Spiritual death has been "passed" from Adam

[JonC]

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

If you don't understand why, or that, the law is just and good then you need to read your Bible instead of asking me. Those are basic things.

Again - an apple is a fruit. But "apple" does not define "fruit".

 

[The Biblicist]

If you don't understand why, or that, the law is just and good then you need to read your Bible instead of asking me. Those are basic things.

lol! You won't answer because your answer will condemn your argument and that was the point for asking those questions.

Again - an apple is a fruit. But "apple" does not define "fruit".

Again, an apple IS fruit and when you define fruit you are defining the basic nature of an apple. Putting this silly fruity argument aside, your problem remains the same! There are not TWO different types of moral standards of "good" and "just" and "holy" but only one ultimate standard and that is God's own nature and YOU HAVE NO WAY TO UNDERSTAND OR DEFINE WHAT THAT IS APART FROM WHAT IS REVEALED BY GOD'S LAW/PRECEPTS. Paul tells you explicitly that the KNOWLEDGE of sin is the purpose of the Law apart from the Law there is no revealed knowledge of what sin is. Defining sin defines righteousness because righteousness is not sin. The opposite of sin is love and love is defined in opposite terms of sin and that too is revealed by God's law/commandments.

However, righteousness does not come by keeping the law or come through the law but it does come in harmony with what is reveald in the law.[/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

The law is an example of God's righteousness. So is grace and forgiveness. You would be closer to Scripture if you were relate divine righteousness to love. God is not divine justice. God is not forgiveness. God is love.

Is the law a demonstration of God's righteousness? Yes. Is divine forgiveness apart from the moral law a demonstration of God's righteousness? Yes. Is God's righteousness His justice? No. Is it His forgiveness? No.

 

[The Biblicist]

The law is an example

Book chapter and verse please?

So is grace and forgiveness.

No comparison! Now you are confusing actions by God toward sinners with the Law of God that reveals the knowledge of sin. The former are descriptive of God's actions toward sinners while the later is a revelation.

You would be closer to Scripture if you were relate divine righteousness to love.

Better correct Paul as he relates righetous, just and good to God's Law even as he relates the same to the character of God.

God is not divine justice.

But God IS Just and the law IS just and God is love and the Law IS love when applied by the Spirit, and the Law IS good and God IS good.

God is not forgiveness.

Nowhere does the Bible say that the Law is forgiveness and therefore the law is not forgiveness either!

Is the law a demonstration of God's righteousness? Yes. ]/QUOTE] No, that is absurd! Now you are confusing the APPLICATION of the law with the Law. When the law is APPLIED it demonstrates God's righteousness but the law is itself the REVELATION of God's righteousness. If you dispute that, then please tell me how you can even define righteousness apart from God's Word????????

Is divine forgiveness apart from the moral law a demonstration of God's righteousness? Yes. No, that is just as absurd as your last statement. There is no need of "forgiveness" if the law has not revealed sin and righteousness. Forgive what?Remember, sin IS the violation of the Law just as sin IS the violation of God's holiness.

Is God's righteousness His justice? No.

Again, you are confusing an attribute with an applied action as Justice is the application of the law whereas the Law itself IS just, holy and good even as God is just, holy and good.

Is God's righteousness Just? Yes, Is his law Just? Yes! Is God's righteousness holy? Yes, Is the law holy? Yes! Is God's righteousness good? yes! Is the Law good? Yes! Why? If the law is just, holy and good, then in what sense? In the sense that the Law defines right from wrong and when the law is applied correctly the consequence will always be good, just and holy. In the sense that the Law REVEALS God's attributes and defines the knowledge of God

Is it His forgiveness? No.

Again, you are confusing an action with a principle. You know what you are doing! This might be a clever debate tactic but it fails to deal with the issue straight forward.

 

[JonC]

Book chapter and verse please?

No comparison! Now you are confusing actions by God toward sinners with the Law of God that reveals the knowledge of sin. The former are descriptive of God's actions toward sinners while the later is a revelation.

