Back to the Garden...or not.

[makesends]

And man will never be able to 'obtain' that righteousness of God. And neither can God create man with it. Can He? If He could, I believe He would have when He created Adam and Eve.

This might be a curious notion to you, but one worth contemplating.

I have been asked by atheists, "If GOD can create anything he chooses to create, why didn't he just create the end result (Heaven and its residents) to begin with? --Why go through all this mess to get there? --Why the fall and the cross? --Why bother with resurrection? --Why all the suffering and pain?" And particularly, "Why the reprobation of most of humanity?"

My answer to them: "Maybe he did just that! Most likely, I think, what he spoke into existence was instantaneously done upon his speaking it. And it has so far taken these 6000 (or 14 billion, if you prefer) years for it to come to pass."

God doesn't see time the way we do. God is not like us. We place far more weight on our view than on what God sees. But we see everything backwards.

 

[Lees]

You might be more accurate to use the word "intended" instead of "wanted". But they were not standing in their own righteousness if God made them righteous. He intended that they would sin or they would not have done so. Gen 3:15 is a declaration of war against Satan and evil in which Satan and evil will be destroyed. In the new heaven and new earth with God dwelling with us (Rev 21) we will be actually righteous---therefore by your same reasoning we would be standing in our own righteousness. We are declared righteous in this age, while we still have our sin nature and will still sometimes sin. But because we are declared righteous by the imputed righteousness of Christ, sin cannot again condemn us. As Paul says, it is not I who sin but sin that dwells in me. In the age to come, we will be actually righteous.

I am comfortable with the word 'wanted'.

I am not saying that Adam and Eve were openly declaring they were in their own righteousness. I am saying that because God created them sinless, their own righteousness is what they were in. But, this is the beginning of what God wanted, which is to have them as righteous as God.

For example: Did God give the Law to Moses and Israel? Yes He did. Did that Law require sacrifices for sin to be brought before God? Yes it did. But note what David said in his penitence toward God concerning his sin of adultry and murder.

(Ps. 51:1-2) "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness...Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and clense me from my sin."

(Ps. 51:4-6) "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight....Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom."

(Ps. 51:16-17) "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burn't-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

In other words, David is saying, God has required the animal sacrifice for sin, but that is not really what God is after. The animal sacrificial system was a means to an end. Not the end. And David, because he had a heart after God, (1 Sam. 13:14) (Acts 13:22), knew God, and knew what God really wanted. Quite an understanding seeing David was still under Law. And God had mercy on David as he should have died for his sin.

I disagree. In the New Heaven and New Earth, we will be righteous only in the declared righteousness that results from being in Christ. (Philippians 3:9) "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

This is why I say, the day we are born-again, we are just as righteous as we will ever be for all eternity.

Lees

 

[Lees]

If they could not obey then we do know they would have sinned, thought they were sinless.

My statement was in response to Arial's statement, "Being perfectly obedient is what we in fallen Adam could not do." Post #(36) To which I replied, "But neither Adam or Eve could be obedient though they were sinless."

In other words, just being created 'sinless' was no gurantee for obedience to God. No gurantee that they would not sin.

Adam and Eve were sinless till they sinned.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Lees said:
But neither Adam or Eve could be obedient, though they were sinless.

@Lees why do you say they could not obey? What are you talking about? How do you come to that conclusion?

Do you mean that as it turned out when they were tempted in this particular instance, the fact that they did not obey shows that they could have done no differently? I.e. that they were absolutely CAUSED to choose what they chose to do?

Or are you saying that they never obeyed at all, all along, because they could not, but only failed to disobey all the time until their temptation?

Or what?

The fact that Adam and Eve did sin, shows that their being in a sinless state was no gurantee that they would not sin. Which in turn shows, that even if they had not sinned, they still could have.

Well...why did God let/put the serpent in the Garden?

Lees

 

[Lees]

This might be a curious notion to you, but one worth contemplating.

I have been asked by atheists, "If GOD can create anything he chooses to create, why didn't he just create the end result (Heaven and its residents) to begin with? --Why go through all this mess to get there? --Why the fall and the cross? --Why bother with resurrection? --Why all the suffering and pain?" And particularly, "Why the reprobation of most of humanity?"

