Covenant of Works

[Guy Swenson]

I'm a Fundamentalist, so the answer is simple; Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the highest Authority in Spiritual matters, and is used to resolve Spiritual disputes. It's not Solo Scriptura, which means there are no other Teachings we can profit from. Here at CCAM. You will have to allow Theology to have the Authority the Bible allows it to have. Similar to God's Dominion, the Bible says God gave Man a Dominion too; both have Authority, though they differ. Since the Bible is Good for Doctrine, we should expect Good Theology to exist; and be a lesser authority...

Carry on...

Thanks.

 

[Arial]

Conclusion #1: Preconditions and Probation

“Adam had to, over a probationary period of time, perform “works” of righteousness by meeting the conditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience before God would allow Adam to eat from the tree of life.”

Incorrectly stated when inserting the word "probationary" period. Also incorrect when stating it as works of righteousness and concerning being allowed to eat of the tree of life. With out sitting down to read volumes, I did a cursory internet search. I do understand the covenant of works, also known as the Edenic covenant, but I checked your sources to see if that is actually how it was phrased.

Gruedem:

The presence of the “tree of life...in the midst of the garden” (Gen. 2:9) also signified the promise of eternal life with God if Adam and Eve had met the conditions of a covenant relationship by obeying God completely until he decided that their time of testing was finished. After the fall, God removed Adam and Eve from the garden, partly so that they would not be able to take from the tree of life “and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. 3:22). (That was the closest I could come to what you stated, but an undisclosed time of testing imo does not mean a probationary period.) In any case, it is somewhat irrelevant to the case that is made for this covenant of works.

From Ligonier ministries which you later referenced:


To understand the covenant of works, we must consider Adam's state in the garden of Eden before the fall. God created Adam "good" and in the proper relationship with Him (Gen. 1:31). He was not as good as could be, however. By obeying the command to not eat the forbidden fruit (vv. 16-17), Adam could have reflected God's glory more fully, and would have merited eternal life for himself and his descendants. We know this to be the case because that is what Jesus did, and Jesus is the second Adam tasked with fulfilling the vocation of the first Adam (1 Cor. 15:45).

From the Westminster Confession of Faith (later referenced):

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,b wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity,c upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.d

b Gal. 3:12.
c Rom. 10:5, Rom. 5:12-20.
d Gen. 2:17; Gal. 3:10.

III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,e commonly called the Covenant of Grace: whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved;f and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.g

 

[Arial]

Conclusion #2 - Eternal Life Can be Earned: Adam, by fulfilling the Covenant of Works, could earn perfect righteousness which would create an obligation (or a “debt”) of God requiring Him to give Adam eternal life by him granting access to the tree of life.

He wouldn't be earning perfect righteousness, he would be doing perfect righteousness, meriting eternal life. And yes God of necessity, because He cannot lie, would give him and his posterity access to the tree of life.

But we cannot fully parse this in a way that completely aligns with who God is without taking into consideration the covenant of redemption that was with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, before creation. It could only go the way it did go.

 

[ReverendRV]

He wouldn't be earning perfect righteousness, he would be doing perfect righteousness, meriting eternal life. And yes God of necessity, because He cannot lie, would give him and his posterity access to the tree of life.

But we cannot fully parse this in a way that completely aligns with who God is without taking into consideration the covenant of redemption that was with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, before creation. It could only go the way it did go.

I read his # four conclusion on Provisionism 101, and it tied the Covenant of Works up nicely...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Incorrectly stated when inserting the word "probationary" period. Also incorrect when stating it as works of righteousness and concerning being allowed to eat of the tree of life. With out sitting down to read volumes, I did a cursory internet search. I do understand the covenant of works, also known as the Edenic covenant, but I checked your sources to see if that is actually how it was phrased.

Gruedem:

The presence of the “tree of life...in the midst of the garden” (Gen. 2:9) also signified the promise of eternal life with God if Adam and Eve had met the conditions of a covenant relationship by obeying God completely until he decided that their time of testing was finished. After the fall, God removed Adam and Eve from the garden, partly so that they would not be able to take from the tree of life “and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. 3:22). (That was the closest I could come to what you stated, but an undisclosed time of testing imo does not mean a probationary period.) In any case, it is somewhat irrelevant to the case that is made for this covenant of works.

