Freedom to Choose God (page 74)

toreador

Wow, I didnt realize this thread was going on yet. I have a lot of reading to do.

LittleToe

EW:

LT wrote: How is it possible to display righteousness if there is no alternative?

Without an option to do bad, how can anything be judged as righteous or unrighteous?

I would say " how is it possible for Adam to display any other actions than righteousness if he had a clean slate" but that doesnt wash either because your making good equal to righteous.

I agree.
However I'm not making good equal righteous at all. It would seem a natural inclination for somthing"godod" to act righteously, though.

I think you want to give Adam this great start in life without realizing he was just a innocent man...

He did have a great start in life. He was created in God's image.
You honestly think that in his being created by a holy God as something "good" and "innocent" meant that he was also created with sin? My friend, not only will you not find a scripture to attest to that, you will also find plenty to contradict your position

I want to also add that "innocent" is not synonymous with "ignorant".

How does a perfect man sin?

When he goes against his "natural" leaning, by making a judgement call in the given circumstances that he finds himself in.

DD:

Re Lying: Is it actually righteous?

No, I agree, it's not. I was just being pedantic for the frivolity of it
Who said Clavinists can't have fun

I can concede that there were times when they were not sinning. But, I maintain that you have to know what right is in order to act rightly

I agree, and I think he had been given a clear indicator of what would be construed as bad, wouldn't you. He didn't actually experience that "bad" until he ate, though.
Further, my whole conjecture is that until he actually ate we have no record of him doing bad, rather scripture attests that it was this action which was the first sin. My whole premise is that the "times" when he wasn't sinning were all prior to that event.

if man ever could act righteously, he would not need God.

That may be where your argument is fundamentally flawed. I at no time didn't agree that Adam was at all times wholey dependant on God. He would always need God, and that was unaffected by whether he was righteus or not.

I don't see anything that looks like "in a fallen state" anywhere in the text.

I really do recommend to you Boston's "Human Nature in its Fourfold State".
I suspect you will find it fascinating reading on a very deep subject.

Would you say, it exposes, by instigating actions of attitudes that already exist?

No, I wouldn't. Law doesn't make anyone do anything at all!
All it does is identify an action as wrong, either before or after said action.

Brad:

My brain hurts now.... thanks a lot!!!

Sorry
In part I see that as our failure.
Frankly, this is a theological discussion that goes far beyond the "simple gospel good news". It's not for the faint hearted, as can be seen by the fact that even AlanF ran away (to strains of "Brave,brave, brave, brave Sir Robin")...

outbutnotdown

Frankly, this is a theological discussion that goes far beyond the "simple gospel good news". It's not for the faint hearted, as can be seen by the fact that even AlanF ran away (to strains of "Brave,brave, brave, brave Sir Robin")...

LT,

Wisdom cannot be based solely on whether someone chooses to either debate or flee as AlanF has done. The decision to flee is quite often the wiser of the two choices.

Brad flees vowing to not return to this topic....... but understanding that should he come back he will not judge himself as either all-wise nor entirely silly.

LittleToe

Brad:

Brad flees vowing to not return to this topic....... but understanding that should he come back he will not judge himself as either all-wise nor entirely silly.

LOL

Deputy Dog

LT Junction Guy sends his regards from the WNFJ Convention.

That may be where your argument is fundamentally flawed. I at no time didn't agree that Adam was at all times wholey dependant on God. He would always need God, and that was unaffected by whether he was righteus or not.

Did Adam need Jesus in the garden or not? If yes, How? D Dog

LittleToe

DD:
Please send my regards to JG

Did Adam need Jesus in the garden or not? If yes, How?

Of course. Is it not he who "upholds all things by the word of his power" (Heb.1:3)?
See also Col.1:16,17.

However Adam was in no need for atonement initially, as he had done nothing meritorious of being deemed "sinful". Unless you have a different understanding of the meaning of "Atonement" to me, I'm at a loss as to where you're going.

IMHO to say different would seem to undermine the whole premise of Paul's argument in Rom.5.

Deputy Dog

LT

However Adam was in no need for atonement initially, as he had done nothing meritorious of being deemed "sinful". Unless you have a different understanding of the meaning of "Atonement" to me, I'm at a loss as to where you're going.

It looks like we are back were we started. If Adam was in no need for atonement initially, why had one been planned on his behalf? Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

D Dog

LittleToe

DD:

It looks like we are back were we started. If Adam was in no need for atonement initially, why had one been planned on his behalf?

Because God knew that he would fall, and permitted it even in the "plan" (before the first creative act occured).
That doesn't mean that he was then created imperfectly, for I'm sure you'll agree that everything that God does is good, perfect and righteous?

This get's back to the heart of the Lapsarian Controversy, again.

funkyderek

Because God knew that he would fall, and permitted it even in the "plan" (before the first creative act occured).
That doesn't mean that he was then created imperfectly, for I'm sure you'll agree that everything that God does is good, perfect and righteous?

So God created Adam not only with the ability to fail, but essentially programmed to fail? Was God incapable of creating a perfect human who would not fail? Or did he prefer to see his creation suffer?

LittleToe

Derek:Methinks it was a foregone conclusion, like one out of every 10,000 condoms letting a sperm through...

That doesn't mean that Durex intend it to happen, but maybe a design choice might be to let the first one fail to reduce the "Russian Roulette" effect
At least you know where you stand - up the creek without a paddle!

Freedom to Choose God

Share this