Spiritual death has been "passed" from Adam

And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. - Eph. 4:24

It seems clear to me that Paul is saying that the "new man" is created "after God." Paul employs the Greek preposition "kata" which means "according to" or "in keeping with" God. God is a "spirit" and therefore Paul is speaking directly of the character of God in terms of moral values. Moral in the sense of character value of righteous versus unrighteous. Righteousness can only be understood in contrast to unrighteousness as it has no meaning apart from that contrast. Moreover, that moral value dictates conduct as the Bible says "God cannot lie" because the moral values that characterize his immutable nature do not permit that kind of conduct.

However, Adam's character was not immutably confirmed by that same moral value as free will could alter his created moral character value to an immoral character value with conduct that harmonizes.

Paul does not say the image of God includes "a" true holiness and righteousness but "in" righteousness and true holiness as that characterizes God's nature/image. God's nature/image is defined by "righteousness and true holiness" and so is the "new man" which God created.

Adam was made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27) and the same moral value is conveyed by Solomon when he said Adam "was made upright." "Upright" in scripture is a moral equivilent to "righteous."

Furthermore, Paul speaking on the very same subject (creation of the new man) identifies it with God's image:

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: - Col. 3:10

In both texts Paul employs the Greek preposition "Kata" which means "according to" or "in keeping with", Hence, the new man is created by God "in keeping with" God's image

 

So you believe that the image of God cannot be described in the likeness of "true holiness and righteousness"???

You are changing a positive assertion into a neutral assertion. The term "upright" when used in scripture consistently refers to a "righteous" condition rather than mere absence of sin.

Then you attempt to change the term "upright" to another negative assertion "not an enemy" when that term is NEVER used in scripture for that idea. The very same Hebrew term is used as a moral equivilent to "just" and in opposition to "unjust."

Pr 29:27 An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.

Pr 21:29 A wicked man hardeneth his face : but as for the upright , he directeth his way

Ps 64:10 The righteous shall be glad in the LORD, and shall trust in him; and all the upright in heart shall glory.

 

You are very welcome! However, I don't understand how you can deny the use of the term "moral" as descriptive of the values that characterizes God's character and conduct? If "righteousness" is not a "moral" principle as opposed to "unrighteousness" which is equally a moral principle then what other category can those opposing values fall under?

I hope you don't shut down this thread as I think there are others still interested in this discussion and there is more I would like to post.

 

I disagree that a moral "code" is involved. A moral "code" may convey such values but such values are not dependent or inseparable from a "code." I believe the law gives written expression and definition to moral principles but the existence of moral values/principles do not depend on the existence of a code.

My arguement has been and still is that the law gives written expression and explanation of the moral values that define God's character and describe man's character long before Moses ever lived.

God IS the moral standard and therefore God has a moral nature. The Law of God is righteous and therefore the Law is God's standard of righteousness.

 

Well, it seemed like your post was finalizing this discussion.

I think that both of our views are adequately presented on this thread.

We disagree. I have a concern that goes beyond this thread and topic. Until I can resolve that concern I am going to refrain from our dialogue here.

Thank you for your opinions, definitions, and interpretations. They have helped me understand your view.

 

Ok

 

Understood. Sorry, didn't mean to misunderstand you.

 

But Jon, the reverse must then be true too! You must be righteous to be a friend of God. Adam was in fellowship with God.