Better correct Paul as he relates righetous, just and good to God's Law even as he relates the same to the character of God.

But God IS Just and the law IS just and God is love and the Law IS love when applied by the Spirit, and the Law IS good and God IS good.

Nowhere does the Bible say that the Law is forgiveness and therefore the law is not forgiveness either!

Romans 7:12.

Paul tells us that the law is just, holy, and good. Ask yourself why. My answer is that God's law comes from God. God is not the author of evil. The law is just, holy, and good because God is just, holy, and good.

 

[The Biblicist]

Romans 7:12.

Paul tells us that the law is just, holy, and good. Ask yourself why. My answer is that God's law comes from God. God is not the author of evil. The law is just, holy, and good because God is just, holy, and good.

Your answer disproves your view. You say "God is not the author of EVIL" and yet how can you even know or define what "evil" is apart from His Law? You can't (Rom. 3:20). How can we know and define good, or just, or holy apart from his law? You can't! Hence, his law reveals and defines all of these moral terms, thus revealing and defiing the very attributes of God. The law reveals and defines what is righteous, just, good, holy, evil and the ADMINISTRATION of the law reveals what is justice, righteousness, holiness and sin.

Again,, the law does not produce such, but it alone defines and reveals such. Redemtive Righteousness, holiness,, love, is imputed and imparted from God.. However, the righteousnes, holiness, and love of God are in keeping with what the Law reveals and defines as rigtheousness, holiness and love of God.

In esssence, your answer simply demands the righteousness defined and revealed in the Law reveals God's own rightteousness (Rom. 3:21-22).

 

[JonC]

Your answer disproves your view. You say "God is not the author of EVIL" and yet how can you even know or define what "evil" is apart from His Law? You can't (Rom. 3:20). How can we know and define good, or just, or holy apart from his law? You can't! Hence, his law reveals and defines all of these moral terms, thus revealing and defiing the very attributes of God. The law reveals and defines what is righteous, just, good, holy, evil and the ADMINISTRATION of the law reveals what is justice, righteousness, holiness and sin.

Again,, the law does not produce such, but it alone defines and reveals such. Redemtive Righteousness, holiness,, love, is imputed and imparted from God.. However, the righteousnes, holiness, and love of God are in keeping with what the Law reveals and defines as rigtheousness, holiness and love of God.

In esssence, your answer simply demands the righteousness defined and revealed in the Law reveals God's own rightteousness (Rom. 3:21-22).

Your answer disproves your position. Scripture tells us that God is not the author of evil. I do not have to rely on the law or my own understanding to accept that is fact. All I have to do is trust God.

That is the difference. There is a righteousness apart from the law. And this righteousness cannot be understood by those trapped in an idea that the law defines God's righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your answer disproves your position. Scripture tells us that God is not the author of evil. I do not have to rely on the law or my own understanding to accept that is fact. All I have to do is trust God.

Now you are talking nonsense! What do you mean all you have to do is "trust" God? Did God audibly speak to you and define his words? Did God explain to you audibly what is evil? Explain evil without using your own understanding (mind) or God's Word? And when you give this explaination without using understanding or God's Word why should anyone believe what you say?

That is the difference. There is a righteousness apart from the law.

I neve said anyithing different. There is a righteousness apart from the law but there is no righteousness different than defined and revealed by the law. Think about what I just said and the distinction I just made.

And this righteousness cannot be understood by those trapped in an idea that the law defines God's righteousness.

Now, if you are referring to those who are attemtping to obtain the righteousness of God by or through the law you have a point as they obviously have no understanding of the true righteousness of God or they would not be attempting to obtain it through or by the law.