My answer to them: "Maybe he did just that! Most likely, I think, what he spoke into existence was instantaneously done upon his speaking it. And it has so far taken these 6000 (or 14 billion, if you prefer) years for it to come to pass."

God doesn't see time the way we do. God is not like us. We place far more weight on our view than on what God sees. But we see everything backwards.

I have dealt with the same questions also. My answer is that God has done what He has done in the creation, to obtain what He wants. And the way He has done it is the way it works. And when I say, 'the way it works', I mean it must work according to God.

This is why I say, Adam and Eve in a perfect environment in the Garden, sinless and in fellowship with God, was not what God was after. It is but the means to an end to what He is after.

If it was what God wanted, He would never have put/let the serpent in the Garden.

Lees

 

[JIM]

I will present another angle here. It is not that God cannot do something, in this case create a perfectly righteous man. I believe he did so for what he cannot do because it violates who he is (perfectly righteous) is create anything that is not perfect.

What he did do when he created man was to create him mortal---able to die---but also able to not die as long as he had access to the tree of life. And he created him corruptible, but not corrupted. We can see this when we read in 1 Cor 15 as to how the dead in Christ and those in Christ who are alive when Christ returns are changed. From mortal to immortal, from corrupted to incorruptible.

I agree with you here.

So the question then becomes, why did he do that, knowing what Adam would do before he created our world, and ordaining the fall? Purposely putting his arch enemy in the garden. I believe the answer is in the final result as we see in both Is 11 and Rev 21. Evil was already present before creation obviously. God had knowledge of it and Scripture tells us that Satan is the father of it---not as creator of evil (for evil is not a creation but the absence of good and God is the measurement of good) but as rebelling against God by wanting to take his place and gathering an army around himself.

I don't believe God put His arch enemy, Satan, in the garden. Satan is still a free moral, spiritual agent. God allowed Satan to enter the garden. The question is why God would create this universe and allow Satan to engage with it. I believe the answer is in the message of Job.

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.

Satan was allowed to test Job:

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
Job 1:7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."
Job 1:8 And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?"
Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for no reason?
Job 1:10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.
Job 1:11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face."
Job 1:12 And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

Satan then takes Job's property and children. The rest of Job is a very detailed story of Job's reaction and handling of all that Satan was allowed to inflict upon him. In the end, Job remained faithful. He abided (abode?) with God.

Job 42:10 And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.

The story of Job is in a very real sense the story of all of us. We begin blameless and upright. At some point we are hit with the attempts of Satan to distract us from God. If we remain true to God throughout our trials and temptations we will, in the end, be restored to our final reward in the kingdom of so much more than anything we have or might have in the here and now. The story of Job is contained wholly withing the timeframe of life in this earthly realm. I believe it is symbolic of our spiritual lives encompassing both the timeframe of life in this earthly realm and in the reward of the future life to come.

I believe the whole purpose of God creating this universe including the spiritual being, man, seeking those who willingly of their own free will choose to honor, obey and love God as Job did, in spite of Satan's attempts to thwart him. To those, not only will God reward them with eternal life, He will reward them in the here and now with His direct assistance through the Holy Spirit in helping them hold fast through the trials and temptations by Satan.

I believe the picture is far bigger than us and our redemption.

I believe the picture is our redemption. It is the Jobs of mankind who love God. It is those that he, foreknowing them, predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies (Rom 8:38-30).

 

[Arial]

I have dealt with the same questions also. My answer is that God has done what He has done in the creation, to obtain what He wants. And the way He has done it is the way it works. And when I say, 'the way it works', I mean it must work according to God.

This is why I say, Adam and Eve in a perfect environment in the Garden, sinless and in fellowship with God, was not what God was after. It is but the means to an end to what He is after.

If it was what God wanted, He would never have put/let the serpent in the Garden.

Lees

I agree that God had a purpose for Adam falling into sin. What we disagree on is what that purpose is.

You say so that Adam (and by extension all humanity) would not have their own righteousness but imputed righteousness. (I may not have paraphrased your view very well or accurately so apologies if that is the case.)

I say it is so that through our redemption sin and death are conquered. This is done by Christ through his perfect righteousness, his substitutionary death on the cross, his resurrection from the dead, ascension as King and High Priest, and the imputation of his righteousness to those who believe, and the indwelling with them of the Holy Spirit. In the age to come, at Christ's return, we will be made acturally righteous. We won't sin anymore, and we will not die, and it will not be possible for us to sin because the source has been destroyed. (1 Cor 15).

