Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  LittleToe

  DDog:
  I was trying to give a fairly high-level view of my opinion, but I see your questions are diving into more of the finer detail. Good stuff , though I have to confess that some of the things you're asking are things that I've not thought of, from precisely those angles. I hope you'll forgive me for answering off the cuff. If I need to rethink anything, I'll happily clarify.

  I guess what I'm trying to say is that, until Jesus, people did not have that type of relationship (abba father or heavenly father), this side of glory.

  I would say that the relationship was there (theologically speaking) though they maybe didn't fully understand it. I think it's fair to say that this is what Paul is alluding to in Gal.3:24,25, regarding the law being a schoolmaster.

  Do you know of any Old Testament verses that teach this concept? The Pharisees condemned Jesus for teaching this didn't they.

  Big Brother will have to get back to you on that one
  Isa.64:8, would be appropriate, in live with our previous conversation matter.
  I find it interesting that the genealogy in the Lukian gospel account goes back to "Adam son of God".
  You are correct in the Pharisees declaring it to be blasphemous, as seemingly a statement of equality.

  I would say that Adam was innocent. Does not righteousness come from making right decisions? Wouldn't that require him to know right from wrong.

  Surely every day he passed the tree he made a right decision?

  Yea, but, does "good" have to mean "perfect", at least morally? I'm not so sure that it does. Wouldn't innocent be characterized as "good"?

  I wouldn't like to start merging the phrases, either, as they have their own connotations. I would still stick to my guns that Adam was "perfect" (fit for purpose), "innocent" (not corrupted) "righteous" (acting rightly) and "good" (pure and holy, without taint). That is of course a quick and snappy few definitions and I apologise in advance for any inaccuracy.

  What is a "depraved" conscience? Do you mean a hardened heart?

  That may be true as well but I would state that after the fall, (theologically speaking) man was found to be corrupted from his original design, and so totally depraved in mind, body and soul.
  There's plenty of ancient mythology on hearts being weighed, or stones being substituted for hearts. I suspect that the stones being replaced with flesh are an allusion to such things, in a kind of gracious reversal of fortunes.

  Are you saying, Cain didn't know he sinned, when he killed Abel!

  No, I'm not saying that, as there was a specific injunction against his actions It would appear that there was a level of self-judgement occuring, though, when you look at the Tower of Babel. There the motives were clearly wrong, and there was a divine repercussion. However they didn't lose their lives for it. Neither for that matter did Cain...
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  Good stuff

  This is some real good stuff! As I study your post I'm really being blessed.

  I hope you'll forgive me for answering off the cuff.

  Of coarse. That's probably how I got myself into this discussion anyway.

  I would say that the relationship was there (theologically speaking) though they maybe didn't fully understand it.

  Can I take this to mean that we agree, it was first, revealed "clearly" by Jesus?

  I find it interesting that the genealogy in the Lukian gospel account goes back to "Adam son of God".

  Now here is some more of the good stuff. As I looked at Luke 3:38 and the genealogy, I found that in the Greek, the words "the son" are not used in the text. It simply states " αδαμ του θεου" or "Adam of God". The only time the word "son" or " υιος" is used in the Greek, is verse 23 where it says:

  "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..."

  What is the only way Joseph could be Jesus' father? By adoption!

  Surely every day he passed the tree he made a right decision?

  My guess is, that he fell the first time he took a good look at the fruit.

  I would still stick to my guns that Adam was "perfect" (fit for purpose), "innocent" (not corrupted) "righteous" (acting rightly) and "good" (pure and holy, without taint). That is of course a quick and snappy few definitions and I apologise in advance for any inaccuracy.

  The problem here is that the passage you sited, says only that that it was good, so instead of defining righteousness, let me ask you this question. Was the righteousness that Adam had in the garden, the same kind of righteousness that we have in Christ? Which is better? D Dog
• 

  LittleToe

  DDog:

  As I study your post I'm really being blessed.

  Likewise, bro, likewise
  These kind of interchanges are edifying.

  Can I take this to mean that we agree, it was first, revealed "clearly" by Jesus?

  Yes, we agree. Though Isa.64:8 does seem to indicate a little knowledge of this, and the language also seems to indicate an "adoption" of sorts: "But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."

  As I looked at Luke 3:38 and the genealogy, I found that in the Greek, the words "the son" are not used in the text. It simply states " αδαμ του θεου" or "Adam of God".