From Ligonier ministries which you later referenced:


To understand the covenant of works, we must consider Adam's state in the garden of Eden before the fall. God created Adam "good" and in the proper relationship with Him (Gen. 1:31). He was not as good as could be, however. By obeying the command to not eat the forbidden fruit (vv. 16-17), Adam could have reflected God's glory more fully, and would have merited eternal life for himself and his descendants. We know this to be the case because that is what Jesus did, and Jesus is the second Adam tasked with fulfilling the vocation of the first Adam (1 Cor. 15:45).

From the Westminster Confession of Faith (later referenced):

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,b wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity,c upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.d

b Gal. 3:12.
c Rom. 10:5, Rom. 5:12-20.
d Gen. 2:17; Gal. 3:10.

III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,e commonly called the Covenant of Grace: whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved;f and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.g

Thank you for your questioning the use of “probation.” I believe it is accurate, if those I cite are actually credible apologists.

Here is an excerpt from my paper regarding the use of “probation” - or “time of testing“ per Grudem. I have to break it into several posts due to forum restrictions.

“This conclusion arises from several sources, but it is succinctly put in the Westminster Confessions, Larger Catechism, Question #20:

Question – WLC 20: What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?

Answer: The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion; and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him communion with himself; instituting the sabbath; entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

Source: retrieved on 9/16/23 from http://thewestminsterstandards.com/...-man-in-the-estate-in-which-he-was-created-2/

Note: Here the sequence is clear: Adam had to do the works of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience first (fulfilling the precondition of works as stated “upon condition …”) Then, and only then would he fulfill the Covenant of “Life” (one of the different names for the Covenant of Works) and then be granted access to the tree of life – the “pledge,” and having eaten its fruit, receive eternal life.

To further document the accuracy of the “Preconditions and Probation” conclusion requiring the preconditions of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience during a time of probation before Adam was given access to the tree of life, here are some quotations stating this conclusion from writers who are apologists for the Covenant of Works:

Dr. John V. Fesko is an Adjunct Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. He holds a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, a Master of Arts in Theology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX, and a B.A. from Georgia State University. In addition to teaching at RTS, Dr. Fesko is a published author and serves as Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and as the Academic Dean at Westminster Seminary California.

Fesko, writing in his book “Adam and the Covenant of Works” states:

“… Fourth, in the covenant of works God promised eternal life as the reward for perfect obedience…”

"When God formally administered the covenant, He placed Adam and Eve under a temporary probation. Once Adam and Eve fulfilled the mandate, were fruitful, multiplied, filled all the earth, and subdued it, they would have secured God’s promise of eternal life. It is, however, also possible that their probation could have had a shorter duration and, once passed, God would have allowed them to eat of the tree prior to the completion of the dominion mandate.”

“... When God, however, commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:16-17), the threatened curse of death implies that life was the reward for perfect obedience. When God says, ‘For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,’ Adam would have lived had he obeyed the command. At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life. To eat from the tree of knowledge was to choose death. To obey God’s command was to choose life.”

“While Adam lived in the garden, he enjoyed life and possessed righteousness by virtue of being an image bearer of God, but the life he had was mutable and his righteousness was unproven. If Adam was obedient to the command and passed the covenantal probation, he would have entered a confirmed state of eternal life and his righteousness would have been proven.”

From Fesko, J. V., Adam and the Covenant of Works (Divine Covenants Book 1) (p. 350, 421-2). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

NOTE: Fesko reiterates the Westminster Larger Catechism regarding eternal life being a reward of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience.

Further, observe that Fesko endorses the teaching of a probationary period of time where Adam had to live in perfect righteousness:

“… that their probation … once passed, God would have allowed them to eat of the tree …” and “At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life.”

NOTE: Fesko clearly states that access to the tree of life was restricted until Adam passed his probationary period of works by demonstrating those works of perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience to God.

Again, notice the restrictions and preconditions placed upon Adam before he would be allowed to eat from the tree of life and gain eternal life: “… God would have allowed them to eat …” the fruit of the tree of life ONLY after successfully perfectly passing the probation. “… At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life …”

So, Fesko is saying that according to the Covenant of Works, Adam had no permission from God to access the tree of life until his probation was successfully completed. Adam had to prove his righteousness through his “works” of perfect obedience before he was allowed by God to gain eternal life by eating from the tree of life.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Continued …

Next, we go to Dr. Wayne Grudem, who is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. He is a graduate of Harvard (BA), Westminster Seminary-Philadelphia (MDiv, DD), and the University of Cambridge (PhD). He has served as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (1999), as a member of the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible and was the General Editor for the ESV Study Bible (2008). He has written more than 20 books, including Systematic Theology, which has sold over 500,000 copies. From that book:

Christ’s Obedience for Us (Sometimes Called His “Active Obedience”). If Christ had only earned forgiveness of sins for us, then we would not merit heaven. Our guilt would have been removed, but we would simply be in the position of Adam and Eve before they had done anything good or bad and before they had passed a time of probation successfully. To be established in righteousness forever and to have their fellowship with God made sure forever, Adam and Eve had to obey God perfectly over a period of time. Then God would have looked on their faithful obedience with pleasure and delight, and they would have lived with him in fellowship forever. For this reason, Christ had to live a life of perfect obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had to obey the law for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of his perfect obedience would be counted for us. Sometimes this is called Christ’s “active obedience,” while his suffering and dying for our sins is called his “passive obedience.”

