Undisfelowshipped said:
"The Bible teaches that God loves all people, even those who hate Him and make themselves enemies of His..."
And also said:
"God chooses who he wants to "draw" to His Son, and then He sends The Spirit to enlighten them with the truth of the Gospel."
If God loves "all people", I can't understand how he can "choose" to draw only a few to his son.
Freedom to Choose God
by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
observador
-
ellderwho
What kind of reasoning was that? The rightous sin , do they not?
Gumby tell me who are the righteous?
-
gumby
Who are the rightous? Why don't you look in your bible in the appendix under the word "rightous", and see how many ones you can find who were called rightous by god.
You actually think a person could have kept the law? The bible says no one could keep it which is two of the reasons christ came....to fullfill it and complete it. People who love god make mistakes.......period!
Gumby
-
LittleToe
Frenchie:
Can we vote for mother nature ?
The question more revolves around whether or not we genuinely have freedom to choose, rather than what the choices actually are
EW:
Good question, because if he did love God he would have listened.
So Adam didn't love God then?
I guess children don't love their parents, when they do wrong, either?DDog:
It Amazes me that you think Adam could live the whole law, when he couldn't even keep from eating fruit from one tree.
Are we discussing what he was capable of, or what he actually did?
This whole discussion is completely in the realms of speculation, anyhow.
We can be certain that theologically speaking we are now incapable of keeping the law, but I honestly think that you're on another sticky wicket if you say that Adam was created incapable of keeping it, whilst in a state of innocence...
...your statement follow the continued mistaken belief that God authored sin and set man up for a fallAlso, if Adam was so righteous why did he not see the unrighteous Eve coming? This raises another question, could a righteous person even be deceived? I believe an innocent person could.
More speculation, and once again I must ask you to define "righteous", as you seem to have some kind of grandeous conception of infallibility...
In Matthew 5 verse 28 Jesus seems to say both.
It does nothing of the sort. It highlights that both are subject to "unrighteousness", without touching on righteousness at all!
I also believe that God knew He was placing an innocent (or blameless) sinner in the garden, not a righteous man, knowing that it was only time that separated the sin from the sinner, not righteousness.
More speculation regarding God's intent.
I will concur that God fore-ordained all that comes to pass, but that's a far cry from acting deceptively and setting up a system of crooked justice. -
LittleToe
DDog:
After quoting Matt.22:37-40: In other words if you can do these two things you could keep the whole law.
You've got that the wrong way around, too.
The whole law hangs on these things and enhances and complicates them.
Were you able to keep those two things you could still fail in the ceremonial law, through ignorance...Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Nicely quoted out of context, my friend. Besides, I believe that text to be hyperbole (it's also a Pauline full-text quotation of Ps.14 & 53). Can you truly say that none have sought after God, especially since He instructs them to do exactly that?
Gumby:
People who love god make mistakes.......period!
And yet strangely God still calls some of them righteous. Methinks we must be missing something here ~scratches head~
"Ouch! - I've got a booboo!"EW:
- Luke 1:5,6
- Heb.11:4
- James 5:16
- 1Pet.3:12
- 2Pet.2:7,8
- Rev.22:11
-
Deputy Dog
Gumby
You just contradicted yourself DeputyDog.
How?
-
ellderwho
Who are the rightous? Why don't you look in your bible in the appendix under the word "rightous", and see how many ones you can find who were called rightous by god.
Gumby:
Ro. 3:20 wherefore by works of law shall no flesh be declared righteous before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin. (Youngs)
The appendix list of righteous people, is this not inclusive of the OT?What of Acts 13:39 ?
"and from all things from which ye were not able in the law of Moses to be declared righteous, in this one every one who is believing is declared righteous; (Youngs)
The righteousness is question would be Adams, and where his so called righteousness originated from.
As LT puts it as a child/parent relationship, if this is the order, then Adam must have imputed righteousness from his father, God. (I dont agree with this relationship)
EW: Good question, because if he did love God he would have listened.
So Adam didn't love God then?
You missed my point. If Adam was righteous how did he get his righteousness and why did it fail him?
I guess children don't love their parents, when they do wrong, either?Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Nicely quoted out of context, my friend. Besides, I believe that text to be hyperbole (it's also a Pauline full-text quotation of Ps.14 & 53). Can you truly say that none have sought after God, especially since He instructs them to do exactly that?
Quoted out of context, are your serious? Paul is describing the state of ALL men, Jew and Gentile.
I believe you are missing something. What does Ro. 3:20 do to your explaining Ro.3:10 as hyperbole?
