by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible
EW:
How is it possible to display righteousness if there is no alternative?
My point is that where there is law there is no righteousness. I think
When you agreed that there is no righteousness in law that leaves Adam with law and no righteousness.
See?LT; does observing the law impart righteousness?Definitely not, especially in our own case,
Why didn't God create Adam and Eve simultaneously? Why did he create Adam where Adam was capable of becoming lonely? God was certainly not very good at seeing the big picture, was he?
Brad
My first intelligent question ever and Gumby's trying to take credit for it.
Ozzie said:
Now then Grumbles, stop putting words in God's mouth! Where does it say that this was a new thought to God?
Cheers, Ozzie (accuracy in reporting class)
Ozzie,
What are you implying? That this was not a new thought, but that God PLANNED on Adam getting lonely and creating Eve was all part of the Master Plan? I've been lonely before and I don't think it is a PERFECT feeling, so could Adam have been perfect before Eve was created?
Brad (of the "I'll convert these Christians to agnosticism one of these days" class)
EW:
EW wrote: does observing the law impart righteousness?
LT wrote: Definitely not, especially in our own case,
Just to clarify, I said no such thing.
I said that righteousness if not "imparted" (nor imputed) by law. THere's a big difference between taht and what you're now stating.
Brad:
My first intelligent question ever and Gumby's trying to take credit for it.
He's like that. Credit taking gumb*st*rd!!!
LOL
Brad (of the "I'll convert these Christians to agnosticism one of these days" class)
Well, you're welcome to try, but it's hard to discredit something that someone has personally experienced. It's like me trying to tell you your mother doesn't exist!
LT; does observing the law impart righteousness?Definitely not, especially in our own case, and in regards to the Mosaic law which Paul speaks of.
The only one who "imparts righteousness" is God, and it's Christ's righteousness that is imparted.
Your confusing me here bud.
Just to clarify, I said no such thing.
I said that righteousness if not "imparted" (nor imputed) by law. THere's a big difference between taht and what you're now stating.
I think you stated exactly what I quoted you stating.
Now you say theres a big difference, care to enlighten?
EW:You partially quoted me
LT wrote: The only one who "imparts righteousness" is God, and it's Christ's righteousness that is imparted.
Neither our own efforts, not the law "impart" anything (IMHO).
EW wrote: My point is that where there is law there is no righteousness.
Question:
Is God righteous?
Romans 5:13
for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
So could Adam be righteous under the law "not to touch the tree" since the law was to manifest sin.
You cant have it both ways. Either theres law with no righteousness, or theres righteousness with no law. You pick.
Question:
Is God righteous?
Theres no question
Galatians 3:21
Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law
EW:
Romans 5:13: for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
I know that you're well aware that this refered to the mosaic law...
So could Adam be righteous under the law "not to touch the tree" since the law was to manifest sin.
While-ever he didn't sin he was acting righteously (since he couldn't stop acting in someway, even by breathing. In that particular case, since it was the only law by which he could sin, sin was made manifest and a fall from righteousness were simultaneous.
You cant have it both ways. Either theres law with no righteousness, or theres righteousness with no law. You pick.
I really don't know what you're getting at, since those aren't the only two options at all. In the case of Adam there was righteousness and law, for as long as that law wasn't transgressed. If there had been no law at all, he could have eaten what he wanted with no sin imputed at all.
I will agree with your statement as it refers to fallen mankind, just not to Adam in a state of innocence.
Galatians 3:21: Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law
So by what means is God righteous?
You'll surely agree that he's not subject to law, nor able to sin.
LT
1) Verse 3 Did God tell them not to touch it?That was Eve's line, but there's no direct record of God saying that, in the account.
Somebody was lying.
The command to not even touch the tree would seem to be an expansion on the original.
My mama calls that kind of expansion a distortion.
2) Verse 4 It looks to me that Eve agrees with the serpent, that God was lying, putting her faith in the serpent, not in God, calling God a liar.I don't know if I'd go that far, but she certainly tested those waters to see if He was lying.
Does that sound like the righteous thing to do?
3) Verse 6 That looks like lusting for food, pleasure, wisdom.Aye, it seems that the temptation turned into lust, which in turn gave birth to sin in the eating.
Yea, lusting is inward sin, which gives birth to outward acts of sin.