 

[makesends]

The fact that Adam and Eve did sin, shows that their being in a sinless state was no gurantee that they would not sin. Which in turn shows, that even if they had not sinned, they still could have.

I don't see how that answers my question. But that's ok. I read your answer elsewhere: It was rhetorical.

Well...why did God let/put the serpent in the Garden?

Lees

To me, at least, the answer to. "why did God let/put the serpent in the Garden", is obvious. Redemption, and its subsequent results; being In Christ, Heaven. Nothing happens by accident.

Maybe we haven't dealt with that in this thread --I thought we had.

 

[Josheb]

My statement was in response to Arial's statement, "Being perfectly obedient is what we in fallen Adam could not do." Post #(36) To which I replied, "But neither Adam or Eve could be obedient though they were sinless."

In other words, just being created 'sinless' was no gurantee for obedience to God. No gurantee that they would not sin.

Adam and Eve were sinless till they sinned.

Lees

Are we having this conversation?

If so, I am fully aware of what was posted by both of you. The fact remains sentences in two posts contradict each other (Posts 28 and 36). If A&E could not remain obedient then we do know whether or not they would sin. As someone else pointed out, A and Not-A are mutually exclusive of one another. It's basic logic. Therefore, the following.....

​

As to, if Adam and Eve would ever sin without the serpent tempting, I said, that remains a question. And how could we know? Well...yes, if the serpent were not in the garden as the tempter, and Adam and Eve were sinless, then their will would never come into conflict with God's will.......

Is incorrect.

• No question remains pertaining to whether or not Adam and Eve would ever sin because..... "neither Adam or Eve could be obedient though they were sinless."
• We can know because.... neither one of them could be obedient!
• If neither Adam or Eve could be obedient, then we do know their will could and would come into conflict with God's will at some point.

We know they would sin because, according to Post 36, because being created sinless was no guarantee of obedience AND neither Adam or Eve could be obedient though they were sinless. I am not trying to be unduly critical. I am simply pointing out a contradiction.

Part of the problem with this op is that sin has been defined as a conflict between God's will and the human will. That is a good, true, and valid definition BUT it is not the only definition of sin scripture provides. Another part of the problem is that the op couches the problem in sin, when sin is not the only reason Jesus came into this world. Jesus was coming into the world whether or not Adam or Eve, or anyone else ever sinned and correctly grasping the problem to be solved (the incompleteness of humanity) is critical. Which is why I suggested listing the reasons Jesus came into the world. When we understand all that Jesus does then we understand something very, very, very important: Sin is irrelevant to God's purpose creating us! Yes, Jesus came to undue the works of the devil and he provided a victory over sin we could not provide for ourselves but that is not the only reason he came and God's purpose creating humanity is NOT limited to the problem of sin. That is true whether or not sin serves God's purpose or not (of course sin serves God; God is sovereign over everything!). You were 100% correct to observe Adam and Eve were incomplete. However, any view of sin that makes it necessary to God is going to lead to a variety of problems, both scripturally and logically.


Does any of that make sense? Would you like me to walk you through the scriptures to prove the above?

 

[Lees]

I agree that God had a purpose for Adam falling into sin. What we disagree on is what that purpose is.

You say so that Adam (and by extension all humanity) would not have their own righteousness but imputed righteousness. (I may not have paraphrased your view very well or accurately so apologies if that is the case.)

I say it is so that through our redemption sin and death are conquered. This is done by Christ through his perfect righteousness, his substitutionary death on the cross, his resurrection from the dead, ascension as King and High Priest, and the imputation of his righteousness to those who believe, and the indwelling with them of the Holy Spirit. In the age to come, at Christ's return, we will be made acturally righteous. We won't sin anymore, and we will not die, and it will not be possible for us to sin because the source has been destroyed. (1 Cor 15).

And I agree with all that you have said about God's purpose in our redemption, except that of 'imputed righteousness'.

Yes, I believe all of the redeemed will stand only in the 'imputed righteousness' of Christ.

