Can people do "good"?

[rhutchin]

infide
further, do those who have a sinful nature never do something good?…its just anything good a nonbeliever does is not enough to make up for the wrong they do though. but this is slightly off topic…

CJD
Sure, people do good all the time. But every act of ours (pre-grace) falls short of the glory of God.

++++

CJD
Do you see how we are not truly free to do the God-pleasing good untill the Christ fills us with his Spirit?

infide
…That is, even if it could be shown that someone does do the God-pleasing before being "filled with His Spirit", say, for example, repenting of their sins, then they would just say, "well, even that is not good in light of 'all you do is as filthy rags..' ". Of course nothing anyone does can earn or merit salvation. That would require perfection in terms of keeping mosaic law. But I just don’t think the Biblical case is very strong for the view that non-regenerate people NEVER do what is God-pleasing. This precludes a whole slew of OT do-gooders, who God honors for their faithfulness (though, of course the ontological merit is of Christ). But Holy-Spirit indwelling doesn’t occur until Christ's purification of the heart. So how did these non-regenerate do any good that is honoring to God?

The above conversation was an aside to another conversation on this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49969&page=1&pp=16

When the Scriptures say that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, it means that man cannot do “good” where we distinguish that which God calls good and that which a materialistic sinful world calls good. That which the world calls good must meet a standard that is substantially below that which God calls good.

From Ephesians 2:10 we see that…"[The saved] are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them." This applies equally to those in the OT as well as the NT. Those who do good can only do so if they are God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus. Those whom God has saved (regardless of the manner in which God saves them [Arminian, Calvinist, etc.]) both OT and NT, meet that qualification. Nobody else does.

So I take objection to the ideas expressed above that--
- people do good all the time
- anything good a nonbeliever does is not enough to make up for the wrong they do though
- I just don’t think the Biblical case is very strong for the view that non-regenerate people NEVER do what is God-pleasing.

I’d like to hear a case for people doing good that does not require that we dumb down that which we call good.

[commonman]

So I take objection to the ideas expressed above that--
- people do good all the time


This statement doesn't seem to fit here or I misunderstand. The way it is written it is patently false within the context of the physical world. Who can delight in the actions of pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and philanderers? But the actions of people are for good as defined by God.



- anything good a nonbeliever does is not enough to make up for the wrong they do though

If you do not object to this idea then you have no need for Christ. The opposite position is that a nonbeliever CAN do enough to make up for the wrong they do. If a man can do enough, then for what reason did Jesus need to be given as a sacrifice? Because if a man can do enough, then the whole process of self-improvement becomes possible to the point where an individual can reach perfection by his own ability. And if a man can reach perfection by his own ability, then what need do we have of a savior to bridge that gap for us?

- I just don’t think the Biblical case is very strong for the view that non-regenerate people NEVER do what is God-pleasing.

It is impossible to prove a negative, but I am not aware of a single incident in scripture where non-believers acted in a way pleasing to God. There are many instances where individuals or nations acted according to God's will, but primarily to save, rebuke or protect His people in order that they might become more dependent on God.

I’d like to hear a case for people doing good that does not require that we dumb down that which we call good.

What do you mean by "dumb down" good?

[GoBahnsen]

The above conversation was an aside to another conversation on this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49969&page=1&pp=16

When the Scriptures say that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, it means that man cannot do “good” where we distinguish that which God calls good and that which a materialistic sinful world calls good. That which the world calls good must meet a standard that is substantially below that which God calls good.

From Ephesians 2:10 we see that…"[The saved] are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them." This applies equally to those in the OT as well as the NT. Those who do good can only do so if they are God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus. Those whom God has saved (regardless of the manner in which God saves them [Arminian, Calvinist, etc.]) both OT and NT, meet that qualification. Nobody else does.

So I take objection to the ideas expressed above that--
- people do good all the time
- anything good a nonbeliever does is not enough to make up for the wrong they do though
- I just don’t think the Biblical case is very strong for the view that non-regenerate people NEVER do what is God-pleasing.

I’d like to hear a case for people doing good that does not require that we dumb down that which we call good.I'm just coming in from a job I was on and as I was driving, I was reflecting upon my life. I don't have a lot of time left. Maybe 20 years, but it's doubtful, if family histories are taken into account. So maybe I have 5 or 10 years left realistically. What is that? It's less than a vapor that appears for awhile.

Anyway, I was thinking about my wretched life. How much I'm dependent upon God be ing merciful to me in Christ. My mind went to my "good works", teaching Sunday School, talking to unbelievers about Christ, helping people in need, etc etc. I thought to myself, of how glad I was to not be under a false doctrine that would cause me to for one second think that these "good works" help to commend me to God. Because I know they do not. I was talking to God about them and confessing that none of my good works was done without the taint of sin. Some self glorying, some self seeking motive. I confessed that to God and realized that even my confession of my sin is sinful. It isn't entirely pure. It has some touch of "well at least God is pleased with my confession."

The only thing God is pleased with is His Son. The only thing acceptable about me before God is Christ in me (the hope of glory). And while the world and many evangelicals rail against this kind of old school thought, to the Christian it is music in his ears. The Christian is strangely not upset to know that nothing about him is good save Christ. For the Christian, that does not displeases his heart. The Christian is pleased to have gained Christ. The Christian doesn't suffer from low self esteem, he knows "self esteem" is his problem. The Christian says "for me to live is Christ and to die is gain."

[smaller]

I'm just coming in from a job I was on and as I was driving, I was reflecting upon my life. I don't have a lot of time left. Maybe 20 years, but it's doubtful, if family histories are taken into account. So maybe I have 5 or 10 years left realistically. What is that? It's less than a vapor that appears for awhile.

Anyway, I was thinking about my wretched life. How much I'm dependent upon God be ing merciful to me in Christ. My mind went to my "good works", teaching Sunday School, talking to unbelievers about Christ, helping people in need, etc etc. I thought to myself, of how glad I was to not be under a false doctrine that would cause me to for one second think that these "good works" help to commend me to God. Because I know they do not. I was talking to God about them and confessing that none of my good works was done without the taint of sin. Some self glorying, some self seeking motive. I confessed that to God and realized that even my confession of my sin is sinful. It isn't entirely pure. It has some touch of "well at least God is pleased with my confession."

Honestly and well said.

I call the experience our realization that we are "locked into" our own self subjectivity. This experience sometimes abhors me, but then again what is the alternative to our subjective experience, but an Objective Exposure by God? When we place ourselves under Him it is a good thing. I am glad not to be Him. Who could stand all that whining anyway? And think of the sheer amount of detail He has to be involved with. Whew! No thank you. I understand why God is Invisible. I'd be too if I were Him.


The only thing God is pleased with is His Son. The only thing acceptable about me before God is Christ in me (the hope of glory). And while the world and many evangelicals rail against this kind of old school thought, to the Christian it is music in his ears. The Christian is strangely not upset to know that nothing about him is good save Christ. For the Christian, that does not displeases his heart. The Christian is pleased to have gained Christ. The Christian doesn't suffer from low self esteem, he knows "self esteem" is his problem. The Christian says "for me to live is Christ and to die is gain."

There are so many views of Christ running around it is really quite pathetic. I can see why Jesus stays invisible as well.