But if you are saying those who correctly understand the righteousness of God revealed by and through the law cannot understand the true righteousness of God then you are talking not merely utter and complete nonsense as you are claiming the Law of God does not reveal the rigtheousness of God but some other kind of righteousness: but flatly contradicting God's Word:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

"But now" meaning since Christ came and the righteousness of God was revealed incarnate. But prior to the coming of Christ the law revealed the righteousness of God just as it revealed the knowledge of sin.

 

[JonC]

Now you are talking nonsense! What do you mean all you have to do is "trust" God? Did God audibly speak to you and define his words? Did God explain to you audibly what is evil? Explain evil without using your own understanding (mind) or God's Word? And when you give this explaination without using understanding or God's Word why should anyone believe what you say?



I neve said anyithing different. There is a righteousness apart from the law but there is no righteousness different than defined and revealed by the law. Think about what I just said and the distinction I just made.



Now, if you are referring to those who are attemtping to obtain the righteousness of God by or through the law you have a point as they obviously have no understanding of the true righteousness of God or they would not be attempting to obtain it through or by the law.

But if you are saying those who correctly understand the righteousness of God revealed by and through the law cannot understand the true righteousness of God then you are talking not merely utter and complete nonsense as you are claiming the Law of God does not reveal the rigtheousness of God but some other kind of righteousness: but flatly contradicting God's Word:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

"But now" meaning since Christ came and the righteousness of God was revealed incarnate. But prior to the coming of Christ the law revealed the righteousness of God just as it revealed the knowledge of sin.

I am saying that for one to be saved all he or she has to do is repent and believe (to trust God). I understand why you believe this is nonsense. I once believed that a person had to come to an understanding (at least a basic understanding) of God's justice and the law in order to comprehend sin. But I've come to believe that God has revealed Himself to all in such a way that they are aware of their sinfulness. These moral issue (that moral standard expressed in God's law) is evident through creation and manifested in the consciences of man.

I am saying that those who understand God's righteousness manifested through the law only know in part. What they know is their standing in regard to God's moral righteousness. What they do not know (just based on God's law) is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am saying that for one to be saved all he or she has to do is repent and believe (to trust God). I understand why you believe this is nonsense.

Utterly amazing? Can hardly believe my eyes but there it is in black and white before my eyes in clear and explicit language! You are now charging me with believing that it is foolishness to think that all that is necessary for a lost person to be saved is but to repent and believe the gospel as though I don't believe that BECAUSE I believe the law is sufficient to reveal to lost men the elementary truths of good and evil, and the basic truth about the righteousness of God, and the difference between righteousness and unrighteousness which they can not only understand those basic things but will be held accountable on judgement day because they did understand and rejected what the law reveals and defines and what the gospel reveals???

But you don't stop there! You completely dismiss any previous "understanding" provided by inspired divine written revelation whether taught or preached that is necessary to understand sin or righteousness. Paul does not support your view as he says:

Rom. 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

But you are claiming Paul is delusional and deceived as he said "I HAD NOT KNOWN SIN BUT BY THE LAW" and so should you not also charge Paul for not believing all that is necessary to be saved is to repent and believe the gospel without any previous exposure to the Law or teaching and preaching of the word because he is saying precisely what I said???

Paul says he would not have known sin "but by the law" but you say sin and righteousness does not need any "understanding" obtained by or through exposure to the law but the knowledge of sin and righteousness that comes by direct divine revelatory knowledge in new birth! However, I say, if a person has not been trained in scripture and they are born again, they are "babies" and I never have known any baby that had a full understanding of sin, righteousness or anything else revealed in the word. Who should I believe? You or Paul? I think I will go with Paul.

But, look at your charge! Does not your very change contradict the very premise of your argument? How so? If no "understanding" prior to direct revelatory knowledge in new birth can convey understanding of sin and righteousness then why tell them to repent and believe and why preach the gospel as these are all precursors to new birth??? According to your logic are you not telling them to do what your view demands they have no "understanding" of and therefore such words "repent" and "believe" are meaningless and "gospel" is non-understandable?