  More accurately it states in verse 23:

  και αυτος ην ο ιησους ωσει ετων τριακοντα αρχομενος ων ως ενομιζετο υιος ιωσηφ του ηλι

  "Legally son of Joseph" - followed by a list of names - the Heli, the Matthat, the.... , the Adam, the God.
  So your comment about him being adopted by Joseph stands, I agree. However, his lineage is then given, with God at the top of the chain. I suspect that all the other links are undisputed (eg David son of Jesse, etc.). The implication is that Adam was the son of God, in this context, even though the explicit word "son of" or "begat" isn't used in this particular account.

  LT wrote: Surely every day he passed the tree he made a right decision?

  DDog wrote: My guess is, that he fell the first time he took a good look at the fruit. LOL - that wouldn't be in accordance with Gen.3:17, nor James 1:14, 15.
  Nonetheless I would agree that, with the way the story goes, the lust was likely there before he was offered it by Eve.

  The problem here is that the passage you sited, says only that that it was good...

  Agreed, I was extrapolating, and you are right to point that out

  Was the righteousness that Adam had in the garden, the same kind of righteousness that we have in Christ?

  No, we now have "imputed" righteousness from which we cannot fall (see my comments on Boston's "Fourfold State").
  Adam could and did fall from his state of righteousness

  Which is better?

  The righteousness imputed from Christ, without a doubt. Therein we rest in grace, not imperfect (or even perfect, in the case of Adam) works! Incidentally, I'm glad this discussion is reflecting on some of the more positive things, now, rather than just sin,death and evil
• 

  ellderwho

  I'm glad this discussion is reflecting on some of the more positive things, now, rather than just sin,death and evil

  LOL.@ LT. Hence my silience
• 

  LittleToe
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  The implication is that Adam was the son of God, in this context, even though the explicit word "son of" or "begat" isn't used in this particular account.

  You're starting to sound "Mormon" my friend. If you think Adam was a litteral son of God, like, David son of Jesse. I agree there is a sense in which he is a son, or God is his origin, but, I wouldn't read too much into this passage. We agree that the reprobate are not sons of God, don't we? I hope you see my point, that Jesus is Joseph's son, much the same way I am one of God's sons.

  Also, could we say that Adam's righteousness was "self" righteousness? This is why I question whether it is true righteousness at all.

  D Dog
• 

  LittleToe

  DDog:
  Mormon? Bwahaha
  Not even close!
  Now if I started coming out with stuff like "Elohim physically begat YHWH/Iesous, begat Adam, begat Seth..." you might have a point, but I didn't, did I?

  Did you miss the phrase "in this context"?
  I'd already spelt it out here:

  "Legally son of Joseph" - followed by a list of names - the Heli, the Matthat, the.... , the Adam, the God.
  So your comment about him being adopted by Joseph stands, I agree.

  It's a list of legal heirdom, including the twists and turns of those who would have firstborn rights, earlier in the list, even though not actually physically the first-born (e.g. Isaac, Jacob, Judah).

  What do you make of Isa.64:8, also, while you're at it Ps.68:5; 89:26?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  Did you miss the phrase "in this context"?

  Sorry, my mistake.

  What do you make of Isa.64:8, also, while you're at it Ps.68:5; 89:26?

  Ps. 68:5 deserves a closer look. I think the other two are speaking about father meaning, origin, not so much about relationship. D Dog asked,

  Also, could we say that Adam's righteousness was "self" righteousness? This is why I question whether it is true righteousness at all.

  No comments? D Dog
• 

  LittleToe

  DDog:
  My turn to apologise, as I missed this:

  Also, could we say that Adam's righteousness was "self" righteousness? This is why I question whether it is true righteousness at all.

  It's easy to slip and "trigger" off the close approximation of that phrase to the word "self-righteousness".
  It was definitely not that (although he did fall into that when he tried to pass the buck to Eve).

  I think the question is a bit of a misnomer. If we start comparing "totally depraved humanity" with "Adam in a state of innocence", we are in for immediate trouble.
  He simply was righteous, as seen by his actions, right up to the point that he sinned.
  If you question that, I would have to ask you; in what way was he "unrighteous", prior to the fall?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  ... right up to the point that he sinned.

  We have no way of knowing how long that was. It could have been 5 minutes or 5 years.

  I would have to ask you; in what way was he "unrighteous", prior to the fall?

  I don't think he was " unrighteous " or "righteous". He was just innocent (in their case I guess ignorance really was bliss). In order to be "unrighteous" he would have to know what right and wrong was. Until he ate of the fruit he had no way of knowing anything about that. Let me ask you, if Adam had looked at the fruit and thought about what it would be like (lusted?), to be like God, knowing good and evil, and choose not to eat it, would God have found him guilty or punished him (in light of Mat.5:28)? D Dog