Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  LittleToe

  DDog:

  Well no! I have proof he was incapable.

  No you don't.
  You have proof that he didn't remain righteous, and that he did fall, but you have no proof that he was incapable of it!

  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.

  You're putting words in my mouth again. I'm saying no such thing, rather it's yourself and EW who present such a dichotomy, saying that God is the author of sin! After Adam's creation the whole of creation was declared to be "good".

  After all, The Great Little Toe just may have been more righteous than Adam.

  Let's not make this personal, huh?
  There was no call for that low shot.

  Why is it not unjust for me to be created a sinner, but for Adam it was?

  Well that certainly came from field left. What has that got to do with the current conversation?
  The answer to your question is that Adam sold himself and his offspring into the servitude of sin and death. The only reason you have a problem with it is because you believe it was God who authored it instead of laying the blame where scripture does, at the feet of Adam.

  Lets define righteous as, having kept the law, or righteousness as, having the ability to keep the law.

  Let's not.
  Otherwise how was it that Abel was decalared righteous, before the law existed?
  I would ask you the same question as EW - can man lost a state of righteousness / unrighteousness?

  When you say things like this, it makes me wonder if you have a problem with me or with God.

  My problem is merely with your voicing a speculation as fact.
  You have no idea what God was thinking beyond what is recorded in the Bible, and yet you happily jump outside those bounds. If you want to make the bible your authority, at least be gracious enough to maintain that position.

  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?

  That's a new question. You never asked that one before, and to be honest I don't know where you're going with it.
  Adam wasn't an innocent sinner. Once he sinned his innocence was lost and he was ejected from the garden.

  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 .

  I'm sorry too, because I think YOU have it wrong.
  Does loving God make one suddenly omniscient? How would one know there was a ceremonial law. Further, are we required to follow a ceremonial law today?
  By your account you can become righteous by perfectly loving God, but then somehow fall short for those first few minutes, until you uncover the ceremonial law. The pharisees had a similar idea, though I wouldn't want to tar you with the same brush, only point out your error.

  Your right LT, maybe there are some that don't need Jesus.

  More attempts at putting words in my mouth. You know I'm not saying that. You are ignoring the context of the quotation, though. Did you bother reading the Psalms that Paul was quoting?

  But for all our rhetoric, I love ya bro
• 

  LittleToe

  EW:

  EW wrote: A quote from Matthew Henry re: Romans 3:10...
  ...
  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.

  I can't say that it had nothing to do with it, but I do agree that Paul was making a different argument.

  The facts seem to speak for themselves that since Adam's fall man is; sinful (totally depraved), he is totally unable to redeem himself or do any kind of work that is not tainted with sin, and all mankind is thus unrighteous.

  However we also have to face the following facts, if we are to be candid, these being that; prior to the fall we have no basis upon which to declare Adam unrighteous, that in fact he was at one point declared good, and that some others from amongst "fallen" mankind were explicitly declared righteous.

  I resort to my earlier argument (earlier in this thread, regarding "the plan") that in one sense there almost seems to be greater justice in the first man falling, rather than some later generation.
  "For all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God" (Rom.3:23)
• 

  ellderwho

  And yet some men are identified as righteous.
  You fix the contradiction. I'm not going to do your apologetics for you

  Well ya got me there, contradictions in the Bible hmmm. I'll have to look at the word righteous and how its being thrown around here.
• 

  LittleToe

  Yeah, it sux that all those bible writers threw it around some, huh?
  It seems they did the same with the terms good and evil, too

  But what's a 21st Century theologian and apologist to do?
• 

  ellderwho

  LT.........prior to the fall we have no basis upon which to declare Adam unrighteous,

  Or righteous!

  I believe you state this because you say God saw creation and it was good, correct? If so how do you figure Gen 6:5-7

  5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually

  6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

  7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

  Verse 8,9 says Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. And was a righteous man. But this does not mean he never sinned (9:20)

  Ecclesiastes7:20

  For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

  I can't say that it had nothing to do with it, but I do agree that Paul was making a different argument.