So, should I assume and charge you with denying the preaching of the gospel is necessary in the redemptive plan of God to save his elect as your view claims they cannot "understand" its true message or intent anyway???? I think you are either forced to embrace that conclusion (heresy) or admit the law does reveal the true nature of sin and righteousness as God could not communicate anything less than its true nature and that it is communicated to be understood at least in sufficient measure to condemn them for rejecting it? Moreover, God does not define and reveal his righteousness in the law/scripture but then possess some other kind never revealed in scripture!!! Of course, righteousnes in his living being is superior to any written description of it but it is the SAME righteousness with regard to principle character as found in His very Person.

I once believed that a person had to come to an understanding (at least a basic understanding) of God's justice and the law in order to comprehend sin. But I've come to believe that God has revealed Himself to all in such a way that they are aware of their sinfulness. These moral issue (that moral standard expressed in God's law) is evident through creation and manifested in the consciences of man.

Well, should I congratulate you because you are superior to Paul as he never believed what you believe as he said "I had not known sin but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Even in people never exposed to the Mosaic law, Paul argued they had been exposed to another law, the law of conscience (Rom. 2:14-15) that provided the very same role in defining and giving understanding of right and wrong.

I am saying that those who understand God's righteousness manifested through the law only know in part.

No, the only difference is that one provides a correct mental understanding of God's righteousness (law) versus experiential knowledge of THE VERY SAME RIGHTEOUSNESS revealed in the Law(conversion). No difference, except the latter is in the form of a Person - Jesus Christ but the very same righteousness defined and described in His Word. God does not define and describe one kind of righteousness in His word and then appear in human form manifesting some other kind of righteousness but that is precisely what your view demands.

What they know is their standing in regard to God's moral righteousness.

So, you admit they can "know" their standing before God with regard to sin and righteousness. You just don't believe the "righteousness" revealed in the law for their understanding is God's righteousness but some kind of foreign righteousness to that which characterizes His own Person. You believe the Biblical definition and description of God's righteousness is not a true revelation of God's righteousness but a false revelation as they are two different kinds of righteousness according to your view? The only difference is one is a WRITTEN desciption and definition of a LIVING righteousness - that is the only difference as both are the same.

Again, "moral" is inclusive of right and wrong as principles and as applications. The "moral" law does not define right and wrong any differently than God's own Person defines right and wrong and he describes based upon his own righteous nature. The latter is superior only because it is LIVING while the latter is written or non-living - DEAD, but the law

What they do not know (just based on God's law) is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

Half truth! They know both but they don't know each in the same sense. What is revealed in the law is knowledge by understanding while what is revealed in the heart is experiential knowledge BUT THE VERY SAME RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD!

The truth is that the Law does reveal and define the true righteousness of God and does reveal and define the true nature of sin and need of repentance. The levitical law reveals the true nature of salvation and the truth of the gospel in symbols.

What the WRITTEN word does not do is provide EXPERIENTIAL knowledge of God's righteousness and salvation as that can only be imparted through new birth. However, what is WRITTEN is a TRUE account, a TRUE definition and a TRUE description of sin, God's righteousness, right, wrong and repentance.

 

[JonC]

Utterly amazing? Can hardly believe my eyes but there it is in black and white before my eyes in clear and explicit language! You are now charging me with believing that it is foolishness to think that all that is necessary for a lost person to be saved is but to repent and believe the gospel as though I don't believe that BECAUSE I believe the law is sufficient to reveal to lost men the elementary truths of good and evil, and the basic truth about the righteousness of God, and the difference between righteousness and unrighteousness which they can not only understand those basic things but will be held accountable on judgement day because they did understand and rejected what the law reveals and defines and what the gospel reveals???

But you don't stop there! You completely dismiss any previous "understanding" provided by inspired divine written revelation whether taught or preached that is necessary to understand sin or righteousness. Paul does not support your view as he says:

Rom. 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

But you are claiming Paul is delusional and deceived as he said "I HAD NOT KNOWN SIN BUT BY THE LAW" and so should you not also charge Paul for not believing all that is necessary to be saved is to repent and believe the gospel without any previous exposure to the Law or teaching and preaching of the word because he is saying precisely what I said???

