Posts by Deputy Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

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

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

LT

LT wrote: In the beginning he didn't need to obtain it at all, as he was performing 100% righteous acts.
DD wrote: Pure speculation! Prove me wrong - name an unrighteous act...

I already have, but I'll name a few more.

Gen 3:3 but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said to the woman, Dying you shall not die,

Gen 3:5 for God knows that in the day you eat of it, even your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

Gen 3:6 And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise. And she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

1) Verse 3 Did God tell them not to touch it?

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.

3) Verse 6 That looks like lusting for food, pleasure, wisdom.

4) Why was Adam not protecting his wife from the serpent and his lies? Would that not be the righteous thing to do?

5) Adam put more faith in Eve than God, trusting her judgment regarding the fruit.

Judging by their attitude, I think there was trouble long before they ate the fruit.

There is no neutral word for righteousness...

What is wrong with "Innocent"?

It would follow that the first law would show up sin, and so it did.

Do we agree this passage includes apple eating?

1Timothy 1:9

knowing this, that Law is not laid down for a righteous one, but for lawless and undisciplined ones, for ungodly and sinful ones, for unholy and profane ones, for slayers of fathers and slayers of mothers, for murderers, 10 for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and if any other thing opposes sound doctrine,

I'm sorry to disappoint you, my friend. Neither you, I or EW could have done a better job than Adam. It was foreordained... Yet he did it, and he bears the responsibility and title for that action.

I'm not disappointed, because I know Adam perfectly represents the whole human race (including myself), right down to the human nature. But, as I read your post, you seem to be making the case that Adam was different and had a different nature, he was righteous or morally perfect (something we can never be this side of glory). The law he had was different or had a different purpose in that it wasn't "Mosaic". How (in your opinion) could this special man be worthy to impute sin to the whole race?

I'm still of the opinion that man wasn't created sinful,

Nor am I. He had not sinned until he broke the law, he became sinful when he broke the law. But, I do believe he had a sinful nature (innocent as he was) which drove him to sin or become sinful.

Other wise the statement "it was very good" would be a misnomer.

What if "it was very good" means that it was exactly what God wanted (innocent Adam in the garden)?

I guess you believe that the Holy Spirit wouldn't do His job.
You know fine well that I'm not saying that.
There is such a thing as progressive sanctification, though.

If he could live the whole law why would Adam need sanctification when he didn't sin?

I get to cut my teeth on this kinda stuff every Wednesday evening in live debate in fellowships.

Wish I could come.

D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

I thought your were a Clavinist?

No, I've never been one of those.

Told ya, He's a pseudo Calvinist!

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

LT

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.

I can say the same thing about you.

In the beginning he didn't need to obtain it at all, as he was performing 100% righteous acts.

Pure speculation!

Adam, on the other hand was created "good", "perfect", "sinless", and his every activity was righteous. After Adam's creation the whole of creation was declared to be "good".

The only text you quote to support your position is Gen 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Why would you assume that in just this one verse "Good" means morally perfect? Does that mean that the light was morally perfect? How about the dry land and the sea? Maybe the grass, herbs and trees were as well. You don't know what he was doing. Are you saying that anything was a righteous act before he ate the fruit? Here is another question from left field. What was the purpose of the law (the command not to eat the fruit) in the garden? Was it to keep Adam righteous?

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

Come on. I know, you think deep down, that you could have done a better job than Adam. Could we say the same about EW?

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?

I guess you believe that the Holy Spirit wouldn't do His job.

But for all our rhetoric, I love ya bro

Don't apologies for vigorous debate. If we ever meet, I'll eat with you any time. D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

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

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

Gumby

You just contradicted yourself DeputyDog.

How?

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

Gumby

The rightous sin , do they not?

Rom 3:10

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

Gumby

Did Peter love god when he didn't listen to Jesus words about denying him?
Did David love god when he sinned with Bathsheeba?
What kind of reasoning was that? The rightous sin , do they not?

They didn't love God with "all there heart soul and mind"

It's like Jesus said

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

In other words if you can do these two things you could keep the whole law.

D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

LT

Yes, I think he could.
It appears the Israelites thought they could, too, as did the rich young ruler who was grieved at the idea of selling all his stuf and giving it to the poor.

And you all have the same chance of being right or righteous! It Amazes me that you think Adam could live the whole law, when he couldn't even keep from eating fruit from one tree. To say that Adam was righteous before the fall would mean that he was keeping the whole law without knowing it, and in that state of righteousness he couldn't keep the one little part of the law that he was aware of. Also, 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.

Is one righteous due to works or thoughts??

In Matthew 5 verse 28 Jesus seems to say both. 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. D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

LT

Is righteousness a standard of man or God?

Do you think Adam could live a righteous life today, with the law being given in such detail? For example, did Adam love God, with all his heart, soul, and mind? D Dog