"And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."

"And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven."

I actually heard that He lives in His Disciples. go figure.

[CJD®]

I’d like to hear a case for people doing good that does not require that we dumb down that which we call good.

So I've dumbed the 'good' down, eh?

Well, you can go with GoBahnsen, who, like all of us should, is reflecting on how all of our strivings are filth. But we can't stay there, of course, or else we'd have to cut Rom. 8:1ff out of the letter.

I rather like his way of putting it as opposed to the OP. The OP, in good presuppositionalist fashion (with a tad of hyper-Calvinism thrown in there), seems to be denying common grace. Or, rather, re-defining it to mean something like "God's common grace is his not destroying all pagans every second of every day." Ironically, I'd expect that from someone with a handle like 'GoBahnsen'. Instead he gave us a beautiful summary of our lives at the end of the day.

At any rate, people do good all the time (meaning an indiscriminate and undefined people on this earth who do civil good at various moments throughout their lives — not as the second poster defined it). All of our actions, even those we do after being brought into Christ, are merely analogical to God's actions. He is, and will always be, a transcendent God, though not without his immanence, which brings us to analogical action. Taking care of widows and orphans, no matter who does them, are analogically good the same as God's actions are good. The simple difference between the regenerate and unregenerate who do the very same good actions is that the former's are God-pleasing, while the latter's are not (by "God-pleasing" I mean that God accepts them as the good works described in Eph. 2:10).

As Christians, we really do become "doers of the Law." And on that final day we will be vindicated because of whose (and who) we are. One cannot be saved by justification only; sanctification is equally required. The non-believer, even if he or she does much or more of the same civil good that believers do, will find that their actions were not God-pleasing, that is, that they were not "prepared beforehand so that [they] may do them."

Regards,

CJD

[infide]

CJD,

woah, i totally didnt expect that response. i believe the issue was with the things i said, not what you said. but thats pretty close to what i would say as well, even though it was your statements that i was responding to in that quote from the OP.

[infide]

When the Scriptures say that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, it means that man cannot do “good” where we distinguish that which God calls good and that which a materialistic sinful world calls good. That which the world calls good must meet a standard that is substantially below that which God calls good.

it probably meant what Isaiah meant, that their works no longer reflected their hearts, and so no longer have any significance to God. They were literally barren in the sense of significance (filthy rags = menstrual rags). But remeber they had become that way. They were in a state of rebellion, from a previous state of faithfulness (where their works had meant something). This hardly demonstrates that these unregenerated OT believers did nothing good ever.

From Ephesians 2:10 we see that…"[The saved] are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them." This applies equally to those in the OT as well as the NT. Those who do good can only do so if they are God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus. Those whom God has saved (regardless of the manner in which God saves them [Arminian, Calvinist, etc.]) both OT and NT, meet that qualification. Nobody else does.

That hardly follows. I definately agree that with new hearts, regenerated Christians have a unique place in God's plan, as far as service is concerned. Our "good works" (i think this may have a unique meaning) flow from our new hearts, directed and empowered by the Holy Spirit. We are agents of God's power on earth. but it doesnt follow that those who are not filled with the Spirit never do good things.

So I take objection to the ideas expressed above that--
- people do good all the time

have you ever had non-Christian friends or even conversed with non-Christians? I think people do, and most of them think that these works will be enough to save them in the final judgement. Thus, they have tried to "earn" heaven. but this is not possible, according to the Scriptures. our goodness does not overcome our sin.

- anything good a nonbeliever does is not enough to make up for the wrong they do though
what do you disagree about in this statement?

- I just don’t think the Biblical case is very strong for the view that non-regenerate people NEVER do what is God-pleasing.

one big problem is with OT saints. Could OT saints be indwelt with God's Spirit? if not, then how did they do any good thing? if so, how, since Christ had not yet died to make such a thing possible?

further, i am inclined to think that repentance and faith precede regeneration. Although God's Prevenient Grace is involved in this, how could such a good posture before God, that is, recognizing God and Christ as necessary for their salvation be acheived if they are not yet regenerated? (though, i am fairly certain you will deny this order)

I’d like to hear a case for people doing good that does not require that we dumb down that which we call good.

well i just dont think you can cook up the definition of "good" to support your view. good is good. if something a non-regenerate person does is good, then why deny it is good? this isnt just some worldly view of goodness. its the plain meaning. but it is not a good that is meritous of salvation (i.e. perfection).

[Samuel]

"Can people do 'good'?" My answer is, "Yes." The unregenerate can do good in a human perspective view but never in Gods' perspective. The regenerate can do good in a human perspective view and in Gods' perspective.

Anymore questions?

[infide]

"Can people do 'good'?" My answer is, "Yes." The unregenerate can do good in a human perspective view but never in Gods' perspective. The regenerate can do good in a human perspective view and in Gods' perspective.

Anymore questions?

what do you mean? God's view of goodness is different than ours? is goodness subjective? I think not.

If what you mean is perfect goodness, that is another thing. Of which I would agree.

[Child_Of_Wisdom]

We are capable of good acts but that does not make us good people although from a human perspective we may be considered good.

[Calvinist4Him]

Answer: Because of the fall, humans cannot please God, and that which is not done in faith is sin. Because of the fall, humans are spiritually dead, that is why Christ said; "Unless a man be born again..." So by default, humans are unable to do spiritual good, unable to please God, and when all is said and done, THAT is what counts as good. In myself, I am unable, but by the grace of God I am enabled to do good to the glory of God.

[Samuel]

what do you mean? God's view of goodness is different than ours? is goodness subjective? I think not.

If what you mean is perfect goodness, that is another thing. Of which I would agree.

"Goodness to an unregenerate is good in the eyes of another unregenerate , but to the eyes of a regenerate he only sees the moral good, goodness to a regenerate is good in the eyes of God and in the eyes of another regenerate, but to the eyes of a unregenerate he only sees it as a moral good and nothing more or less than that aight."

[infide]

Answer: Because of the fall, humans cannot please God, and that which is not done in faith is sin. Because of the fall, humans are spiritually dead, that is why Christ said; "Unless a man be born again..." So by default, humans are unable to do spiritual good, unable to please God, and when all is said and done, THAT is what counts as good. In myself, I am unable, but by the grace of God I am enabled to do good to the glory of God.

None of these have been argued for. i just said "good", i didnt say "spritual good" or "entrance into the kingdom of heaven" or "not under the death sentence for sin" or "what ultimately counts as good". etc. I was arguing against a particular conception of what i often here people say. non-regenerate people do good things, they really can and really do.

thats all.

[Calvinist4Him]

None of these have been argued for. i just said "good", i didnt say "spritual good" or "entrance into the kingdom of heaven" or "not under the death sentence for sin" or "what ultimately counts as good". etc. I was arguing against a particular conception of what i often here people say. non-regenerate people do good things, they really can and really do.

thats all.

I was providing the "flip side" of what was being argued for. Sure non-regenerate people do good things...according to people...in the subjective eyes of man including myself, but what you and I consider "good" ultimately has little value. What matters is "good" in the eyes of God. Praising non-believers for their "good" only adds to their pride and or self-righteousness. The kind of pride which stirs a person to beat their chest and say; "I'm such a good person. How could a good person deserve to be punished by a God. What gives that God the right to punish me knowing I am such a good person? What an unjust God he must be!"