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 484, Copyright © 1994 by Wayne Grudem, Zondervan Publishing House.

NOTE: Grudem repeats these two foundational Covenant of Works teachings of preconditions that restricted Adam’s access to the tree of life – the required “obey God pefectly,” and a time of probation where perfect acts of righteousness were required before receiving eternal life (“… lived with him in fellowship forever…”)

The apologists I cited use the word “probation“ or “time of testing” - the same thing.

Does that answer your concern about the use of the word “probation” and preconditions?

 

[ReverendRV]

Thank you for your questioning the use of “probation.” I believe it is accurate, if those I cite are actually credible apologists.

Here is an excerpt from my paper regarding the use of “probation” - or “time of testing“ per Grudem. I have to break it into several posts due to forum restrictions.

“This conclusion arises from several sources, but it is succinctly put in the Westminster Confessions, Larger Catechism, Question #20:

Question – WLC 20: What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?

Answer: The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion; and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him communion with himself; instituting the sabbath; entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

Source: retrieved on 9/16/23 from http://thewestminsterstandards.com/...-man-in-the-estate-in-which-he-was-created-2/

Note: Here the sequence is clear: Adam had to do the works of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience first (fulfilling the precondition of works as stated “upon condition …”) Then, and only then would he fulfill the Covenant of “Life” (one of the different names for the Covenant of Works) and then be granted access to the tree of life – the “pledge,” and having eaten its fruit, receive eternal life.

To further document the accuracy of the “Preconditions and Probation” conclusion requiring the preconditions of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience during a time of probation before Adam was given access to the tree of life, here are some quotations stating this conclusion from writers who are apologists for the Covenant of Works:

Dr. John V. Fesko is an Adjunct Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. He holds a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, a Master of Arts in Theology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX, and a B.A. from Georgia State University. In addition to teaching at RTS, Dr. Fesko is a published author and serves as Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and as the Academic Dean at Westminster Seminary California.

Fesko, writing in his book “Adam and the Covenant of Works” states:

“… Fourth, in the covenant of works God promised eternal life as the reward for perfect obedience…”

"When God formally administered the covenant, He placed Adam and Eve under a temporary probation. Once Adam and Eve fulfilled the mandate, were fruitful, multiplied, filled all the earth, and subdued it, they would have secured God’s promise of eternal life. It is, however, also possible that their probation could have had a shorter duration and, once passed, God would have allowed them to eat of the tree prior to the completion of the dominion mandate.”

“... When God, however, commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:16-17), the threatened curse of death implies that life was the reward for perfect obedience. When God says, ‘For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,’ Adam would have lived had he obeyed the command. At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life. To eat from the tree of knowledge was to choose death. To obey God’s command was to choose life.”

“While Adam lived in the garden, he enjoyed life and possessed righteousness by virtue of being an image bearer of God, but the life he had was mutable and his righteousness was unproven. If Adam was obedient to the command and passed the covenantal probation, he would have entered a confirmed state of eternal life and his righteousness would have been proven.”

From Fesko, J. V., Adam and the Covenant of Works (Divine Covenants Book 1) (p. 350, 421-2). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

NOTE: Fesko reiterates the Westminster Larger Catechism regarding eternal life being a reward of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience.

Further, observe that Fesko endorses the teaching of a probationary period of time where Adam had to live in perfect righteousness:

“… that their probation … once passed, God would have allowed them to eat of the tree …” and “At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life.”

NOTE: Fesko clearly states that access to the tree of life was restricted until Adam passed his probationary period of works by demonstrating those works of perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience to God.

Again, notice the restrictions and preconditions placed upon Adam before he would be allowed to eat from the tree of life and gain eternal life: “… God would have allowed them to eat …” the fruit of the tree of life ONLY after successfully perfectly passing the probation. “… At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life …”

So, Fesko is saying that according to the Covenant of Works, Adam had no permission from God to access the tree of life until his probation was successfully completed. Adam had to prove his righteousness through his “works” of perfect obedience before he was allowed by God to gain eternal life by eating from the tree of life.

