Ec 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
Isa 64:6 ¶ But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
We all agree that even the most wicked of men can do RELATIVE good. We all agree that the born again child of God under the leadership and power of the Holy Spirit can do good in God's sight. However, what does God require from the lost man to do "good" by His definition of "good"?
1. Is "good" defined merely by EXTERNAL conformity to God's Law - Pharisees
2. Is "good" defined by INTERNAL and EXTERNAL conformity to God's Law? Does God weigh the heart to judge the actions?
3. What is required for INTERNAL conformity to God's Law? Right heart/motive?
4. Is 1 Cor. 10:31 a command? If so, can lost people keep it?
5. Is God's standard for "good" for individual acts any different than his standard for "good" for justification if the rule of James 2:10-11 is applied? In other words, does violating one command violate all commands as a general rule and thus to keep one command is to keep all commands? What underlying principle is demanded by this rule?
6. Can an act of obedience be judged as "good" if it is not done out of "love"? Are unloving words and actions sin/evil?
7. What is God's definition of "love"?
What is "good" in God's sight?
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014.
Page 1 of 9
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInspector Javert said: ↑Pelagius himself agrees....so what.
Pelagius himself agrees.Click to expand...
And this is the issue. These texts claim that the individual is as an "unclean" thing. Both Jesus and Paul claim there is not one who "IS" good and yet Pelagius and you repudiate Job and claim something "clean" (good) can come out of something that God's Word repeatedly says "IS" not good. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInspector Javert said: ↑You personally disagree with that statement even though it is Bible itself.Click to expand...
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInspector Javert said: ↑That isn't what you believe....you believe every "leaf" (human) was already faded and dead...
You deny that humans "fade" as a leaf....(which obviously used to be vibrant and green...) you will claim they were always brown and dead from moment one. Which is un-biblical.Click to expand... -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInspector Javert said: ↑Another thing you don't believe...
you believe that we all were individual participants in Adam's sin...and were therefore never PRESENT to be "TAKEN-AWAY" to begin with.
You believe all persons were NEVER in God's favour. NEVER...
And therefore, they cannot possibly have been "taken-away" by definition.Click to expand... -
The Biblicist said: ↑Job disagrees with Pelagius - Job. 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
And this is the issue. These texts claim that the individual is as an "unclean" thing. Both Jesus and Paul claim there is not one who "IS" good and yet Pelagius and you repudiate Job and claim something "clean" (good) can come out of something that God's Word repeatedly says "IS" not good.Click to expand...
be honest.
You have not.
Because he doesn't say that. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInspector Javert said: ↑We absolutely do not agree:
What is "relative" good?
You may be a Moral relativist...
but, I personally am not.
Good is what God commands and "Evil" is defiance of his commands. There is nothing "relative" about it.
I do not believe that "goodness" is EVER by any definition "RELATIVE".
That is Atheist Naturalist Philosophy which has no place in the schema of any Bible-Believing Christian.
Yes, so long as you aren't a Moral Relativist....Yes.Click to expand...
When God defines what He means by "good" it is conformity to His commandments/law but it is not mere OUTWARD conformity but INWARD conformity first as causal and OUTWARD conformity second as consequential or else it is in His sight "sin" or "evil."
Here is exactly where you and Wiman "come short of the glory of God" in your definition of "good." You believe a "clean" things (good works) can come from an "unclean" thing (fallen nature = a nature fallen from the glory of God as the standard of righteousness). -
The Biblicist said: ↑First, the text does not say that we have been taken away "from righteousness"Click to expand...
Please quote where I said we were ever "taken away" FROM righteousness.
as that is your spin on the text.Click to expand...
I never said that.
It states we have been "taken away" by our iniquities.Click to expand...
But that's still not what you believe.
You believe we were never personally in it to begin with.
Our iniquites are likened to the "wind" lifting us up and taking us away UNDER THE POWER OF THE WIND. Likewise, THE POWER OF SIN is what takes us awayClick to expand...
Your Theology DENIES you were ever in God's Presence or his flock or were ever a sheep (pre-regeneration anyway)....