Do you believe that? Do you believe God is unjust? And or do you believe God will not punish people subjectivley considered "good" in the eyes of man?

[Samuel]

I find that if you flip the question around, "Can good be done by people?" it doth provide more understanding. Can a monkey do good? Only if the other monkeys think what he did was good! See my point is that good to you might seem bad in the eyes of someone else that thinks he is good. But the person that focuses on what he has done for God, most assuredly is good! We are to do all things for the Glory of God!!

[infide]

I was providing the "flip side" of what was being argued for. Sure non-regenerate people do good things...according to people...in the subjective eyes of man including myself, but what you and I consider "good" ultimately has little value. What matters is "good" in the eyes of God. Praising non-believers for their "good" only adds to their pride and or self-righteousness. The kind of pride which stirs a person to beat their chest and say; "I'm such a good person. How could a good person deserve to be punished by a God. What gives that God the right to punish me knowing I am such a good person? What an unjust God he must be!"

Do you believe that? Do you believe God is unjust? And or do you believe God will not punish people subjectivley considered "good" in the eyes of man?

whatever man. your theology seems, to me, a bit exaggerated. i dont think its necessarily "praising non-believers" (though, i think i would if they did do something i was proud of them for doing) in the sense of them thinking it will benefit them for eternity. I just tell them the truth concerning their state - no matter what good they could ever do, it wont atone for their sins. Its called honesty, not bad theology.

moreover, i dont think "goodness" is necessarily a subjective virtue. If someone does something self-sacrificial, say, a father jumps in front of a car to save his son, then how could you possibly say that wasn't "good" of him in some objective way? If it is objective, then God thinks it is "good" also, wouldnt you think?

the point however, is that these various good things that may be done by us, do not earn for us salvation. that is, they cannot be used to atone for our sins. That payment is death, the payment Christ payed on our behalf.

[Exegete]

There is only one way for salvation. You must be perfect. You have to be declared righteous by the judge.

There are two methods people go about pursuing this righteousness:

1. Through works (striving after the law)
2. Through faith (belief in the one who fulfilled the law)

The first is impossible, the second is not. True righteousness cannot be attained through meritous works, but it can be attained through faith. Only through belief in the one who is perfect can we attain true righteousness. Some attempt to say that 2 is the same as 1 by claiming that faith is equal to the meritous works of the law, but that is not only illogical, its unbiblical.

Is it "good" when a man obeys the 5th commandment? Of course it is. But will that "goodness" merit him salvation? NO. For even man's best moral actions fall short of God's glory. That is the point of such passages. No one can meet the standard of God's moral law. All have fallen short.

But there is now a righteousness from heaven that has been revealed which comes through faith and not through works. And according to this measure of righteousness some haven't fallen short. Some, in fact, have attained righteousness showing us that it is attainable. Abraham believed and it was credit to HIM as righteousness. Abraham didn't do "good" in accordance with God's moral code, but he believed in the one who is good and thus was declared righteousness.

So, on the one hand "no one was righteous," but on the otherhand, "Abraham (among others) were declared righteous." How can that be? Is that a contradiction to say that "no one was righteousness, not even one," when in fact men like Job, Enoch and Abraham were declared righteousness in the sight of God? No. Why? Because there are two different understandings of true righteousness. There is "moral righteous" (sinless perfection from absolute obedience to the law of God), which NO ONE had attained. And then there was imputed righteousness, which only those who had faith in the perfect one attained.

So, going back to our two points:

1. Those striving after moral righteousness through the WORKS of the law can never attain it.

2. Those striving after imputed righteousness through FAITH have attained it.

[Samuel]

"There is only one way for salvation. You must be perfect. You have to be declared righteous by the judge."


Actually the only one way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. We are not perfect even being regenerated because our flesh wages war against the spirit continually, thats why we have an advocate with the father if anyone sins. We become delcared righteous when we die and God says, "Paid in Full by the blood of the Lamb."

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
So I take objection to the ideas expressed above that--
…
- anything good a nonbeliever does is not enough to make up for the wrong they do though
…

Commonman
If you do not object to this idea then you have no need for Christ. The opposite position is that a nonbeliever CAN do enough to make up for the wrong they do. If a man can do enough, then for what reason did Jesus need to be given as a sacrifice? Because if a man can do enough, then the whole process of self-improvement becomes possible to the point where an individual can reach perfection by his own ability. And if a man can reach perfection by his own ability, then what need do we have of a savior to bridge that gap for us?

infide
what do you disagree about in this statement?

CJD
At any rate, people do good all the time (meaning an indiscriminate and undefined people on this earth who do civil good at various moments throughout their lives — not as the second poster defined it).

It would be true to say that “anything a nonbeliever does is not enough to make up for the wrong they do though.”

If we insert the word good, we presuppose that it is possible for an unbeliever to do good. That is my objection. If by “good” you mean CJD’s “civil good” as one does who has a civil religion (an interesting topic for a google search), then we have two definitions of “good” that which God calls “good” and civil “good.”

We need to distinguish that which God calls good (GOOD) from that which a materialistic sinful world calls good (good).

When GoBahnsen says that his "good works" do not commend him to God, he distinguishes these from “GOOD works.”

When CJD says that people do good all the time, he presumably means “good” or civil good and not “GOOD.”

When infide says “well i just don’t think you can cook up the definition of "good" to support your view. good is good,” I think he fails to distinguish between “GOOD” and “good.”

When Samual says, “The unregenerate can do good in a human perspective view but never in Gods' perspective,” he is distinguishing between “good” and “GOOD.”

When infide says, “what do you mean? God's view of goodness is different than ours? is goodness subjective? I think not,” I think he fails to distinguish between “GOOD” and “good.”

When Child of Wisdom says, “We are capable of good acts but that does not make us good people although from a human perspective we may be considered good,” he is speaking of “good acts” and not “GOOD acts.”

If I can revise Apologist4Him’s comment we get -- So by default, humans are unable to do GOOD, unable to please God, and when all is said and done, THAT is what counts as GOOD. In myself, I am unable [to do GOOD], but by the grace of God I am enabled to do GOOD to the glory of God.” I like that.

[Samuel]

It would be true to say that “anything a nonbeliever does is not enough to make up for the wrong they do though.”

If we insert the word good, we presuppose that it is possible for an unbeliever to do good. That is my objection. If by “good” you mean CJD’s “civil good” as one does who has a civil religion (an interesting topic for a google search), then we have two definitions of “good” that which God calls “good” and civil “good.”

We need to distinguish that which God calls good (GOOD) from that which a materialistic sinful world calls good (good).

When GoBahnsen says that his "good works" do not commend him to God, he distinguishes these from “GOOD works.”

When CJD says that people do good all the time, he presumably means “good” or civil good and not “GOOD.”

When infide says “well i just don’t think you can cook up the definition of "good" to support your view. good is good,” I think he fails to distinguish between “GOOD” and “good.”

When Samual says, “The unregenerate can do good in a human perspective view but never in Gods' perspective,” he is distinguishing between “good” and “GOOD.”