Consider the finality of the other two imputations. 1.) Adam's sin imputed to the human race. That is true forever. 2.) The human race's sin imputed to Christ. We certainly don't want that to change. And it won't, it is forever. 3.) Christ's righteousness imputed to the believers. Why should that be temporary?

In other words, the imputed righteousness of Christ to us is a 'faith based righteousness'. (Philippians 3:9) "...the righteousness which is of God by faith." Once there I suppose 'faith' is no longer a factor. But that which faith has secured here doesn't seem to change. Our salvation, eternal life, etc. etc. So, why would our imputed righteousness change?

When you say 'actually righteous' are you saying, our righteousness will no longer be imputed, but will be God's righteousness? Our righteousness will no longer be a faith based righteousness, but it will be our righteousness?

(2 Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." That is imputed righteousness. 'In Him'.

Lees

 

[makesends]

In other words, the imputed righteousness of Christ to us is a 'faith based righteousness'. (Philippians 3:9) "...the righteousness which is of God by faith." Once there I suppose 'faith' is no longer a factor. But that which faith has secured here doesn't seem to change. Our salvation, eternal life, etc. etc. So, why would our imputed righteousness change?

When you say 'actually righteous' are you saying, our righteousness will no longer be imputed, but will be God's righteousness? Our righteousness will no longer be a faith based righteousness, but it will be our righteousness?

(2 Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." That is imputed righteousness. 'In Him'.

Maybe it would be worth considering just what that faith IS, or, at least, from where it is comes.

Long story short, the faith is not irrelevant in Heaven, but rather is, in a sense, all there is! Here, it is the evidence of what is not seen --that is, the Spirit of God in us is the evidence of what is real. But in Heaven, when it is complete, we will be IN HIM, which we are already, the quality of which is altogether real, but we don't see it complete as yet.

In Heaven, we ARE quite literally the very Body of Christ.

 

[Lees]

I don't see how that answers my question. But that's ok. I read your answer elsewhere: It was rhetorical.

To me, at least, the answer to. "why did God let/put the serpent in the Garden", is obvious. Redemption, and its subsequent results; being In Christ, Heaven. Nothing happens by accident.

Maybe we haven't dealt with that in this thread --I thought we had.

I brought up the question of the serpent in the garden in response to your question in post #(40). "...that they were absolutely CAUSED to chose what they chose to do?"

My response being, 'why did God let/put the serpent in the Garden'

Lees

 

[Mr GLee]

I have dealt with the same questions also. My answer is that God has done what He has done in the creation, to obtain what He wants. And the way He has done it is the way it works. And when I say, 'the way it works', I mean it must work according to God.

This is why I say, Adam and Eve in a perfect environment in the Garden, sinless and in fellowship with God, was not what God was after. It is but the means to an end to what He is after.

If it was what God wanted, He would never have put/let the serpent in the Garden.

Lees

I would offer..

The serpent in the garden was the most beautiful creation before its legs were cut off in order to show Lucifer is not walking with Christ . Some say like the creatures of the deep illuminating as neon light.

The father of lies through false prohecy adding to sola scriptura ,violated the law not to add or subtract. Put his words in the mouth of the serpent . "Neither shall you touch" the hidden tree . lust of flesh, lust of eye.

Putting his lies in the mouth of the serpent used as a false prophet .

Same kind of gospel understanding as a parable with Balaam the false prophet.

God put his words in the mouth of a Ass who prophesied. "What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

The "she said" the Ass, represents the bride of Christ, the preacher of the gospel

That parable is a fulfilment of the ceremonial law a sign to wonder after to the unbelieving world .

The Ass in a ceremonial shadow of the unclean. non-redeemed which must be redeemed with a lamb to represent our redeemer. Christ in us..

Exodus 13:13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

Teaching God is not served by the dying hands of mankind . He has none but satisfies all

In that way God is able to use stones to raise up born again children

 

[makesends]

Are we having this conversation?

If so, I am fully aware of what was posted by both of you. The fact remains sentences in two posts contradict each other (Posts 28 and 36). If A&E could not remain obedient then we do know whether or not they would sin. As someone else pointed out, A and Not-A are mutually exclusive of one another. It's basic logic. Therefore, the following.....

​

Is incorrect.