Paul says he would not have known sin "but by the law" but you say sin and righteousness does not need any "understanding" obtained by or through exposure to the law but the knowledge of sin and righteousness that comes by direct divine revelatory knowledge in new birth! However, I say, if a person has not been trained in scripture and they are born again, they are "babies" and I never have known any baby that had a full understanding of sin, righteousness or anything else revealed in the word. Who should I believe? You or Paul? I think I will go with Paul.

But, look at your charge! Does not your very change contradict the very premise of your argument? How so? If no "understanding" prior to direct revelatory knowledge in new birth can convey understanding of sin and righteousness then why tell them to repent and believe and why preach the gospel as these are all precursors to new birth??? According to your logic are you not telling them to do what your view demands they have no "understanding" of and therefore such words "repent" and "believe" are meaningless and "gospel" is non-understandable?

So, should I assume and charge you with denying the preaching of the gospel is necessary in the redemptive plan of God to save his elect as your view claims they cannot "understand" its true message or intent anyway???? I think you are either forced to embrace that conclusion (heresy) or admit the law does reveal the true nature of sin and righteousness as God could not communicate anything less than its true nature and that it is communicated to be understood at least in sufficient measure to condemn them for rejecting it? Moreover, God does not define and reveal his righteousness in the law/scripture but then possess some other kind never revealed in scripture!!! Of course, righteousnes in his living being is superior to any written description of it but it is the SAME righteousness with regard to principle character as found in His very Person.




Well, should I congratulate you because you are superior to Paul as he never believed what you believe as he said "I had not known sin but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Even in people never exposed to the Mosaic law, Paul argued they had been exposed to another law, the law of conscience (Rom. 2:14-15) that provided the very same role in defining and giving understanding of right and wrong.



No, the only difference is that one provides a correct mental understanding of God's righteousness (law) versus experiential knowledge of THE VERY SAME RIGHTEOUSNESS revealed in the Law(conversion). No difference, except the latter is in the form of a Person - Jesus Christ but the very same righteousness defined and described in His Word. God does not define and describe one kind of righteousness in His word and then appear in human form manifesting some other kind of righteousness but that is precisely what your view demands.




So, you admit they can "know" their standing before God with regard to sin and righteousness. You just don't believe the "righteousness" revealed in the law for their understanding is God's righteousness but some kind of foreign righteousness to that which characterizes His own Person. You believe the Biblical definition and description of God's righteousness is not a true revelation of God's righteousness but a false revelation as they are two different kinds of righteousness according to your view? The only difference is one is a WRITTEN desciption and definition of a LIVING righteousness - that is the only difference as both are the same.

Again, "moral" is inclusive of right and wrong as principles and as applications. The "moral" law does not define right and wrong any differently than God's own Person defines right and wrong and he describes based upon his own righteous nature. The latter is superior only because it is LIVING while the latter is written or non-living - DEAD, but the law



Half truth! They know both but they don't know each in the same sense. What is revealed in the law is knowledge by understanding while what is revealed in the heart is experiential knowledge BUT THE VERY SAME RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD!

The truth is that the Law does reveal and define the true righteousness of God and does reveal and define the true nature of sin and need of repentance. The levitical law reveals the true nature of salvation and the truth of the gospel in symbols.

What the WRITTEN word does not do is provide EXPERIENTIAL knowledge of God's righteousness and salvation as that can only be imparted through new birth. However, what is WRITTEN is a TRUE account, a TRUE definition and a TRUE description of sin, God's righteousness, right, wrong and repentance.

You have misunderstood. I am not charging you with anything. I have made four claims. I claimed that the law is just, good, and holy because God is just, good, and holy. I claimed that redemption is the righteousness of God apart from the law. I claimed that God is revealed not only through the law but also through creation so that man has no excuse. And I claimed that to be saved one need only to repent and believe.