When infide says, “what do you mean? God's view of goodness is different than ours? is goodness subjective? I think not,” I think he fails to distinguish between “GOOD” and “good.”

When Child of Wisdom says, “We are capable of good acts but that does not make us good people although from a human perspective we may be considered good,” he is speaking of “good acts” and not “GOOD acts.”

If I can revise Apologist4Him’s comment we get -- So by default, humans are unable to do GOOD, unable to please God, and when all is said and done, THAT is what counts as GOOD. In myself, I am unable [to do GOOD], but by the grace of God I am enabled to do GOOD to the glory of God.” I like that.

Actually my name is "Samuel" and not "Samual."

[rhutchin]

Actually my name is "Samuel" and not "Samual."

My fingers never like to do what my brain tells them to do. They are rebellious and always take advantage of their strengths to create chaos. They are always getting me in trouble.

[infide]

again i refuse to allow you to cook up definitions to support your view. people use the word "good" all the time. and no where is it ever meant "perfectly good" or "good from God's perspective". If you mean one of those things, then you must use those descriptive words.

besides, no one has explained why "good from God's perspective" is different from what we mean by "good".

its not that i fail to distinguish between alternate definitions of "good", its that you fail to distinguish what you mean from the common usage of the word. in fact, your definition is probable not even listed in a dictionary (not a Calvinist-theological dictionary!!!). So therefore, it is you who must clarify your usage of the word, not everyone else in the world.

If what you mean is "perfect goodness" then of course this is something which God does not see in human thoughts or behavior. And i wholeheartedly agree.

but you havent even begun to explain what you mean. it just seems like you are exaggerating a theological viewpoint (that man cannot do enough good to merit salvation) into something that no longer expresses reality.

[infide]

the other thing... this sort of just dawned on me as i was reading some of the earlier posts. saying that non-believers do good things, is not to say that these same are therefore "good" in their hearts, or in general, or whatever. Jesus said "no one is good but God alone" (Mark 10:18). yes, because God (and Jesus here makes an implication of his divininty) literally is good, that is, by nature. Humans must choose to conform to this goodness, and usually they do not.

but again, dont get it twisted - the question is whether nonregenerate people ever do good. not if they are good, in the sense Jesus is talking about here.

[Tercel]

When the Scriptures say that all our righteousness is as filthy rags***Verse out of context alert***
The above quoted verse has been taken out of context and thereby had its meaning changed and the intent of the author ignored. The verse in context laments the state of Israel at a particular time in the past, saying that Israel used to be good and recently they had begun engaging in bad actions. The passage is not at all making any claim whatsoever about the state of humanity as a whole, nor of human righteousness in comparison to Gods.
The Context-Police hereby issue a warning to Rhutchin: Any further misuse of context will result in something generically bad happening.
:lol:

With regard to Rhutchin's 3 listed points in the OP I would argue that:
* It is an obvious fact of experience that many people, Christian and non-Christian both, regularly engage in actions which we do and should call "good".
* That arguing about whether the "good a nonbeliever does is not enough to make up for the wrong they do though" is a ill-founded debate as the argument assumes that it is coherent to talk of "making-up" for wrongs as if there was some sort of cosmic scales of justice which our deeds are balanced on. The whole discussion about this is based on what I consider to be faulty and unbiblical assumptions.
* I think the Bible is quite clear that many unbelievers often and regularly do things that are God-pleasing. (I refuse to use the term "non-regenerate", as I deny the validity of the distinction)

And if a man can reach perfection by his own ability, then what need do we have of a savior to bridge that gap for us?Imagine a group of soldiers struggling to make it back to their base. They are a bit lost, and many of them are wounded in varying degrees. They know the enemy is right behind them, if they had to make it back alone, only a very few of them would make it. Suddenly a friendly helicoptor lands beside them and drops off reinforcements who know in which direction base lies, and the helicoptor carries the most severely wounded away. They are saved! With the help of their saviours they all make it back to base safely.
Your question above was effectively: "Well if some of them could reach base by their own ability, then what need did they have of a saviour to rescue them?" Can you see the answer?

[smaller]

This world consists of good and evil.

To say that people cannot do good or that they do not do good is evil...;)

[Exegete]

"There is only one way for salvation. You must be perfect. You have to be declared righteous by the judge."


Actually the only one way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. We are not perfect even being regenerated because our flesh wages war against the spirit continually, thats why we have an advocate with the father if anyone sins. We become delcared righteous when we die and God says, "Paid in Full by the blood of the Lamb."

:ahem:

Yes, salvation is through Christ. And that comes because of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

We are declared righteous through faith in Christ.

Are you being dense intentionally?

[rhutchin]

again i refuse to allow you to cook up definitions to support your view. people use the word "good" all the time. and no where is it ever meant "perfectly good" or "good from God's perspective". If you mean one of those things, then you must use those descriptive words.

besides, no one has explained why "good from God's perspective" is different from what we mean by "good".

its not that i fail to distinguish between alternate definitions of "good", its that you fail to distinguish what you mean from the common usage of the word. in fact, your definition is probable not even listed in a dictionary (not a Calvinist-theological dictionary!!!). So therefore, it is you who must clarify your usage of the word, not everyone else in the world.

If what you mean is "perfect goodness" then of course this is something which God does not see in human thoughts or behavior. And i wholeheartedly agree.

but you havent even begun to explain what you mean. it just seems like you are exaggerating a theological viewpoint (that man cannot do enough good to merit salvation) into something that no longer expresses reality.
With regard to Rhutchin's 3 listed points in the OP I would argue that:
* It is an obvious fact of experience that many people, Christian and non-Christian both, regularly engage in actions which we do and should call "good".
…
* I think the Bible is quite clear that many unbelievers often and regularly do things that are God-pleasing. (I refuse to use the term "non-regenerate", as I deny the validity of the distinction)

To resolve the question of what is “good.”

Ephesians 2
4 But God, who is rich in mercy,…
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ…
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,…
12 That at that time ye were without Christ,…and without God in the world:..

Here God distinguishes between the saved and the lost. God tells us that the saved are created to do good works. It could be argued that these are good works in addition to those the lost might do. So, we look at these works.

Romans 8
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness…
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Galatians 4
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

1 Corinthians 3
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Galatians 5
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:...
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance...

Given this Scripture, to what other Scriptures can one appeal to show that the lost do "good"?

[GoBahnsen]

whatever man. your theology seems, to me, a bit exaggerated. i dont think its necessarily "praising non-believers" (though, i think i would if they did do something i was proud of them for doing) in the sense of them thinking it will benefit them for eternity. I just tell them the truth concerning their state - no matter what good they could ever do, it wont atone for their sins. Its called honesty, not bad theology.

moreover, i dont think "goodness" is necessarily a subjective virtue. If someone does something self-sacrificial, say, a father jumps in front of a car to save his son, then how could you possibly say that wasn't "good" of him in some objective way? If it is objective, then God thinks it is "good" also, wouldnt you think?

the point however, is that these various good things that may be done by us, do not earn for us salvation. that is, they cannot be used to atone for our sins. That payment is death, the payment Christ payed on our behalf.The thing that makes it impossible for the unregenerate to do good, in the eyes of God, is that God sees the act done with self interest. The unregenerate cannot do good for Christ's sake, because they do not know Him. So they can only do good for their own sake ultimately.

