstand the strength of your arm?107

"You are merciful to all, for you can do all things"108

270 God is the Father Almighty, whose fatherhood and power shed light on one another: God reveals his fatherly omnipotence by the way he takes care of our needs; by the filial adoption that he gives us (“I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty”):109 finally by his infinite mercy, for he displays his power at its height by freely forgiving sins.

271 God’s almighty power is in no way arbitrary: "In God, power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical. Nothing therefore can be in God’s power which could not be in his just will or his wise intellect."110

The mystery of God’s apparent powerlessness

272 Faith in God the Father Almighty can be put to the test by the experience of evil and suffering. God can sometimes seem to be absent and incapable of stopping evil. But in the most mysterious way God the Father has revealed his almighty power in the voluntary humiliation and Resurrection of his Son, by which he conquered evil. Christ crucified is thus "the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."111 It is in Christ’s Resurrection and exaltation that the Father has shown forth **“the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe”.**112

273 Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power.113 The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that “nothing will be impossible with God”, and was able to magnify the Lord: "For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name."114

274 "Nothing is more apt to confirm our faith and hope than holding it fixed in our minds that nothing is impossible with God. Once our reason has grasped the idea of God’s almighty power, it will easily and without any hesitation admit everything that [the Creed] will afterwards propose for us to believe - even if they be great and marvelous things, far above the ordinary laws of nature."115

IN BRIEF

275 With Job, the just man, we confess: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2).

276 Faithful to the witness of Scripture, the Church often addresses her prayer to the “almighty and eternal God” (“omnipotens sempiterne Deus. …”), believing firmly that “nothing will be impossible with God” (Gen 18:14; Lk 1:37; Mt 19:26).

277 God shows forth his almighty power by converting us from our sins and restoring us to his friendship by grace. “God, you show your almighty power above all in your **mercy and forgiveness. . .” **(Roman Missal, 26th Sunday, Opening Prayer).

278 If we do not believe that God’s love is almighty, how can we believe that the Father could create us, the Son redeem us and the Holy Spirit sanctify us?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

More to the point, his inability to sin is God’s only weakness. However, once one understands God’s will, one will understand that this is not actually a weakness. In fact, God glories in this weakness, this inability to sin.

As the Scriptures say in 2 Corinthians 12:9

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.

That is why, as 2 Corinthians 12:10 notes, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

As Romans 8:26 notes, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

The reason why we do this is because, as 1 Corinthians 1:25 notes, the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

God’s weakness is that he cannot sin. He has no other weakness. And aside from sinning, there’s nothing that God cannot do.

Consequently, this weakness is also the source of God’s strength– the very same thing in which God delights.

The reason why God is all powerful is precisely because everything he does is good-- and there’s nothing good that God cannot do.

In fact, he can do everything good. God is absolutely perfect.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This way of putting it makes sense to me and you will get no argument from me here. Some of the applications might give us a bit of trouble, but I suspect that we are more in agreement over much of the basics than either of us realize.

That’s what I think too.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I could go along with this if we were indeed translating from one language to another. Instead, we are all (presumably) speaking English (in this case, even more specifically, American English). If Christians want to use “omnipotence” when speaking English to mean something other than what the general English speaker understands it to mean, then they need to be clear that they are doing so.

Coming back to this point, I will stress that we are. I’m being very clear about this-- and have been very clear about this from the beginning.

KarenNC:

The burden of definition rests on the group which chooses to use a non-standard definition when speaking with those outside the group.

So which one is it?

On the one hand, you’re saying that we need to be clear about what we mean from the beginning.

Then, when we point out that we’ve already explained what we mean when we say omnipotence, the discussion is then turned around to say that we need to adhere to other people’s definitions of omnipotence?

I’m sorry but that doesn’t make sense to me.

The Catholic faith has a very long tradition of deeply theological works regarding the Christian God’s defintiion of omnipotence. One could look toward Augustine for example. Aquinas is another. And between these two saints alone (Doctors), I would almost say that everything regarding God’s omnipotence has been clearly said by them-- in short, God can do anything that is logically possible for God to do, anything that is logically within his nature to do.

It wasn’t until around Søren Kierkegaard that the idea that God could do the logically impossible, having absolutely no limits whatsoever, came into vogue within loosely Christian circles. The Islmaic traditions had views similar to this view as well before the enlightenment period. So did some Asian concepts too, albeit within more polytheistic structures.

Catholicism, however, has consistenly rejected the thinking of the so-called Enlightenment which is typified by Kierkegaard (and, to a major extent, later on by Kant). Many other Christian denominations outside Catholicism have resisted this kind of contradictory thinking too.

So, to be fair, if you’re going to use a definition of omnipotence when trying to understand the Christian God, I think you would benefit greatly by listening to the definitions given by the Christians themselves before you superimpose some foreign concept of omnipotence onto the Christian God.

The world’s definition of omnipotence is not the same and the Christian’s definition of omnipotence. The two perspectives are polarized to the point they are simply not compatible.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

I am thinking Adam and Eve were created in God’s image.

They had fellowship with God.

Based on Genesis 6:3 God took his spirit away from mankind in general, so likely htey had the Holy Spirit.

Good point.

Do you think they had the indwelling of the Spirit or merely the motion of the Spirit?

My own thoughts is that after the fall of Adam and Eve, humanity no longer had the full indwelling of the Spirit. But this doesn’t mean that humanity could not be moved by the Spirit toward the salvation found in Christ-- or even have some kind of partial indwelling prior to this time.

The general point is that the work of the Holy Spirit was hindered by Adam’s orignal sin. I’m not saying that Adam blasphemed the Holy Spirit, because this would imply that Adam refused to repent of his sins-- since blaspheming the Holy Spirit means refusing to repent when the truth is fully grasped by the person and there is nothing stopping them from repenting except their own selfish desires not to repent.

Nonetheles, in one way of the other, I think that the full indwelling of the Spirit was restored in the fullness of time by Jesus the Savior. Even John the Baptist’s being filled with the Spirit was a work of Christ, a sign in itself that the fullness of time had come.

Christ Jesus is, in my opinion, the Lord of heaven and earth by which the restoration of the indwelling of the Spirit would return, something which Adam (a mere human being) had lost for humanity during “the fall”.