Deal with my claims if you would like. Or don't. But do not pretend I am charging you with anything. I have not even read more than three sentences of any single post you posted on this thread. You are arguing with yourself.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have misunderstood. I am not charging you with anything.

Here are your words;

I am saying that for one to be saved all he or she has to do is repent and believe (to trust God). I understand why you believe this is nonsense.

Context is everything. Look at the context for your second sentence and ask yourself what in this context can "this" refer to except what you state in your first line.

Second, your second line does not end with a question mark. Your second line does not begin with an exception clause "if you believe this then you...." Your second line is a flat accusation and anyone reading it can clearly see that so don't tell me you did not make a charge here because you did. You charged me with believing "this is nonsense."

Now, if you were really referring to something I said in a previous post, you certainly did not make that clear as I would expect it would be stated in your first sentence and then the second sentence would make that clear. But your second sentence is a charge of some kind as it is not a question or presented in the form of a condition.

I have made four claims. I claimed that the law is just, good, and holy because God is just, good, and holy.

But nobody disputed that claim, certainly not me.

I claimed that redemption is the righteousness of God apart from the law.

I have never denied that. I only stated there is more than one revelation of God's righteousness.

I claimed that God is revealed not only through the law but also through creation so that man has no excuse.

But no one has disputed that "God" is not revealed through the law and creation. The dispute is whether God's righteousness is revealed and defined through the law and you have denied that consistently.

And I claimed that to be saved one need only to repent and believe.

Untrue! YOu have never made this part of the discussion. This was stated only in your last post followed by the charged that I thought "this" was nonsense.

Deal with my claims if you would like. Or don't. But do not pretend I am charging you with anything.

No pretense at all but fact! Let anyone you respect on this forum read those first two lines and see how they perceive it.

I have not even read more than three sentences of any single post you posted on this thread. You are arguing with yourself.

Read the rest of my post if you dare.

No wonder your posts are so shallow and repetative. If this is the way you are going to treat and respond my posts then let's just call it quits as no reasonable discussion can be had with a person who reads no more than three lines of a post (even if that is exaggeration).

 

[JonC]

Here are your words;

I am saying that for one to be saved all he or she has to do is repent and believe (to trust God). I understand why you believe this is nonsense.

Context is everything. Look at the context for your second sentence and ask yourself what in this context can "this" refer to except what you state in your first line.

Second, your second line does not end with a question mark. Your second line does not begin with an exception clause "if you believe this then you...." Your second line is a flat accusation and anyone reading it can clearly see that so don't tell me you did not make a charge here because you did. You charged me with believing "this is nonsense."

Now, if you were really referring to something I said in a previous post, you certainly did not make that clear as I would expect it would be stated in your first sentence and then the second sentence would make that clear. But your second sentence is a charge of some kind as it is not a question or a conditioned on anything.



But nobody disputed that claim, certainly not me.



I have never denied that. I only stated there is more than one revelation of God's righteousness.



But no one has disputed that "God" is not revealed through the law and creation. The dispute is whether God's righteousness is revealed and defined through the law and you have denied that consistently.





Untrue! YOu have never made this part of the discussion. This was stated only in your last post followed by the charged that I thought "this" was nonsense.



No pretense at all but fact! Let anyone you respect on this forum read those first two lines and see how they perceive it.




Read the rest of my post if you dare.

No wonder your posts are so shallow and repetative. If this is the way you are going to treat and respond my posts then let's just call it quits as no reasonable discussion can be had with a person who reads no more than three lines of a post (even if that is exaggeration).

I stated what I believe. You called it "nonsense". Hence my reply and the reason I have not bothered to read but the first few sentences of your posts on this thread.

 

[The Biblicist]

I stated what I believe. You called it "nonsense". Hence my reply and the reason I have not bothered to read but the first few sentences of your posts on this thread.