You listen to the world speak of their "giving" and what is the common sentiment? "I felt so good when I did it..." "Help someone in need, it will make YOU feel really good." So people give to get the good feeling. To God this is unacceptable as really good. It's tainted with self seeking and self interest.

Then you have those who like to "help out" and have it plastered on the front page of the newspaper. They have their reward, Jesus said. And even for those who are low key in their labors, it bothers them when "nobody knows". Only the Christian has the insight to do good for Christ. To not care if anyone ever knows, save Christ. Yet even for Christians, we struggle with it. We do good and "share" about it and call it fellowship. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss our labors with one another, but I know I have come to the place where I have given up that I can perform a pure work for God.

Just give me Jesus and I have enough. If God were to want to reward me for any thing I have done, it would truly be amazing grace. I really expect no reward, but Christ. Just give me Jesus and it is enough. All my good is spoiled by sin. God will do good through me, but to what ever extent I touch it, I spoil it.

One more thought. Can you imagine yourself as the creator of beings, with which you have given them all that they have. Then they go about life ignoring you. What an insult. My teenage daughter bakes cookies for someone else. A good work? All the while, as she uses my kitchen, my ingredients, by utinsils, she has contempt for me, her father. And why does she hate me? Because she's a teenager and she is full of herself and she does not think about my blessings to her; rather she focuses on my boundaries that I have set up. I'm bad because she can't get her license until she's 18. Her friends have them at 16. I'm bad because I won't let her hang out at the mall on a friday night, etc. etc.

And so with God, the world hates Him but goes about in His kitchen baking cookies and calling it good.

[Tercel]

Given this Scripture, to what other Scriptures can one appeal to show that the lost do "good"?Well, I hold that no one is truly lost until they do no good whatsoever, ie my scope of who will be saved is a lot wider than yours. So producing a verse that said what you ask would defeat my own position.

However, some difficult passages for you to explain do come to mind: Ezekiel 18 & 33
"If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, then his previous righteousness is of no benefit to him" etc.
It is made clear in these passages that people can do good and then later turn away and be lost.

[infide]

To resolve the question of what is “good.”
...
Given this Scripture, to what other Scriptures can one appeal to show that the lost do "good"?

yes, we all know your theological position and how you exaggerate scriptures to accomodate it. however, those scriptures, even strung together, do not, strictly speaking, entail your theological position. Therefore the only way to get your theological (really anthropological, but anyway...) position is from your theological position, which is circular.

what scriptures to appeal to, hmm. well for one thing, which has pretty much been left unanswered so far, is the good done by Old Testament saints. Consider this verse from Deuteronomy chapter 6:

"You shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, that it may be well with you and that you may go in and possess the good land which the LORD swore to {give} your fathers," (6:18, NAS)

Now here, it even goes so far as to say that it is good in "the sight of the LORD", which must mean that the motives are right and some of the other objections given here. Yet, this is wholly before the indwelling of God's Spirit in people. As best I can discern, God's Spirit was conceived in their thought as within the temple. They approached God, but dare not be fully in His presence - hence they would not have in mind the idea of being indwelt.

But, this is the only way, claim many Calvinists, that people can do "good" so conceived. So are you claiming that God's Spirit indwelt these OT saints, and hence they were regenerated, well before Christ's Sacrifice made this possible? OR are you claiming that God is commanding the impossible here? both options seem difficult to argue for. Or is there a 3rd option that you have yet to articulate?

Another Scripture I would appeal to, is Genesis 6:9:
"Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God." (NAS)

I would concede that here, it is not meant that Noah was perfectly good. But certainly it is meant that Noah, in general, did good amongst the evil of his generation.

And as before, it does not seem to indicate that contrary to the fact that the sacrifice of Christ was yet future, he was indwelt with God's Spirit. This is a blessing enjoyed by the Church. So how to explain such do-gooding on Noah's part?

And finally:
"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!" (Matt. 7:11, NAS) (Though, here they give good gifts. whether that is "good" or not, may depend on your view going into it)
AND
"But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me." (Matt. 26:10)

and some others, all imply that some non-regenerated people thoughout Scripture have nonetheless, done good things. We are told that they will, however be saved through faith, the substance of which is Christ -- not through those good things they have done. Paul said he counts the good things He did in the Law, as loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ (Philippians 3). That is, even if they may be good, they are not sufficient for righteousness (and are actually a loss, since perhaps he think he might attain righteousness in the Law) - only faith in Christ is that.

All of this is not to say that God was completely absent from inspiring or guiding such good things. But this, of course, is beside the point. After all, the rain falls on the righteous and the wicked. That is, God does give graces to people who will not ever be saved.

[infide]

The thing that makes it impossible for the unregenerate to do good, in the eyes of God, is that God sees the act done with self interest. The unregenerate cannot do good for Christ's sake, because they do not know Him. So they can only do good for their own sake ultimately.

yeah, i understand your point. good done with evil motives may not be good at all. agreed. but that does not speak to the possibility yet, though, unlikelihood, that some non-regenerate people might do good with good motives. i just dont deny that possibility (see the above post by me).

Then you have those who like to "help out" and have it plastered on the front page of the newspaper. They have their reward, Jesus said. And even for those who are low key in their labors, it bothers them when "nobody knows". Only the Christian has the insight to do good for Christ. To not care if anyone ever knows, save Christ. Yet even for Christians, we struggle with it. We do good and "share" about it and call it fellowship. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss our labors with one another, but I know I have come to the place where I have given up that I can perform a pure work for God.

again, i would concede that most if not all non-regenerate people do some if not most things for the wrong motives.

Just give me Jesus and I have enough. If God were to want to reward me for any thing I have done, it would truly be amazing grace. I really expect no reward, but Christ. Just give me Jesus and it is enough. All my good is spoiled by sin. God will do good through me, but to what ever extent I touch it, I spoil it.

yeah, i understand your point. and maybe i am just arguing a minor point here. it just seems to me that Reformed (especially) theology gets exaggerated with this notion of original sin. we are bent, prone, pulled toward sinning - but we are not as bad as possible, or lacking the ability to do some good.

One more thought. Can you imagine yourself as the creator of beings, with which you have given them all that they have. Then they go about life ignoring you. What an insult. My teenage daughter bakes cookies for someone else. A good work? All the while, as she uses my kitchen, my ingredients, by utinsils, she has contempt for me, her father. And why does she hate me? Because she's a teenager and she is full of herself and she does not think about my blessings to her; rather she focuses on my boundaries that I have set up. I'm bad because she can't get her license until she's 18. Her friends have them at 16. I'm bad because I won't let her hang out at the mall on a friday night, etc. etc.

And so with God, the world hates Him but goes about in His kitchen baking cookies and calling it good.

woah - is that a hypothetical there, or are you venting some frustration? God bless you if its the latter.

I completely agree, that this analogy is consistant with the general trend of the fallen world. But some, (think Pharisees of Jesus' day) acknowledged God, and that they were cooking in His kitchen and everything. They loved His boundaries, and laws. But they did not acknowledge that they could not be saved in those good works. it wasnt sufficient. They did good (again some may have been selfish, but some may have been for good motives), and yet fell short of God's glory. why? because they didnt seek righteousness in faith. they sought it in works. Thats Pauline thought, in a nutshell.