• No question remains pertaining to whether or not Adam and Eve would ever sin because..... "neither Adam or Eve could be obedient though they were sinless."
• We can know because.... neither one of them could be obedient!
• If neither Adam or Eve could be obedient, then we do know their will could and would come into conflict with God's will at some point.

We know they would sin because, according to Post 36, because being created sinless was no guarantee of obedience AND neither Adam or Eve could be obedient though they were sinless. I am not trying to be unduly critical. I am simply pointing out a contradiction.

Part of the problem with this op is that sin has been defined as a conflict between God's will and the human will. That is a good, true, and valid definition BUT it is not the only definition of sin scripture provides. Another part of the problem is that the op couches the problem in sin, when sin is not the only reason Jesus came into this world. Jesus was coming into the world whether or not Adam or Eve, or anyone else ever sinned and correctly grasping the problem to be solved (the incompleteness of humanity) is critical. Which is why I suggested listing the reasons Jesus came into the world. When we understand all that Jesus does then we understand something very, very, very important: Sin is irrelevant to God's purpose creating us! Yes, Jesus came to undue the works of the devil and he provided a victory over sin we could not provide for ourselves but that is not the only reason he came and God's purpose creating humanity is NOT limited to the problem of sin. That is true whether or not sin serves God's purpose or not (of course sin serves God; God is sovereign over everything!). You were 100% correct to observe Adam and Eve were incomplete. However, any view of sin that makes it necessary to God is going to lead to a variety of problems, both scripturally and logically.


Does any of that make sense? Would you like me to walk you through the scriptures to prove the above?

Hey, Josh, I haven't heard it confirmed, but in one post I saw @Lees saying that his statement that A&E could not obey was a rhetorical response to something @Arial had said. I'm not going back to look for it again, but maybe someone can explain this. To me, the statement on its own is ludicrous. With every breath they were obeying, until they didn't. There is no such thing as neutral with moral agents.

 

[Lees]

Maybe it would be worth considering just what that faith IS, or, at least, from where it is comes.

Long story short, the faith is not irrelevant in Heaven, but rather is, in a sense, all there is! Here, it is the evidence of what is not seen --that is, the Spirit of God in us is the evidence of what is real. But in Heaven, when it is complete, we will be IN HIM, which we are already, the quality of which is altogether real, but we don't see it complete as yet.

In Heaven, we ARE quite literally the very Body of Christ.

But, as you say, we are in Him already. We are the Body of Christ already. So both here and there, we are the righteousness of God...in Him. And that is, as I understand it, imputed righteousness. (2 Cor. 5:21) (Philippians 3:9)

Lees

 

[Josheb]

And I agree with all that you have said about God's purpose in our redemption, except that of 'imputed righteousness'.

Yes, I believe all of the redeemed will stand only in the 'imputed righteousness' of Christ.

Consider the finality of the other two imputations. 1.) Adam's sin imputed to the human race. That is true forever.

It is not true on the other side of the grave. With the resurrection the saints are transformed to become incorruptible and immortal (no more sin and, therefore, no more need for imputation of sin or righteousness). With the resurrection and final judgment sin and death are destroyed forever.

Consider the finality of the other two imputations. 1.) Adam's sin imputed to the human race. That is true forever. 2.) The human race's sin imputed to Christ. We certainly don't want that to change. And it won't, it is forever. 3.) Christ's righteousness imputed to the believers. Why should that be temporary?

There is no further need for the imputation of our sin to Christ. That's done. There is also no further need to have Christ's righteousness imputed to us once we are made righteous, which is what happens with the post-resurrection transformation.

1 Corinthians 15:53-54
For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality.....

Adam and Eve (and all their progeny) were made corruptible. In Christ righteousness has been imputed to us but there is a day coming for each of the saints in which s/he is raised imperishable (not able to perish, not able to ever again become corrupt) and immortal.

That is the completion of what God began in Eden at Genesis 1:27.

Revelation 22:10-11
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."

1 John 2:29-3:10
If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him. See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason, the world does not know us, because it did not know him. Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when he appears, we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on him purifies himself, just as he is pure. Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared in order to take away sins; and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or knows him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.


There is a day, on the other side of resurrection, when and where sin is no more and not only does sin no longer exist, but those in Christ will be incorruptible, never again able to corrupt themselves with thoughts. choices, or acts of disobedience.

