Spiritual death has been "passed" from Adam

[The Biblicist]

I do not believe that the “image of God” includes a “true holiness and righteousness” that equates to God’s holiness and righteousness.

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

 

[JonC]

The term "moral" is concerned with the principles of right and wrong that define immaterial character and consequently are manifest by a behavior that corresponds with either right or wrong principles. Please let that definition sink in.

For example, God's character is defined by "true holiness and righteousness". Therefore, as a matter of conduct "God cannot lie" as that would be contrary to the kind of moral principles that define His character.

Adam was created in the same "moral" image of God, meaning his soul was created in an "upright" condition so that his soul was characterized by principles of "true holiness and righteousness." However, unlike God, Adam's moral image was not immutable but mutable and conditional.

Adam's sin was the cause that transitioned his mutable condition from "upright" or from "true holiness and righteousness" to a fallen condition or to an unholy and unrighteous condition of character manifested in corresponding conduct that harmonizes with that act of sin. This change of moral condition from a character defined by principles of righteous and holiness to a character defined by principles of unrighteousness and unholiness.

The moral nature of ones character is manifested in behavior. Behavior or conduct is a consequence of character and character is defined either by principles of righteousness or unrighteousness.

Hence, it is proper to say God has a moral nature as his character is defined by principles of righteousness and holiness which dictates his conduct.

Hence, it is proper to say God created man after his own "moral" image or created him "upright" or with a character defined by principles of righteousness. He created him with "free will" and thus with a character that can transition between righteousness to unrighteousness by choosing to do wrong. Thus, unlike God, man was created with a mutable moral character/nature and his continuance in an "upright" or "in true holiness and righteousness" was conditioned upon continuing in obedience to God. When Adam chose to sin, he transitioned from an "upright" moral condition of character to a fallen condition of character.

New birth restores man to a permenant, immutable condition of true holiness and righteousness like unto the moral nature/character of God.

Hence, the fall of man was a transition of moral character/nature from "upright" to fallen depraved and that transition is inclusive of what the Bible calls "death."

“Moral” is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior as set forth by a moral code. You are assuming a common definition of “moral” based on a common “moral code” or standard, and this is where you falter (and why the word “moral” itself is not objective). You are assuming that divine morality is the exact same thing as human morality – that God created Adam with this type of divine morality.

I disagree that God created Adam with a divine moral character. Instead, I believe that God created Adam “upright” and without sin. Had Adam been created with a divine moral character, I believe Adam would have never sinned.

It is not proper to say God has a moral nature but that God is the moral standard of righteousness. Likewise it is not proper to say that the law is God’s standard of righteousness but the law is righteous because it is of God.

 

[JonC]

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

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

“upright” (not an enemy).

According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, Upright has the meaning of 'Righteous, strictly honourable, honest.' That seems to be rather more positive and to a higher standard than 'not an enemy.'
The Hebrew word in question is yasar (Strongs 3477). I claim no knowledge of Hebrew, so I'm open to correction, but the word is applied to God in Psalms 25:8 & Hosea 14:9. It is also applied to things that are right in God's eyes (Exodus 15:26; 1 Kings 11:33, 38).

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not believe that the “image of God” includes a “true holiness and righteousness” that equates to God’s holiness and righteousness.

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

So I would look at Adam as being created without sin (upright) and then sinning in the nature that God gave to him. This is one difference, IMHO, between Adam’s created righteousness and God’s righteousness. Adam was created “right” with God and “upright” (not an enemy). From that state Adam fell.

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.

 

[JonC]

According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, Righteous has the meaning of 'Righteous, strictly honourable, honest.' That seems to be rather more positive and to a higher standard than 'not an enemy.'
The Hebrew word in question is yasar (Strongs 3477). I claim no knowledge of Hebrew, so I'm open to correction, but the word is applied to God in Psalms 25:8 & Hosea 14:9. It is also applied to things that are right in God's eyes (Exodus 15:26; 1 Kings 11:33, 38).

"Honorable" and "honest" are too superficial when dealing with the Hebrew word in context of Scripture. In the Hebrew it looks more to a right standing within God's revelation or covenant. Under the Old Covenant one must fulfill the Law in order to be "righteous" under the Law. When David leaned on God's "righteousness" in the Psalms he was leaning on God's adherence to His Word. Many times you could substitute the English word "faithfulness" and retain a proper meaning.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

What I am saying is that I need to consider a few things before I decide to continue engaging you on this thread.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"Honorable" and "honest" are too superficial when dealing with the Hebrew word in context of Scripture. In the Hebrew it looks more to a right standing within God's revelation or covenant. Under the Old Covenant one must fulfill the Law in order to be "righteous" under the Law. When David leaned on God's "righteousness" in the Psalms he was leaning on God's adherence to His Word. Many times you could substitute the English word "faithfulness" and retain a proper meaning.

I'm sorry. I wrote righteous when I meant to write upright. I have amended my post; you may wish to amend your reply.
Apologies again.

 

[JonC]

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.

Why would I shut down the thread simply because I am not sure if I want to continue our conversation? You have about 30 more posts to go.

 

[The Biblicist]

“Moral” is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior as set forth by a moral code.

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.

It is not proper to say God has a moral nature but that God is the moral standard of righteousness. Likewise it is not proper to say that the law is God’s standard of righteousness but the law is righteous because it is of God.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why would I shut down the thread simply because I am not sure if I want to continue our conversation? You have about 30 more posts to go.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

What I am saying is that I need to consider a few things before I decide to continue engaging you on this thread.

Ok

 

[JonC]

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.

Sorry. I did not mean it that way. I meant it was finalizing the discussion between you and I for the time being.

That said, keep an eye on the post count. I probably will not be the one to close it, but they typically close when they get over 135 posts.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry. I did not mean it that way. I meant it was finalizing the discussion between you and I for the time being.

That said, keep an eye on the post count. I probably will not be the one to close it, but they typically close when they get over 135 posts.

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"Honorable" and "honest" are too superficial when dealing with the Hebrew word in context of Scripture. In the Hebrew it looks more to a right standing within God's revelation or covenant. Under the Old Covenant one must fulfill the Law in order to be "righteous" under the Law. When David leaned on God's "righteousness" in the Psalms he was leaning on God's adherence to His Word. Many times you could substitute the English word "faithfulness" and retain a proper meaning.

How then is 'not an enemy' not too superficial. Both @The Biblicist and I have given you scriptural references for yasar.

 

[JonC]

How then is 'not an enemy' not too superficial. Both @The Biblicist and I have given you scriptural references for yasar.

Do you believe one can be unrighteous and not an enemy of God?

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you believe one can be unrighteous and not an enemy of God?

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you believe one can be unrighteous and not an enemy of God?

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.

But let's see how 'not an enemy of God' works as a translation of yasar.
Psalms 25:8. 'Good and not an enemy of God is the LORD......'
Hosea 14:9 'For the ways of the LORD are not an enemy of God; the righteous walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them.'.
Exodus 15:26. 'If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is not an enemy to God in His sight, give ear to all His commandments and keep all His statutes........'

Yep! It works wonderfully . Have you considered a career in Bible translation?

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree with this.

My only point is that I believe that God's righteousness extends beyond what is moral. So I believe that the law is only one aspect of God's righteousness (it shows what is required to obtain righteousness through moral behavior and serves to demonstrate our sin).