[GoBahnsen]

GB:One more thought. Can you imagine yourself as the creator of beings, with which you have given them all that they have. Then they go about life ignoring you. What an insult. My teenage daughter bakes cookies for someone else. A good work? All the while, as she uses my kitchen, my ingredients, by utinsils, she has contempt for me, her father. And why does she hate me? Because she's a teenager and she is full of herself and she does not think about my blessings to her; rather she focuses on my boundaries that I have set up. I'm bad because she can't get her license until she's 18. Her friends have them at 16. I'm bad because I won't let her hang out at the mall on a friday night, etc. etc.

And so with God, the world hates Him but goes about in His kitchen baking cookies and calling it good.

infide:[QUOTE]
woah - is that a hypothetical there, or are you venting some frustration? God bless you if its the latter.

I completely agree, that this analogy is consistant with the general trend of the fallen world. But some, (think Pharisees of Jesus' day) acknowledged God,
And yet they did not. They re-invented God or cast God into who they wanted Him to be. So that when God showed up...they did not recognize Him.


and that they were cooking in His kitchen and everything. They loved His boundaries, and laws. I disagree, they loved their "add on's". They walked on the law of God while seeking to uphold it.

But they did not acknowledge that they could not be saved in those good works. I won't speak authoritatively here, because I think I have yet to fullyunderstand the Jewish mind at the time of Christ.

They sought to establish their own righteousness through a law keeping that was corrupt. They were quick to chide Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, but would also "work" to release a donkey from a ditch (perhaps in secret).


it wasnt sufficient. They did good (again some may have been selfish, but some may have been for good motives), It wasn't sufficient because it was all bad. Even Isaiah the prophet, doesn't say, "I am good, but I dwell among a people of unclean lips."


and yet fell short of God's glory. why? because they didnt seek righteousness in faith. they sought it in works. Thats Pauline thought, in a nutshell.
I think you're failing in admit that their righteousness was filthy rags to God. It's only when God'a Spirit works that we say "depart from me Lord, I'm unclean." And yet like with Peter, Jesus does not leave that kind of person (that kind, because they are His workmanship). It's the self righteous that found no place with Christ.

[infide]

And yet they did not. They re-invented God or cast God into who they wanted Him to be. So that when God showed up...they did not recognize Him.

i just dont think thats accurate, its not my conception of first century Judaism, anyway. Jesus criticized their hypocrisy, he criticized their self-righteousness, he criticized excessive legalism. But He never criticizes them for their view of God. Nor does He say that they dont ever do anything good. Rather he says this:

"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:20, NAS)

And this:

"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." (Matt. 23:1-3, NAS).

Now, certainly, Jesus says that they have a motivation problem in v.5. They do things to be seen by men. But clearly they do teach the law, we are told here in this passage, which is good. In addition, it seems Jesus is making a generalization, a broad assessment - so i dont think this necessarily indicates your position, as is indicated in the verse above.

They sought to establish their own righteousness through a law keeping that was corrupt. They were quick to chide Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, but would also "work" to release a donkey from a ditch (perhaps in secret).

agreed, i said this.

It wasn't sufficient because it was all bad. Even Isaiah the prophet, doesn't say, "I am good, but I dwell among a people of unclean lips."

again, Isaiah indicates that the condition of the people is sinful, unable to be in the actual presence of God. I believe i said that. thats not what i have been arguing for. just simply that along with their sins, it is possible for nonregenerate people to do some good.

I think you're failing in admit that their righteousness was filthy rags to God. It's only when God'a Spirit works that we say "depart from me Lord, I'm unclean." And yet like with Peter, Jesus does not leave that kind of person (that kind, because they are His workmanship). It's the self righteous that found no place with Christ.

no i dont think i failed to admit anything. i simply dont think the implication there is very strong. It says their righteous deeds are like a filthy garment. That is, they are fruitless, literally barren. But Isaiah expressly says that this was a state that they had "become" not that they had always been in.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Given this Scripture, to what other Scriptures can one appeal to show that the lost do "good"?

Tercel
Well, I hold that no one is truly lost until they do no good whatsoever, ie my scope of who will be saved is a lot wider than yours. So producing a verse that said what you ask would defeat my own position.

However, some difficult passages for you to explain do come to mind: Ezekiel 18 & 33
"If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, then his previous righteousness is of no benefit to him" etc.
It is made clear in these passages that people can do good and then later turn away and be lost.

Let’s look at two verses from Ezek 18—

Ezekiel 18
26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

v 27 appears to say that a person who stops doing evil and starts doing good will be saved.

In the same way, v 26 appears to say that a person who stops doing good and starts doing evil will be lost.

What we might conclude from taking these verses out of their context is that a person’s salvation is determined by their works and they gain salvation when they do good and lose salvation when they do evil.

Let’s say that Tercel and I disagree on this point.

However, let’s just deal with the good vs bad issue. Here we see the prophet identifying “righteousness” in v26 with “lawful and right” in v27. If we define “good” as being a law-biding citizen, then we might all agree that people do “good.” The question, from the OP, is whether this is “God-pleasing good.” It is on this point that we disagree. We have a problem in that we have one English word, “good,” being used to describe two uniquely different concepts.

GoBahnsen made a nice distinction. That "good" done by a person to advance his self-interest would not be "God pleasing good." That good done to advance the interests of God would be "God pleasing good."

[GoBahnsen]

i just dont think thats accurate, its not my conception of first century Judaism, anyway. Jesus criticized their hypocrisy, he criticized their self-righteousness, he criticized excessive legalism. But He never criticizes them for their view of God. Nor does He say that they dont ever do anything good. Rather he says this:

"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:20, NAS)

We are probably trying to prove two different things then. Jesus told his religious opponents that they didn't know His Father, therefore they also reject the Son. Now there were some in those days who weren't just practicing outwardly. They did know God and received His Messiah.

Yet even the father of John the Baptist (about as good as they got) didn't believe the angel. And he too had to be very careful how he conducted himself in the holy of holies, because he was a sinner. That's my whloe point. No matter how "good" we might appear to be, if we find ourselves in the direct presense of God's holiness, we realize that even our best efforts fall short of God's glory. We want Him to depart from us, for we are sinful people. Yet again, Christ came to save sinners, the "righteous" need no Savior. The only problem for them, is that they aren't truly righteous either. There is none righteous, no not one.

And this:

"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." (Matt. 23:1-3, NAS).
Jesus is telling them to heed Moses, not the leaders directly. To follow those guys would lead to hypocricy.


Now, certainly, Jesus says that they have a motivation problem in v.5. Just a little motivation problem? How about hearts of stone? How about dead in sins?


They do things to be seen by men. But clearly they do teach the law, we are told here in this passage, which is good. In addition, it seems Jesus is making a generalization, a broad assessment - so i dont think this necessarily indicates your position, as is indicated in the verse above.


Do you really know what you're working hard at to maintain? Something good about man apart from Christ? What are you working for? I'm curious about all these evangelicals today that seem to want to think we have some shred of good in us. At least faith! Yes, at least we have some faith and if God can find that in us...He will even ELECT us.

