The Holy Spirit

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
You want me to take you by the hand and walk you through it?

I gave you his name and a chunky quote. If you're interested, go read up on it.

No all I want is a straight answer to my question. What is the scriptural basis for what the man is arguing? Me thinks you haven't a clue.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No all I want is a straight answer to my question. What is the scriptural basis for what the man is arguing? Me thinks you haven't a clue.

Sigh.

You won't comprehend, but take for example Exodus 23:7 'Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.' - or even Deuteronomy 25, 'When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty.'

Your misguided imputed righteousness is a desperate and failed attempt to acquit the guilty (rather than pardoning the guilty). This is completely non-scriptural and illogical when one reads the above.

In the eternal purpose of the Three-One God, there is a kind of procedure:

"On your mark .... Get set ... GO! .

The "GO!" is the operation of the Holy Spirit as the final stage of this divine scheme of the Triune God.

Put another way -
"On your mark" would represent the Father in the Trinity.
"Get set" would represent the Son of God in the Trinity.
"GO!" would correspond to the final stage of God imparting what He is in Christ into man for the accomplishing of His plan to dwell in saved human beings.

For those of you counting sentence periods - do you want a good understanding or just one sentence ?

Originally posted by @sonship
In the eternal purpose of the Three-One God, there is a kind of procedure:

[b] "On your mark .... Get set ... GO! .

The "GO!" is the operation of the Holy Spirit as the final stage of this divine scheme of the Triune God.

Put another way -
"On your mark" would represent the Father in the Trinity.
" ...[text shortened]... those of you counting sentence periods - do you want a good understanding or just one sentence ?

Where do you get this utter twaddle from.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Where do you get this utter twaddle from.

But you cannot explain what is wrong with it, other than your theological diaper rash at the way I expressed it.

What is wrong with it ?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Sigh.

You won't comprehend, but take for example Exodus 23:7 'Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.' - or even Deuteronomy 25, 'When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemnin ...[text shortened]... pardoning the guilty). This is completely non-scriptural and illogical when one reads the above.

You know anyone not guilty of something?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You know anyone not guilty of something?

The existence of guilt is not being questioned, but rather the difference between the acquittal or forgiveness of that guilt. (Which renders imputed righteousness non-biblical).

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
The existence of guilt is not being questioned, but rather the difference between the acquittal or forgiveness of that guilt. (Which renders imputed righteousness non-biblical).

What do you mean by imputed righteousness?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
What do you mean by imputed righteousness?

It is something Becker raised.

(Pretty much a Lutheran doctrine). Google it.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
It is something Becker raised.

(Pretty much a Lutheran doctrine). Google it.

No, I am not talking to him give your thoughts.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No, I am not talking to him give your thoughts.

Google the damn thing moron.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No, I am not talking to him give your thoughts.

I have given my thoughts and explained why it is not biblical. If you want a literal explanation of what imputed righteousness means, wikipedia describes it thus:

'Imputed righteousness is a concept in Christian theology that proposes that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to [believers] — that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith." [1]:106 It is on the basis of this "alien" (i.e. from the outside) righteousness that God accepts humans.'

(Why are you not talking to Becker? Irritation?)

Edit: And just to be clear, not only have I quoted N.T Wright that the "righteousness of God", referring to God's faithfulness to the covenant relationship, can be neither imputed nor imparted to anybody' I have also provided the scriptural support for this. - Bottom line, Noah and Job were righteous in their own right, and were by no means the only ones.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I have given my thoughts and explained why it is not biblical. If you want a literal explanation of what imputed righteousness means, wikipedia describes it thus:

'Imputed righteousness is a concept in Christian theology that proposes that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to [believers] — that is, treated as if it were theirs through ...[text shortened]... Bottom line, Noah and Job were righteous in their own right, and were by no means the only ones.

You have also stated that there are different gods in the OT and NT. So I don't just accept your conclusions when it comes to scripture. All scriptures need to be looked at in light of all scripture, taking one verse and looking at it apart from all other scripture will give you errors in interpretation.

Example looking at just the verses that say those God judges righteous do good works, could lead you to think all people who do good works are acceptable to God.

Even logic disputes that not to mention the rest of the Bible. All the men in that car are Smiths! Does that mean all men in cars are Smiths, or all men are Smiths? When other scriptures talk about works you must also take them into account.

It is no different than your topic, you are failing to take into account the rest of scripture and missing one of the main themes of all of scripture!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You have also stated that there are different gods in the OT and NT. So I don't just accept your conclusions when it comes to scripture. All scriptures need to be looked at in light of all scripture, taking one verse and looking at it apart from all other scripture will give you errors in interpretation.

Example looking at just the verses that say those ...[text shortened]... take into account the rest of scripture and missing one of the main themes of all of scripture!

It is not so much that they are different Gods, but more that they contradict themselves in regards to character and activity.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
It is not so much that they are different Gods, but more that they contradict themselves in regards to character and activity.

No He doesn't!