We will be complete.​

Romans 5:18-19
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one the many will be made righteous.

We will be made righteous. We will be like Jesus (incorruptible and immortal). What God began in Eden He will finish in Christ on the other side of resurrection.

 

[makesends]

But, as you say, we are in Him already. We are the Body of Christ already. So both here and there, we are the righteousness of God...in Him. And that is, as I understand it, imputed righteousness. (2 Cor. 5:21) (Philippians 3:9)

Lees

True, but, as I think you would agree with the point, there it is not anymore imputed to us as though to separate entities, but IS us.

This I say in keeping with the "already but not yet" theme, but also with the absolute glorification/transformation into complete unity with the Son of God and with each other. The quality of it, we already have, but not to the degree we will there.

 

[Josheb]

Hey, Josh, I haven't heard it confirmed, but in one post I saw @Lees saying that his statement that A&E could not obey was a rhetorical response to something @Arial had said. I'm not going back to look for it again, but maybe someone can explain this.

I'm okay with that being the case. A simple statement to that effect would go a long way. A winking emoji when first posted would have prevented any misunderstanding.

To me, the statement on its own is ludicrous.

Me too!

With every breath they were obeying, until they didn't. There is no such thing as neutral with moral agents.

The angels and devils are in the details .

Adam and Eve were made good; good, unashamed, and sinless.* That goodness necessitates them also being good morally and, therefore, "good moral agents," as you put it. However, as I just posted, 1 Corinthians 15 tells us we humans were "sown" corruptible. We were not made already corrupted. We were made without any corruption existing at the time of our creation. EVerything was good and there was no sin in the world. However, God, in His wisdom and might made us able to be corrupted, corruptible, or perishable.

• Not -corrupt (sinless)
• Corruptible
• Corrupt
• Incorruptible

Those are the options. God made A&E the first and second. A&E then became the third. One day those in Christ will become the fourth. When put in the context of the opening post, what God began in Eden at Genesis 1:27 will be completed or finished with the resurrection when the saints will be made incorruptible and immortal.


Once this is understood then the problem of sin has an entirely different meaning AND the problem to be solved (from the human perspective) turns out to have very little, if anything, to do with sin! The "problem" to be solved is the corruptibility. At Genesis 3:6-7 that problem was added to. Humans were then both corruptible and corrupted. Now there are two problems, not one. The first problem is ontological. A fundamental change in the human constitution needs to happen. Sinfulness defines corruption. Sin does not define corruptibility. Adam and Eve were made sinless, but they are also made corruptible. It is, therefore, possible to be sinless and corruptible, but it is not possible to be sinless and corrupt. Those two conditions are mutually exclusive of one another. Humanity (or at least the saintly portion of it) needs to be changed from corruptible to incorruptible (which is what Jesus is). If we're incorruptible then there is absolutely no possibility that we would/could/might ever be corrupt. Until that day when we are made incorruptible, we humanity remains both corruptible and corrupt.


And, if I understand the op correctly, then I think that is what @Lees is attempting to say with this op.








* Gen. 1:31, Gen. 2:25; Rom. 5:12 = good, unashamed, and sinless.
.

 

[makesends]

There is no further need for the imputation of our sin to Christ. That's done. There is also no further need to have Christ's righteousness imputed to us once we are made righteous, which is what happens with the post-resurrection transformation.

That's a good and relevant point, but seems to me pretty temporally described. But maybe I read this wrong.

When we are there, I'd say, what we called here, "imputation", is there our very status and being, IN CHRIST. His very body. His Righteousness. We are enveloped, absorbed, swallowed up in his righteousness.

As you seem to me to be saying, it is no longer (in Heaven) a matter of need for imputation, because there, sin is no longer an issue to be resolved. Yet the fact of Christ's righteousness (which here must be imputed to us) there becomes our very definition and existence. I think this is what John 17 is talking about. We are become that, which we are not altogether here, nor were A&E in their innocence before the fall, altogether In Him.

 

[makesends]

But, as you say, we are in Him already. We are the Body of Christ already. So both here and there, we are the righteousness of God...in Him. And that is, as I understand it, imputed righteousness. (2 Cor. 5:21) (Philippians 3:9)

Lees

Good enough. From here, I think, the argument is the use of semantics. You are not wrong.