We say NO. We say, in me...that is in my flesh dwells no good thing. Now if I gain Christ, then I can move into Romans 8. Then we can talk about some good, because the Spirit is producing the fruit of the Spirit. But apart from that, I think you're trying to raise the Titanic.


agreed, i said this.



again, Isaiah indicates that the condition of the people is sinful, unable to be in the actual presence of God. I believe i said that. thats not what i have been arguing for. just simply that along with their sins, it is possible for nonregenerate people to do some good.
Like what?



no i dont think i failed to admit anything. i simply dont think the implication there is very strong. It says their righteous deeds are like a filthy garment. That is, they are fruitless, literally barren. But Isaiah expressly says that this was a state that they had "become" not that they had always been in.Granted. I'm not saying that there were never men of faith in the OT. There were and their faith (a gift of grace) was accounted for (imputed) righteousness.

Hey, nice post man. Thanks for being civil. No need to take each other's heads off, right? You did make me think about where I might be missing something. I know I am, I just have to keep learning by God's grace.

[infide]

We are probably trying to prove two different things then. Jesus told his religious opponents that they didn't know His Father, therefore they also reject the Son. Now there were some in those days who weren't just practicing outwardly. They did know God and received His Messiah.

it probably might help to look at the OP. Admittedly, it almost doesnt seem worth it to be arguing this. but this discussion involves the compatibilism-incompatibilism debate. good people sometimes choose bad (Adam?), and bad people sometimes choose good. why? because they have LFW - their nature/characters/desires dont exhaustively determine how they will choose.

indeed sometimes people act contrary to that. further, consistant theology, and a correct view of time are involved here. how can reformed compatibilists argue that OT saints do good? more on that below.

little exaggerations/over-simplifications in foundational-level beliefs might lead to false theology at the top.

Yet even the father of John the Baptist (about as good as they got) didn't believe the angel. And he too had to be very careful how he conducted himself in the holy of holies, because he was a sinner.

but then why does Scripture call him "righteous in the sight of the Lord" if all are evil and sinful without being regenerated? Are you saying Zacharias was regenerated before Christ was crucified? This is the big issue here i have with the reformed notion of Original sin. If regeneration is accomplished through the work of Christ on the cross (indeed), and no one does good unless they are regenerated, then how do OT saints, like Zach here able to do good?

Calvinism goes to the extreme of all their doctrines to have a Christ-centered salvation (as if other systems aren't) but here have regeneration happenning before the work of Christ was accomplished. it doesnt work.

That's my whloe point. No matter how "good" we might appear to be, if we find ourselves in the direct presense of God's holiness, we realize that even our best efforts fall short of God's glory. We want Him to depart from us, for we are sinful people. Yet again, Christ came to save sinners, the "righteous" need no Savior. The only problem for them, is that they aren't truly righteous either. There is none righteous, no not one.

thats my whole point. heh.

ive been saying, the point of salvation is that no matter how much good we may be able to do (apart from regeneration) it is insufficient for salvation. but you, by putting good in quotes, and your reformed friends take that a step futher - that no one ever does good without being regenerated, as if goodness is an entirely subjective value. this supports your philosophical presuppostion of compatibilism. but not without difficulty. as they say, "you have some 'splainin' to do."

Jesus is telling them to heed Moses, not the leaders directly. To follow those guys would lead to hypocricy.

thats definately not what it says.

Just a little motivation problem? How about hearts of stone? How about dead in sins?

i never said "little" - its a big problem, but its not to say its not a state of pride they had freely chosen. same thing with hearts of stone. another way of saying that is "prideful" or "arrogant" or "self-righteous" - all of which people freely become. being dead in sins is a completely abused metaphor by your side. in a fallen state, people are inclined, turned, bent towards sin and away from God, but they are not spiritually annihilated. Thus in sin, they are on a path towards death. the death sentence is over their heads. but even Adam heard God's voice and responded. Further, OT saints were commanded certain things, implying they could.

Do you really know what you're working hard at to maintain? Something good about man apart from Christ? What are you working for? I'm curious about all these evangelicals today that seem to want to think we have some shred of good in us. At least faith! Yes, at least we have some faith and if God can find that in us...He will even ELECT us.

ugh, whatever man. im working for the truth! your theology doesnt make sense. OT saints did good, had faith, etc. thousands of years before Jesus died to make regeneration possible. how can you explain it? youve dodged this question plenty, already.

further, what exactly is unbiblical about a shred of good in us, not apart from Christ - but apart from regeneration. That is, Christ created us, we are made in His image, etc. And yet, long after the fall of man, God notes that we should not murder because "in the image of God, man was made". That is, God's image is still visible in human beings - to they extent that we should not murder the reflection of God.

This is why i say your theology is exaggerated. you naively, and often out-of-context, interpret certain scriptures that seem to imply your view, while ignoring every verse which doesnt. theology is about the unity of Scriptures. Reformed theology fails at that unity.

We say NO. We say, in me...that is in my flesh dwells no good thing. Now if I gain Christ, then I can move into Romans 8. Then we can talk about some good, because the Spirit is producing the fruit of the Spirit. But apart from that, I think you're trying to raise the Titanic.

duh. in our flesh. but God is in the world, even in the world of non-believers, working with and revealing to all flesh. how did the OT saints do good, despite the sacrifice of Christ being yet future?

Granted. I'm not saying that there were never men of faith in the OT. There were and their faith (a gift of grace) was accounted for (imputed) righteousness.

but how, according to you? Christ is yet future. That means they were not regenerated, that means they had faith, without being regenerated.

Hey, nice post man. Thanks for being civil. No need to take each other's heads off, right? You did make me think about where I might be missing something. I know I am, I just have to keep learning by God's grace.

i totally agree.
God bless you this good Friday,
jd

[GoBahnsen]

but then why does Scripture call him "righteous in the sight of the Lord" if all are evil and sinful without being regenerated? Are you saying Zacharias was regenerated before Christ was crucified?
In John 3 Jesus explained the new birth (which involved regeneration) to Nicodemus, reminding him that these things were taught in the Old Testament and therefore he ought to have known them (John 3:10).

In Ezekiel 18:31 the people were commanded to “make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.” The two phrases parallel those of Ezekiel 36:25-27 as well as John 3:5 and suggest the Old Testament believer was regenerated by the Holy Spirit..."create in mean a clean heart and renew a right spirit within me" ( Ps. 51:10).


This is the big issue here i have with the reformed notion of Original sin. If regeneration is accomplished through the work of Christ on the cross (indeed), and no one does good unless they are regenerated, then how do OT saints, like Zach here able to do good?
The Holy Spirit has always regenerated the elect, Old and New Covenants. Jesus comes to establish a new and better Covenant in His blood, not animal blood anymore. The Holy spirit is poured out more liberally and the Gospel goes outside of Jerusalem. The Gentile are made fellow heirs, etc. But Old Testament saints were saved by grace through faith in the promised Seed to come. They needed to be born again, just like those after Christ.

I don't see Jesus doing something on the cross that then ushered in some new way that people are made alive by God. It seems to me that the Spirit's work becomes broader. Where as in the OT, the Spirit's work was more restricted. I'm open to being corrected here from the Bible, but that's my understanding briefly stated.


