Spiritual death has been "passed" from Adam

Sorry, don't buy it at all! God does not have two standards of righteousness. Man was made "upright" and without sin and the very definition of sin is violation of God's law and it does not make one whit of difference which law of God is volated.

God made man in his image and that is at minimum a moral image. When Paul describes that image, God's image, he describes it in moral terms "true holiness and righteousness." To claim this is referring to the new creation is simply to side step the real issue. The real issue is that God is immutable and that is his image regardless if it characterizes the new birth and it is in that image Adam was created. The term "upright" proves that and man was "made" upright by God. That is a moral description and God does not have two different moral conditions or moral standards.

But you have two different types of morality, one belonging to Adam inferior to God or in your words "not created as God's MORAL EQUIVILENT." He was not created as God's IMMUTABLE equivilent but he most certainly was created in God's moral equivility - or in righteousness or the righteousness that characterizes God's person, His law, and His Son. But you have one standard of righteousness belonging to Adam and another belonging to God. That is absurdly false simply because God cannot convey a LOWER or INFERIOR kind of righteousness as he has no other standard to convey but the moral equivilent which defines him. Adam was created in the moral image of God "true holiness and righteousness." The only difference, is that he was not created in that moral image immutably, but mutably.

 

You are simply wrong. The Law of God IN PRINCIPLE is the righteousness of God because in principle both Jesus and Paul says it boils down to "love" and God is Love. I am not talking about the "letter" of the law but the "spirit" of the law. Instead you pit God's moral righteousness against God revealed righteousness in the Law (spirit of the law). I don't think you will ever grasp your error because you have too much theological baggage that depends on your error.

Again, you can't or won't respond to what I said in the last post because you can't and you know you can't, so you simply ignore it and repeat your assertion which is a false assertion.

I notice you characteristically ignore the substance of a post and zero in on some non-essential aspect and then reassert your position as though nothing has been placed before you to challenge your assertion. It would be nice if we could have an actual dialogue where you directly deal with the substance of a post. But, that is not your style (lol)

 

You have a very short memory or a very selective memory, I have told you clearly that I do not believe God's redemptive righteousness comes through the law and I don't know why you keep beating this dead dog. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't believe that, never have beleived that and never will believe that.

If you really want to know what I believe, then read the next few sentences very carefully and consider what I am saying.

The new creation within us is created in true holiness and righteousness, the very righteousness of God revealed and lived out in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Where you and I disagree is not about the nature or the source of our redemptive righteousness because we both believe it is God's own righteousness.

Where you and I disagree is whether the law, not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law reveals the very same righteousness found in God's incarnated person. Both Jesus and Paul explicitly state in the clearest language possible that "love" is the fulfilling of the law and all the law and the prophets can be summarized by the great commandment. It is impossible for the "letter" of the law to be the express image of God's righteousness nature simply because it is ink on paper. However, when that ink on paper is properly interpreted and then administered by the Person of the Holy Spirit through a child of God then it becomes a living PRINCIPLE and SPIRITUAL in nature and reveals God's own righteousness.

It is one thing to say that the Law of God cannot convey to anyone redemptive righteousness (which both of us agree) but it is quite another thing to say that the Law of God reveals a different righteousness than God's own righteousness. It is not a PERFECT revelation of God's righteousnesss because ink on paper cannot be a PERFECT revelation of God's righteousness, but when applied by the indwelling Spirit or put into practice by Christ it is the very same righteousness.

 

Why do I believe God's righteousness has to do with what is right and just versus what is evil and unjust? That is the meaning of "moral." Because the Bible repeatably says over and over and over and over again, that God is a just God, a righteous God, and a God who abhors evil. The law of God reveals what is just, what is righteous and what should be abhored as evil. Do you deny God is a "moral" being? Do you deny that God is "righteous" and "just" and "Holy" and abhors evil? For example, do you believe God can lie? If the law does not reveal what it means to lie then how do we define what is a lie? How do we define "just" or "holy" or "good" or "evil" if the Bible does not reveal that definition? Does God practice a different kind of justness, holiness, good and righteousness different than what the Bible defines to be just, holy, goo and right? Is the Bible's definition of good, right, just and holy different than God's own example and behavior toward men? If so, then how can we define what it means for God to be righteous, just and holy? Where do you get a definition for those terms?

Again, you have ignored the bulk of my post. God does not have two standards of righteousness, God does not have an image which is true holiness and righteousness and one that is not true holiness and righteousness. Again, the law is designed to reveal God's standard of morality, what is holy verus unholy.

Why would you deny God is a "moral" being? Why would you deny he has a just and holy nature and why would you suggest that God's Word does not reveal what is just and holy?

Where Rome went astray is mixing secular philosophy (Aristotle, Plato, etc.) into theology, thus inventing an external standard and forcing it upon the scriptures. Be careful. Scripture was not sufficient to define itself or to define God or to define the attributes of God. We can drop the term "moral" and simply ask does the Bible teach God is a righteous, just and holy God according to the Bible's own revelation of what is righteous, just and holy? I say yes what do you say? I admit the term "moral" is not a biblical term just as the term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term but both convey true Biblical doctrine.

 

Moral Behavior or character is simply a reflection of applied principles of right and wrong. It is simply the difference between cause (principles) and consequences (conduct and character). The Law (Bible) defines those principles but cannot produce them in God or in man. These are the VERY SAME PRINCIPLES that define God's character and therefore God's character and behavior. Note, these principles define his character and conduct BUT THEY DON'T PRODUCE IT.

Likewise, the law defines what is true holiness and rightoeusness in principle but the law does not produce them or convey them in either God or in man.

Hence, redemptive righteousness is moral righteousness as revealed by the Law but it is not obtained by or through the law but is obtained directly from God.

When God created all things "good" it was "good" as far as asthetic and moral goodness as man was "made upright" or morally good in keeping with the very same goodness that defines God's own character and conduct.

Like I said, I have NEVER taken the position you have ascribed to me several times - never! I have not changed my position at all. If you think so, produce any post of mine that demonstrates that. I have never said our righteousness is obtained through the law or that Christ's righteousness was obtained through/by the law - Never! Indeed, I have a long record of refuting and repudiating that error as that is the essence of justification by works of the law and I have NEVER taken that position -NEVER - you have simply imputed it to me based on ???????

 

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. - Rom. 7:12

Paul is saying precisely what I am saying! The law "IS" what? "holy" and "just" and what else? Oh yeah "good"? Is Paul using circular reasoning for saying the law is holy, and just and good and uses the very same terms to describe God's character and uses the very same terms to describe the righteousness imputed and imparted by God to man?????

Don't you get tired of misrepresenting people??? I do not beleive righteousness comes through the law and please stop saying that is what I believe because I don't. The only thing I believe that comes "through the law" is condemnation not justification, not righteousness. The law defines what is good, reveals what is good, r

 

No, the law is not merely "holy" but it is "just" and and "good"! But tell me Jon, Why is it that?