But were always and ever infinitely odious and contemptible until you were regenerated and subsequently believed on him. You are preposterously inconsistent with Calvinism...
Do you even understand it at all??
I don't think so.
as the "law of sin" is operating in every earth born human being from the moment of physical birth.Click to expand...
NOT from "physical birth"...
but, rather before that, since you were personally involved and a personal partaker in Adam's sin 6,000 years ago....
Sure, "physical birth"...less about 6k years.
You have no idea what you yourself believe do you?
Your Manicheanism has you spinning in impossible self-contradicting circles.Click to expand... -
Defining "good" is important to a profitable discussion regarding the scriptures teaching regarding how one attains righteousness.
"Good" may reference the concept of meriting righteousness through works, and by that definition then no one is "good."
However, if one means "good" as in being broken, surrendered in humility to God, then that is totally different and it causes confusion.
This is what we see happening in Romans. Paul teaches on the one hand that NO ONE is righteous, no not one, but then a few chapters later references Abraham as one who was righteous. So, which is it? How can Abraham be righteous (good), when no one is righteous (good)?
Answer: There are TWO different kinds of 'righteousness' (goodness) being addressed. Romans 3:19-21 introduces that transition and Romans 9:30-32 spells is out very clearly...
Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Rom 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInspector Javert said: ↑You've obviously never read anything by Pelagius personally then have you???
be honest.
You have not.
Because he doesn't say that.Click to expand... -
The Biblicist said: ↑I have explained what I mean many times and so I just stated it unqualified. So let me explain it once again so you do not again misrepresent what I mean.Click to expand...
I was hasty.
I mis-represented what you were saying.
I erred there. And I apologize.
That must be stricken from the record. My bad.
You are not a "Moral Relativist" in the commonly understood phrase. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInspector Javert said: ↑I didn't say it did...you are lying about what I said.
Please quote where I said we were ever "taken away" FROM righteousness.
That is a lie....the word "from" isn't even in that text.
I never said that.Click to expand...
You believe all persons were NEVER in God's favour. NEVER...
And therefore, they cannot possibly have been "taken-away" by definition.
So you were claiming that sin could never take us way from "God's favor" which is a standing in righteousness before God as anything else cannot be in "God's favor." -
The Biblicist said: ↑First, the text does not say that we have been taken away "from righteousness" as that is your spin on the text. It states we have been "taken away" by our iniquities. Our iniquites are likened to the "wind" lifting us up and taking us away UNDER THE POWER OF THE WIND. Likewise, THE POWER OF SIN is what takes us away as the "law of sin" is operating in every earth born human being from the moment of physical birth.Click to expand...
No piece of clothing ever starts out filthy, all clothing is originally pristine clean.
No piece of clothing starts out as a rag, all clothing starts out whole.
No leaf starts out faded, all leaves begin green, moist, and ALIVE.
No leaf starts out being taken away by the wind, all leaves begin attached to the tree or plant.
See, it is right in front of you and plain as day, all men start out upright just as scripture says. But all men go out in sin and become filthy and corrupt.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
All men have "gone aside" or "gone astray" which shows originally they were not lost or astray as Jesus showed in Luke 15.
Scripture says all men have "become" filthy. This shows they were not originally filthy.
It is shown over and over and over again, but you are blind to it because your mind has been conditioned by false doctrine.
You will ALWAYS be in error until you see this. -
The Biblicist said: ↑No, I have never read Pelagius, Calvin, Augustine or much of any other uninspired men. You are the one that brought in Pelagius as one who would agree with the text but would disagree with my interpretation of the text. Hence, I assumed that you would not do that if Pelagius agreed with me. Now, if you claim he does agree with me then what is your point as I see no point except inconsistency with his own views?Click to expand...
Not I, not Pelagius....
Not anyone actually...
It is my PERSONAL OPINION that much of common Calvinist apologetic consists largely of euphemism of speaking and writing SOARINGLY about God's greatness and virtue and man's utter wickedness and depravity....
but only in contexts that every other Christian already agrees with.
I think it's a rhetorical trick of presenting oneself as more pious than one's opponent in order to give credence to their own conclusions whereas....