I would say Adam could have eaten from the Tree of Life immediately if he wanted. If it can be said God hindered Adam from eating from the Tree of Life, it would been due to God's Providence; not due to a revealed Command...

As I said, there will be a lot of opinions that can be valid. If your rebuttal to the Covenant of Works depends on the Theologians you quoted not being susceptible to amendments; your rebuttal may falter...

I would really like to hear from @His clay ...

 

[Guy Swenson]

I would say Adam could have eaten from the Tree of Life immediately if he wanted. If it can be said God hindered Adam from eating from the Tree of Life, it would been due to God's Providence; not due to a Command...

As I said, there will be a lot of opinions that can be valid. If your rebuttal to the Covenant of Works depends on the Theologians you quoted not being susceptible to amendments; your rebuttal may falter...

Thank you. You make a good point … which I bring out elsewhere regarding Adam having immediate, unfettered and unconditional access to the tree of life.

Here is something for your consideration: what are the “works” in the “Covenant of Works?’ The WLC says “entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge;“

If no works of righteousness were required - Adam could have walked over and grabbed the fruit from the tree of life - then would it not better be called “The Covenant of Belief?”

The apologists I cited say there were preconditions that had to be met before Adam was granted access to the tree of life - a time of perfect obedience. I happen to agree with you when you say:

I would say Adam could have eaten from the Tree of Life immediately if he wanted.

However, then doesn’t it appear that both of us disagree with the WLC, Fesko, Grudem and others? If there were no preconditions, no time of testing, no probation, then I don’t see any ”works” required. Just, as later shown with Abraham, simple belief in God which He counts as righteousness.

Does this make sense? Or have I won you over so quickly?

 

[ReverendRV]

Thank you. You make a good point … which I bring out elsewhere regarding Adam having immediate, unfettered and unconditional access to the tree of life.

Here is something for your consideration: what are the “works” in the “Covenant of Works?’ The WLC says “entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge;“

If no works of righteousness were required - Adam could have walked over and grabbed the fruit from the tree of life - then would it not better be called “The Covenant of Belief?”

The apologists I cited say there were preconditions that had to be met before Adam was granted access to the tree of life - a time of perfect obedience. I happen to agree with you when you say:

However, then doesn’t it appear that both of us disagree with the WLC, Fesko, Grudem and others? If there were no preconditions, no time of testing, no probation, then I don’t see any ”works” required. Just, as later shown with Abraham, simple belief in God which He counts as righteousness.

Does this make sense? Or have I won you over so quickly?

It makes sense. Do you Mind if I start talking more deeply about what I think? I'm not your average 5-Point Calvinist, you may find we agree more than not...

The Edenic Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Covenant of Works are the same Covenant of Works; but with two Federal Heads. This is why Jesus is the Second Adam of the EDENIC COVENANT OF WORKS. Jesus Kept the Edenic Covenant by Keeping the Mosaic Covenant. The Edenic Covenant had NO Promises in it, only A Curse. The Mosaic Covenant includes the first Commandment with a Promise; there was no Promise of Righteousness within the Edenic Covenant which only has one Commandment...

There's more, but this is a start. Do you agree?

 

[Guy Swenson]

It makes sense. Do you Mind if I start talking more deeply about what I think? I'm not your average 5-Point Calvinist, you may find we agree more than not...

The Edenic Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Covenant of Works are the same Covenant of Works; but with two Federal Heads. This is why Jesus is the Second Adam of the EDENIC COVENANT OF WORKS. Jesus Kept the Edenic Covenant by Keeping the Mosaic Covenant. The Edenic Covenant had NO Promises in it, only A Curse. The Mosaic Covenant includes the first Commandment with a Promise; there was no Promise of Righteousness within the Edenic Covenant which only has one Commandment...

There's more, but this is a start. Do you agree?

I appreciate you candidness - and thank you again for finding me on Soteriology 101. When we get more into the C.O.W., and especially Lev 18:5, you will see I have a very different take on federalism, the promise of eternal life and how God has always worked with those whom He calls.

I have a parallel project with a working title of “12 Reasons for Hope” that has a chapter entitled “It All Begins with Belief.” I think Adam & Eve could have chosen the tree of life - but as I have said elsewhere- they both DISbelieved God, and look what happened. Adam, Abraham, Israel, the disciples of Jesus - belief is the common ground for how God dealt with them. Not all believed. In fact, Satan is said to have deceived the whole world - he has robbed billions of the opportunity to believe and be saved.

