How exactly does one define....

Good post. I'm sure many will share some good opinions.

Hmm...when one stacks John Gill up against Charles Finney doing the old Ben Franklin approach of pros and cons -- Gill comes out way ahead. Was Gill "good" in and of himself? Certainly not. But the Lord is the giver of "good" gifts.

 

To an extent, good and evil are in the eye of the beholder. A hunter makes a good shot, falling the prey, but if the prey could talk, it might say he was murdered for sport. If a tornado hits your home, you might say it was an evil wind, yet our harsh environment results in some seeking God as a refuge.

Jesus said no one was good except God, teaching I suppose that Jesus might be God because He was considered good.

If we define "good" as something or someone that fills a need, then many men can be considered "good" even though they are deeply flawed (committing sinful acts, whether born anew or not.)

Turning to bible teachers, if a bible teacher opens our eyes to the truth, or causes us to consider the possibility that our prior view might be mistaken, then I would say he or she fills a need and is therefore good.

No bible teacher should be expected to hit the nail on the head all the time, being fallible and seeing through a glass darkly, but if he or she uses a consistent hermeneutic, rather than using this rule here and that rule their, like the NWT translators, and teaches his or her view of truth with integrity, I would say they are "good."