As an Arminian (as it were) I assume we all accept the assumption that men are rather nasty and somewhat slimey creatures and that God is rather quite the GREATEST and most Sovereign and Holy being, and therefore, soaring rhetoric used by Calvinists on verses which are non-debatable, or topics which are inherently agreed upon by both parties are not constructive debate but tricks of cultic rhetoric which do not actually honor Christ.
I (frankly) viewed your quoting of Isaiah (which proves that everyone is a sinner....duh... :sleeping_2:)
As a cheap rhetorical trick designed to fool morons into thinking that Calvinist Philosophy is inherently more pious than other views...
I think it's a trash tactic, and I hate it. -
Inspector Javert said: ↑That No one disagrees with your quotes from Isaiah...
Not I, not Pelagius....
Not anyone actually...
It is my PERSONAL OPINION that much of common Calvinist apologetic consists largely of euphemism of speaking and writing SOARINGLY about God's greatness and virtue and man's utter wickedness and depravity....Click to expand...
but only in contexts that every other Christian already agrees with.Click to expand...
I think it's a rhetorical trick of presenting oneself as more pious than one's opponent in order to give credence to their own conclusions whereas....Click to expand...
As an Arminian (as it were) I assume we all accept the assumption that men are rather nasty and somewhat slimey creatures and that God is rather quite the GREATEST and most Sovereign and Holy being, and therefore, soaring rhetoric used by Calvinists on verses which are non-debatable, or topics which are inherently agreed upon by both parties are not constructive debate but tricks of cultic rhetoric which do not actually honor Christ.Click to expand...
I (frankly) viewed your quoting of Isaiah (which proves that everyone is a sinner....duh... :sleeping_2:)
As a cheap rhetorical trick designed to fool morons into thinking that Calvinist Philosophy is inherently more pious than other views...
I think it's a trash tactic, and I hate it.Click to expand... -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterSkandelon said: ↑Defining "good" is important to a profitable discussion regarding the scriptures teaching regarding how one attains righteousness.
"Good" may reference the concept of meriting righteousness through works, and by that definition then no one is "good."Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑However, if one means "good" as in being broken, surrendered in humility to God, then that is totally different and it causes confusion.Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑This is what we see happening in Romans. Paul teaches on the one hand that NO ONE is righteous, no not one, but then a few chapters later references Abraham as one who was righteous. So, which is it? How can Abraham be righteous (good), when no one is righteous (good)?Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑Answer: There are TWO different kinds of 'righteousness' (goodness) being addressed. Romans 3:19-21 introduces that transition and Romans 9:30-32 spells is out very clearly...
Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Rom 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.Click to expand... -
Winman said: ↑You don't get it, scripture shows man originally upright and without sin.
No piece of clothing ever starts out filthy, all clothing is originally pristine clean.
No piece of clothing starts out as a rag, all clothing starts out whole.
No leaf starts out faded, all leaves begin green, moist, and ALIVE.
No leaf starts out being taken away by the wind, all leaves begin attached to the tree or plant.
See, it is right in front of you and plain as day, all men start out upright just as scripture says. But all men go out in sin and become filthy and corrupt.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
All men have "gone aside" or "gone astray" which shows originally they were not lost or astray as Jesus showed in Luke 15.
Scripture says all men have "become" filthy. This shows they were not originally filthy.
It is shown over and over and over again, but you are blind to it because your mind has been conditioned by false doctrine.
You will ALWAYS be in error until you see this.Click to expand...
There are none which say the sheep was miraculously birthed outside of the confines of the sheep-fold to begin with.
It's an assumed position which is read into Scripture which was unknown to Yahweh-worshipping Jews (or the early Christians) until Augustine inserted the idea that matter (which is morally neutral) was (or even could be) "evil" or "good"....
It was Manicheanism then, and it's Manicheanism now.
The Bible could not POSSIBLY be more clear than that (as Biblicist has even said) sin is and I quote:
"Transgression of God's Law"...
And then he will spend hours on B.B. denying PRECISELY that very obvious (and accurate) definition that he himself provided in his last thread.
Page 1 of 9