But that is a whole other topic …

 

[ReverendRV]

The apologists I cited say there were preconditions that had to be met before Adam was granted access to the tree of life - a time of perfect obedience.

I agree, but I think it was up to Adam how long his Probation was. This is an option. Did they say how long Adam's Probation was?

 

[Guy Swenson]

I agree, but I think it was up to Adam how long his Probation was. This is an option. Did they say how long Adam's Probation was?

Nope.

 

[ReverendRV]

I think Adam & Eve could have chosen the tree of life - but as I have said elsewhere- they both DISbelieved God, and look what happened. Adam, Abraham, Israel, the disciples of Jesus - belief is the common ground for how God dealt with them. Not all believed. In fact, Satan is said to have deceived the whole world - he has robbed billions of the opportunity to believe and be saved.

But that is a whole other topic …

I think you will like it here

There is the thought Adam and Eve are a Biblical Type for Christ and the Church. Adam chose to die for his Bride too. There's a good chance Adam did not disbelieve God, but Believed him; knowing God will raise him from the Dead...

If it's a Type, God Decreed the Fall...

 

[Guy Swenson]

I think you will like it here

There is the thought Adam and Eve are a Biblical Type for Christ and the Church. Adam chose to die for his Bride too. There's a good chance Adam did not disbelieve God, but Believed him; knowing God will raise him from the Dead...

If it's a Type, God Decreed the Fall...

I have wondered what Adam was thinking when he took the forbidden fruit …

 

[ReverendRV]

It makes sense. Do you Mind if I start talking more deeply about what I think? I'm not your average 5-Point Calvinist, you may find we agree more than not...

The Edenic Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Covenant of Works are the same Covenant of Works; but with two Federal Heads. This is why Jesus is the Second Adam of the EDENIC COVENANT OF WORKS. Jesus Kept the Edenic Covenant by Keeping the Mosaic Covenant. The Edenic Covenant had NO Promises in it, only A Curse. The Mosaic Covenant includes the first Commandment with a Promise; there was no Promise of Righteousness within the Edenic Covenant which only has one Commandment...

There's more, but this is a start. Do you agree?

@Guy Swenson , are the Edenic Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Covenant of Works, the same Covenant of Works; or two Covenants of Works?

 

[Guy Swenson]

@Guy Swenson , are the Edenic Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Covenant of Works, the same Covenant of Works; or two Covenants of Works?

Ummm .. would you be offended if I said that, if my four conclusions are correct, that from the Scriptures and internal Calvinist doctrinal consistency, I think I can demonstrate that there was never a Covenant of Works - Edenic or Mosaic?

Never existed. At all. (Will that get me kicked off this forum?)

 

[ReverendRV]

Ummm .. would you be offended if I said that, if my four conclusions are correct, that from the Scriptures and internal Calvinist doctrinal consistency, I think I can demonstrate that there was never a Covenant of Works - Edenic or Mosaic?

Never existed. At all. (Will that get me kicked off this forum?)

Nope, I won't be offended, and you won't be kicked off...

Okay; your Thread, your direction. I'll talk about this stuff at the appropriate time. I've been waiting for a Non Calvinist who acts right here...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Nope, I won't be offended, and you won't be kicked off...

Okay; your Thread, your direction. I'll talk about this stuff at the appropriate time. I've been waiting for a Non Calvinist who acts right here...

Thank you. I have a sermon to prepare, so I will be signing off for a while.

 

[ReverendRV]

Thank you. I have a sermon to prepare, so I will be signing off for a while.

Perhaps when you return, you should Post Conclusions 3+4, so you can get to where you want to be. Good night...

 

[3 Resurrections]

The apologists I cited say there were preconditions that had to be met before Adam was granted access to the tree of life - a time of perfect obedience. I

I would disagree with this. I believe scripture shows an immediate and continual ability of the original couple to eat from the Tree of Life from their creation onward. I would base this on the description of the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2 which says, "...the Tree of Life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month..." This was continual fruit bearing year round - not just for a single season which Adam and Eve had to wait for fruit to appear . This indicates to me that the originally sinless couple possessed the continual ability to eat from the Tree of Life which was bearing twelve manner of fruits during every month of the year.

Their continual access to eating fruit from the Tree of Life was symbolic of the continual righteous state in which they were maintaining fellowship with their Creator - until they fell into disobedience. Only at this point did the fruit from that Tree of Life become forbidden to them and continual fellowship with their Creator was broken, resulting in their spiritual death.