-
ellderwho
A quote from Matthew Henry re: Romans 3:10
(1.) An habitual defect of every thing that is good. [1.] There is none righteous, none that has an honest good principle of virtue, or is governed by such a principle, none that retains any thing of that image of God, consisting in righteousness, wherein man was created; no, not one; implying that, if there had been but one, God would have found him out. When all the world was corrupt, God had his eye upon one righteous Noah. Even those who through grace are justified and sanctified were none of them righteous by nature. No righteousness is born with us. The man after God?s own heart owns himself conceived in sin.
[2.] There is none that understandeth, v. 11. The fault lies in the corruption of the understanding; that is blinded, depraved, perverted. Religion and righteousness have so much reason on their side that if people had but any understanding they would be better and do better. But they do not understand. Sinners are fools.
[3.] None that seeketh after God, that is, none that has any regard to God, any desire after him. Those may justly be reckoned to have no understanding that do not seek after God. The carnal mind is so far from seeking after God that really it is enmity against him.
[4.] They are together become unprofitable, v. 12. Those that have forsaken God soon grow good for nothing, useless burdens of the earth. Those that are in a state of sin are the most unprofitable creatures under the sun; for it follows, [5.] There is none that doeth good; no, not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not, Eccl. 7:23. Even in those actions of sinners that have some goodness in them there is a fundamental error in the principle and end; so that it may be said, There is none that doeth good. Malum oritur ex quolibet defect?very defect is the source of evil.
LT you must agree that the righteousness spoken of here has nothing to do with your referring that Gods still considered some righteous.
LT: And yet strangely God still calls some of them righteous
You lost me on that one. Clarify if you would. -
Deputy Dog
LT
We can be certain that theologically speaking we are now incapable of keeping the law, but I honestly think that you're on another sticky wicket if you say that Adam was created incapable of keeping it, whilst in a state of innocence...
Well no! I have proof he was incapable. The proof is that he fell. If you think Adam could have or should have kept the law, then you are saying God is unjust, for not giving each one of us a shot at the garden. After all, The Great Little Toe just may have been more righteous than Adam. Is that the kind of justice you want? With your logic and justice we should all get our own chance to prove ourselves. Why is it not unjust for me to be created a sinner, but for Adam it was?
I must ask you to define "righteous",
Lets define righteous as, having kept the law, or righteousness as, having the ability to keep the law.
More speculation regarding God's intent.
I will concur that God fore-ordained all that comes to pass, but that's a far cry from acting deceptively and setting up a system of crooked justice.When you say things like this, it makes me wonder if you have a problem with me or with God. My comment dealt with my belief that God is all knowing, not His intent or His justice. I don't like to question those things. So I ask you again, why do you think it would be unjust for God to place an innocent sinner in the garden, and not unjust to place an "innocent" baby in a fallen world?
The whole law hangs on these things and enhances and complicates them.
Were you able to keep those two things you could still fail in the ceremonial law, through ignorance...Sorry, I think you have it wrong. If you loved God with all your heart, soul and mind, you would seek out the ceremonial law in the scriptures and obey that too .
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Nicely quoted out of context, my friend. Besides, I believe that text to be hyperbole (it's also a Pauline full-text quotation of Ps.14 & 53). Can you truly say that none have sought after God, especially since He instructs them to do exactly that?When Jesus heard it , he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Your right LT, maybe there are some that don't need Jesus. D Dog
-
LittleToe
EW:
Ro. 3:20 wherefore by works of law shall no flesh be declared righteous before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin. (Youngs)
So, then, how is a man to be declared righteous, given that evidently there are several recorded instances amongst even fallen man?
As LT puts it as a child/parent relationship, if this is the order, then Adam must have imputed righteousness from his father, God. (I dont agree with this relationship)
Rubbish. What kind of assumption and chain of logic is that???
He was created in such a manner that he hadn't put a foot wrong. Up till he ate the fruit there was no unrighteous act by which to disqualify his righteousness!
In a fallen state we need a righteousness that is imputed by Christ, but you're mixing apples and pears if you think that Adam needed that in a state of innocence. There's simply little comparison to beings that are terminally imbued with "total depravity".You missed my point. If Adam was righteous how did he get his righteousness and why did it fail him?
Explained above.
It's not a disease that you catch, ya knowQuoted out of context, are your serious? Paul is describing the state of ALL men, Jew and Gentile.
And yet some men are identified as righteous.
You fix the contradiction. I'm not going to do your apologetics for youI believe you are missing something. What does Ro. 3:20 do to your explaining Ro.3:10 as hyperbole?
Methinks you'd need to read those whole chapters in context, and then apply to it the Meta-context of all of Paul's writings. Methinks you'd probably like me to remain focussed on those two passages, though, like the "Author of Sin" debate in Romans 9
It remains that some men were declared righteous...A question for you:
Can a state of righteousness / unrighteousness be lost?