You are a very unreasonable person. I called WHAT nonsense. The only thing in those two sentence to identify "this" what you state in the first sentence and NOWHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT TO BE SAVED ONLY BY REPENTING AND BELIEVING IN THE GOSPEL IS NONSENSE. I dare you to provide any statement where I said that.

Again, if you only read three sentences of my posts then why bother to discuss anything because if I told you that I read only three sentences of your posts you would think it is pointless to even respond.

 

[JonC]

You are a very unreasonable person. I called WHAT nonsense. The only thing in those two sentence to identify "this" what you state in the first sentence and NOWHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT TO BE SAVED ONLY BY REPENTING AND BELIEVING IN THE GOSPEL IS NONSENSE. I dare you to provide any statement where I said that.

Again, if you only read three sentences of my posts then why bother to discuss anything because if I told you that I read only three sentences of your posts you would think it is pointless to even respond.

"Trusting God" was to you "nonsense".

Those are your words, not mine and they ended my interest in your opinions.

If you told me you only read three sentences of my post, I would simply post three sentences.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Law of God defines and reveals the true righteousness of God. The righteousness of God is revealed apart from the Law God through the prophets commentary. It is revealed apart from the Law of God through the incarnate Christ. It is revealed in the manifestations of the new creature in saved people.

However, these are not competing revelations or revelations of different kinds of righteousness but of the very same righteousness. This does not mean some revelations are not better than others as a written revelation or preaching revelation is not better than the incarnate revelation.

But God does not have two different standards or definitions of righteousness.

Adam was made "upright" in keeping with God's righteousness, a mutable righteousness for sure but in the righeous image of God and it is a moral righteousness or a righteousness that manifests light. Adam was created in spiritual union with God, a mutable union for sure but he walked and talked in fellowship with a holy and righteous God and only a holy and righteous being can fellowship with God. The fall produced instant spiritual death/separation which is the cause for physical death.

 

[The Biblicist]

"Trusting God" was to you "nonsense".

It is very very difficult to be civil with a guy like you because you fully well know what you are saying is not completely truthful. You know very well I never said that "trusting God" in the sense of gospel conversion is absolute nonsense. You know that, and yet, you continue making that same false charge and it is a charge as you now admit as your words above repeat it.

Those are your words, not mine and they ended my interest in your opinions.

Again, you know these are not my words in the context of gospel conversion and yet you still continue to make this false charge. That speaks of your real character.

If you told me you only read three sentences of my post, I would simply post three sentences.

The truth is that your posts have no substance and so all it would require is three sentences if that much Oooops forgot you stopped reading after three sentences, oh well!!!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have not even read more than three sentences of any single post you posted on this thread.

That is a remarkable confession. It certainly explains quite a lot about your debating technique, to say nothing of your attention span.

 

[JonC]

It is very very difficult to be civil with a guy like you because you fully well know what you are saying is not completely truthful. You know very well I never said that "trusting God" in the sense of gospel conversion is absolute nonsense. You know that, and yet, you continue making that same false charge and it is a charge as you now admit as your words above repeat it..

Now you are talking nonsense! What do you mean all you have to do is "trust" God?

What I mean is all we have to do is "trust God" (as I stated - repent and believe). I do not know what part of that you do not understand. If a man repents and believes, trusts God, then God is faithful to deliver that man. (I'm not asking you to be civil. I'm not asking anything at all. I made a claim that you are welcome to freely accept or reject).

 

[JonC]

That is a remarkable confession. It certainly explains quite a lot about your debating technique, to say nothing of your attention span.

It is not very remarkable as I have not entered a debate but instead have made a claim.

My claim is that the law is just, good, and holy because God is just, good, and holy; that redemption is the righteousness of God apart from the law; that God is revealed not only through the law but also through creation so that man has no excuse; and that to be saved one need only to repent and believe.

I am simply not interested in defending that claim (I've offered it for y'all to take or leave as you see fit).