5) Adam put more faith in Eve than God, trusting her judgment regarding the fruit.I don't read the account that way. He makes the excuse that she offered it him, but that argument is knocked flat. Paul also elaborates on the subject when writing to Timothy. IMHO Adam made a judgement call.
He made a judgment call alright. Your right, he was not deceived, he exchanged the truth of God for a lie.
Judging by their attitude, I think there was trouble long before they ate the fruit.Both of them, or specifically Eve?
What difference does it make? There was sin in the garden before the fall.
No, that's not really the intent of the passage at all.
I guess "that the law is not made for a righteous man" means the law in the garden was made for the serpent? Right!!! Sorry, Does this passage includes "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" eating?
But, I do believe he had a sinful nature (innocent as he was) which drove him to sin or become sinful.I don't understand how you come to that conclusion without avoiding dichotomy. Can you elaborate?
Lets just say, I believe Adam had human nature before the fall. You seem to think he had a divine nature before the fall. So if Adam could lose his divine nature, how do you know Jesus won't lose his?
Speaking of Adam LT said: He didn't but he was certainly growing in understanding.He was? How? In understanding of what? The Law? D Dog
DD:
Somebody was lying.
I don't think it need necessarily be a lie at all.
Why accuse them of something which scripture does not?
Was not the serpent declared to be the "father of the lie"?
Is it a sin to lie?
Where is the command that says so (other than the explicit mention of bearing false testimony against your brother)?
Even though sin entered the world through Adam, there's a lie somewhere along the road that is brought about by the serpent.
Scripture focusses on Adam as being the one responsible for bringing sin into the world, not Eve or the serpent, and a relationship is further attested to regarding the right of wives and daughters (in the OT) to be countermanded by the male.
Yea, lusting is inward sin, which gives birth to outward acts of sin.
Only where there's a law about it.
Was it sinful for me to lust after my wife?
Was the law about eating or lusting?
He made a judgment call alright. Your right, he was not deceived, he exchanged the truth of God for a lie.
Agreed.
I guess "that the law is not made for a righteous man" means the law in the garden was made for the serpent? Right!!!Sorry, Does this passage includes "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" eating?
No, Paul is talking about the Mosaic law. His argument has actually has nothing to do with Eden. In our discussion we've extended the principles (in his arguments) into the Edenic situation, but it's not a firm footing.
Lets just say, I believe Adam had human nature before the fall. You seem to think he had a divine nature before the fall. So if Adam could lose his divine nature, how do you know Jesus won't lose his?
There ya go again, putting words into my mouth
I agree that Adam had a "human nature", but at that time his human nature was not corrupted. Hence, comparing it to modern man's "human nature" is comparing apples and pears (Rom.8:20, 21)
LT wrote: He didn't but he was certainly growing in understanding.There was only one law, and he knew that already. He wasn't omniscient, so of course he was learning.
DD wrote: He was? How? In understanding of what? The Law?
LT
Is it a sin to lie?
Pro 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
What do you think?
Scripture focusses on Adam as being the one responsible for bringing sin into the world, not Eve or the serpent, and a relationship is further attested to regarding the right of wives and daughters (in the OT) to be countermanded by the male.Yea, lusting is inward sin, which gives birth to outward acts of sin.Only where there's a law about it.
Was it sinful for me to lust after my wife?
Was the law about eating or lusting?
You are missing the point, it may not have been a sin if there was no law regarding these things at the time but, they are not righteous acts.
Pro 12:17 He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.
No, Paul is talking about the Mosaic law. His argument has actually has nothing to do with Eden. In our discussion we've extended the principles (in his arguments) into the Edenic situation, but it's not a firm footing.
Wow! Talk about sticky wickets. I see you say the same about "the law" in Romans 5. Was "the offence" Mosaic, in that chapter as well? In context I believe "the law" Paul may have included the "Mosaic law" but with all the talk of Adam and "by one man" I don't think it excludes the Adamic.
Also, here is another sticky wicket for you. I think this chapter shows Gods intent.
" Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound." (Romans 5:20) I wonder who Paul was speaking about here???
He would learn something more when he took of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, too.
Yea, and so would we all.
I'd like to take a shot at a couple of these as well if you two don't mind.
"What was the benefit of law in connection with Christ?" as Romans 5 teaches, to bring about sin.
"So by what means is God righteous?
You'll surely agree that he's not subject to law, nor able to sin."
By means of his authority! He determines what's right and what's not.
D Dog
