Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Theological Forum' started by WrittenFromUtopia, Mar 16, 2006.
Any thoughts or comments?
Here is where he has an interpretive problem. Does he mean saving grace, common grace, or some tertium quid of grace? If he means saving grace, then he misunderstands righteousness. If he lumps all grace together, then he misunderstands God's decrees.
Question 9 assumes that the compound verbs of chapter 19, section 1 are to be taken together, as if the clause after the 2nd main verb should be applied with the first clause and vice versa. However, it doesn't make any sense that God "endued" Adam with a law. Likewise, he needs to answer the question as to whether God "gave" or was gracious to include the power and ability to keep it. To me, the point is moot. We already know that man was made in God's image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. As such, he was created to keep the law. There was only a possibility to sin, not a proclivity. So, in making this distinction he's trying to show that God saved him by grace before he needed saving. I'm just not sure where he can back that up in Scripture.
In Question 10, he's assuming something that isn't there. Again, if we assume that grace is what is operative in Adam's original righteousness and communion, then we have to assume that's what he's fallen from. But where there is no sin, there is no need of an alien righteousness. Adam was made righteous, therefore, he had no need for saving grace and the imputed righteousness of another.