  This comment pertains to Ro. 3:10. What then do you feel Pauls argument was?

  I feel the "righteousness" Im trying to convey that no man has is the righteousness that we have in Christ.

  And the "righteousness" you and Gumby are describing certain men as having is more like a discription of character that is ultimatly the result of faith. And this is faith that comes from God, therefore imputed righteousness. Not of ther own.

  Heb 11:4-7 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

  5.By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

  6.But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

  7.By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
• 

  LittleToe

  EW:

  I believe you state this because you say God saw creation and it was good, correct? If so how do you figure Gen 6:5-7

  You introduce another complexity into your own doctrine. How is it that God repents of creating man if (as you declare) it was his full intent to "cause" man to sin?

  Verse 8,9 says Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. And was a righteous man. But this does not mean he never sinned

  Agreed. In fact I would say that it's certain that he sinned, and yet the title remains.

  This comment pertains to Ro. 3:10. What then do you feel Pauls argument was?

  I agreed with your summation of his argument. My only disagreement was with your disconnecting it from my comments.

  I feel the "righteousness" Im trying to convey that no man has is the righteousness that we have in Christ.
  And the "righteousness" you and Gumby are describing certain men as having is more like a discription of character that is ultimatly the result of faith. And this is faith that comes from God, therefore imputed righteousness. Not of ther own.

  I don't have any difficulty with that, whatsoever. Well stated.
  I do have a difficulty with the idea of categorically declaring all men as unrighteous, when it is clear that some were declared righteous, without declaring what is meant by those terms

  That still doesn't approach Adam in a state of innocence, though.

  Whilst the "lamb slain from the founding of the world" was ready to immediately step in once sin entered the world (and this reflects in the order of "the plan" that we were discussing Re: the "Lapsarian Controversy"), of what need did Adam have of it whilst he remained in a state of sinless innocence?

  I concur that all men have sinned, and even Adam came into a state of unrighteousness, requiring imputed righteousness if he were to be saved. Hence my question about changing states, which you've thusfar deftly avoided
• 

  ellderwho

  I concur that all men have sinned, and even Adam came into a state of unrighteousness, requiring imputed righteousness if he were to be saved. Hence my question about changing states, which you've thusfar deftly avoided

  You have Adam changing states not me. I do not hold that Adam was righteous to begin with.

  Your thoughts, are, as far as I understand is that for Adam to become unrighteous he had to be righteous from the start.

  But then when shown, say Noah, as being righteous while also being a sinner, is a little contradictory to your argument, when you follow up your position about Adam then needing "righteousness" after the fall.

  Perhaps Im avoiding your question about states because you present a shifting position of ones righteousness. (Adam starts out righteous, falls into unrighteous state, then gets imputed righteousness, that he started out with)
• 

  LittleToe

  You misrepresent my position and I know you better than to presume it's from ignorance

  My position would be:

  • Adam starts out righteous / perfect / sinless
  • Through sinful actions falls into an unrighteous state
  • Then (potentially, for it's not certain) gets righteousness imputed to him

  For you to tack on "that he started out with" is totally wrong, since I at no time stated that he started with imputed righteousness. It would have been necessary for him to acquire it after-the-fact if he were to be saved.

  So, kindly be a bit more specific:
  Do you believe Adam was created unrighteous?
  Do you believe that Adam had "faith" prior to the fall?
• 

  ellderwho

  For you to tack on "that he started out with" is totally wrong,

  First things first. Was Adam created with this attribute (righteousness) ?

  edited to add:

  EW: I do not hold that Adam was righteous to begin with.
• 

  LittleToe

  EW:

  EW: I do not hold that Adam was righteous to begin with.

  That doesn't answer the following question:
  Do you believe Adam was created unrighteous?

  Do you believe it's possible to be "righteousness-neutral"?

  Personally I don't, hence my stance. I think that probably answers your "first things first" question