Calvinism goes to the extreme of all their doctrines to have a Christ-centered salvation (as if other systems aren't) but here have regeneration happenning before the work of Christ was accomplished. it doesnt work.
Can you demonstrate that from Scripture?

thats my whole point. heh.

ive been saying, the point of salvation is that no matter how much good we may be able to do (apart from regeneration) it is insufficient for salvation.
And I'm saying, that it isn't "good" in the pure sense of that word. "Good Master"..."why do you call me Good? There is none Good save God."


but you, by putting good in quotes, and your reformed friends take that a step futher - that no one ever does good without being regenerated, as if goodness is an entirely subjective value. this supports your philosophical presuppostion of compatibilism. but not without difficulty. as they say, "you have some 'splainin' to do."
Let me ask you this then, are you feeliing good about anything you have done in this life? I mean do you look at it say, "now there's a good work that was entirely pure in motive."? Of course if you tell me yes, you're toying with the sin of pride. Thus we end up with that saying, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Just forget it. Do your good works, but forget about thinking that they are any good. If they are, it's gravy. To think of them as good is to spoil them by thinking they are good.

thats definately not what it says.

So you think Jesus was telling them to listen to the leaders, even when they spoke outside of Moses? Remember that they had added to the law, many comandments, to which Jesus said that they by their traditions had made the law of God of no effect.

[Tercel]

rhutchin,

Aren't you guys being totally arbitrary here? You seem to have invented this strange idea of two types of righteousness - God-pleasing righteousness and human righteousness. Apparently human righteousness is so worthless that I have to wonder why any Bible authors would bother ascribing it to anyone as a positive quality. Everything I know of what the Bible says and of Jewish beliefs at those times makes me believe that every single bible author and Jew would have regarded "righteousness" as god-pleasing and never for a second would have taken seriously a notion of righteousness which wasn't God-pleasing. It would be like saying to someone that "there are two types of 'good', good which is good and good which is bad"... the very notion is absurd.

In short:
* What is your evidence for thinking there are two types of righteousness?

[commonman]

Imagine a group of soldiers struggling to make it back to their base. They are a bit lost, and many of them are wounded in varying degrees. They know the enemy is right behind them, if they had to make it back alone, only a very few of them would make it. Suddenly a friendly helicoptor lands beside them and drops off reinforcements who know in which direction base lies, and the helicoptor carries the most severely wounded away. They are saved! With the help of their saviours they all make it back to base safely.
Your question above was effectively: "Well if some of them could reach base by their own ability, then what need did they have of a saviour to rescue them?" Can you see the answer?

The flaw with your analogy is that you assume that there are those among the soldiers that is well (good) enough to make it back alone. You forgot to mention the great chasm that lies between their position and base. The chasm that can only be crossed by helicopter.

[Tercel]

The flaw with your analogy is that you assume that there are those among the soldiers that is well (good) enough to make it back alone. You forgot to mention the great chasm that lies between their position and base. The chasm that can only be crossed by helicopter.Well, that's certainly an assumption that a lot of people make. Why should I believe that no one could have made it back themselves? Jesus himself appears to grant that there are some who do not need his help when he says "I have not come to call the righteous but the wicked" (Mat 9:13), in context he is explaining why he is predominantly working with prostitutes and other social outcasts rather than with the religious leaders.

[Samuel]

People can do good. That is the easiest question ever!

Can people do bad? They always do, nothing new under the sun.

[infide]

GB,

sorry it took so long, i was away for the weekend. hope you had a great Easter-weekend.


In John 3 Jesus explained the new birth (which involved regeneration) to Nicodemus, reminding him that these things were taught in the Old Testament and therefore he ought to have known them (John 3:10).

well, of course, it need not be that this was something specifically taught in the OT. (though, i guess it was in some ways) - Jesus may just be saying that he is a spiritual leader and doesnt understand one of the simplest principles of the spiritual realm. in v.10, Jesus is just asking a question. This is definately a new thing, a new dispensation, that Jesus is teaching about here. And if you notice, this teaching comes after Nicodemus acknowledging Jesus' miracle ministry (v.2) that is, the power and rule of God in the world. So I think Jesus is explaining some things about Himself (as an example to all of us). That He was baptized (water, represents His death) then anointed by the Holy Spirit (descent as a dove) and so "born again" (though, obviously Jesus need not be regenerated like we all need), and so God's kingdom was seen in His ministry. The same is true of us. though for us, we have the problem of sin - which is why this passage flows so well into 3:16-21 more on this below...

In Ezekiel 18:31 the people were commended to “make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.” The two phrases parallel those of Ezekiel 36:25-27 as well as John 3:5 and suggest the Old Testament believer was regenerated by the Holy Spirit..."create in mean a clean heart and renew a right spirit within me" ( Ps. 51:10).

umm no, i wouldnt connect these to regeneration and being filled by God's Spirit. This is more just conscience and repentance in these passages. The main thing i would say is different is the external vs. internal dwelling of God's Spirit, and hence His influence in their lives.

The Holy Spirit has always regenerated the elect, Old and New Covenants. Jesus comes to establish a new and better Covenant in His blood, not animal blood anymore. The Holy spirit is poured out more liberally and the Gospel goes outside of Jerusalem. The Gentile are made fellow heirs, etc. But Old Testament saints were saved by grace through faith in the promised Seed to come. They needed to be born again, just like those after Christ.

I do agree that the OT saints will be saved by grace through their faith. but they were not regenerated and indwelt by God's Spirit. more on that below...

I don't see Jesus doing something on the cross that then ushered in some new way that people are made alive by God. It seems to me that the Spirit's work becomes broader. Where as in the OT, the Spirit's work was more restricted. I'm open to being corrected here from the Bible, but that's my understanding briefly stated.

Can you demonstrate that from Scripture?

the thing Jesus did was to completely remove the sin and unrighteousness from our hearts, so we can become temples of God's Spirit, that is, we can be indwelt.

"For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (Hebrews 10:4)

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all...For by one offering He has [/i]perfected[/i] for all time those who are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:10,14, NAS).

"that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." (John 14:17, NAS)

"Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1 Cor 3:16, NAS)

Did you follow that transition I tried to demonstrate? The Holy Spirit takes a new role in the life of the Church - indwelling. Jesus prophesied that this would happen, that the Holy Spirit will be IN you. This is made possible, where it wasnt previously because the blood of the sacrifices could not take away sin, it could only cover it. Now that Jesus' perfect sacrifice has been made, our sin can really be taken away, and God's Spirit can dwell in us.

thats regeneration, our being born again through the sacrifice of Christ, and thereby being indwelt.


And I'm saying, that it isn't "good" in the pure sense of that word. "Good Master"..."why do you call me Good? There is none Good save God."
i thought we went over this. this is talking about there not being anyone who is good, and i submit, its meant here perfectly good. but of course, fallen people can do something good, and i dont think Jesus is teaching that here. hes making a claim of deity.

Let me ask you this then, are you feeliing good about anything you have done in this life? I mean do you look at it say, "now there's a good work that was entirely pure in motive."? Of course if you tell me yes, you're toying with the sin of pride. Thus we end up with that saying, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Just forget it. Do your good works, but forget about thinking that they are any good. If they are, it's gravy. To think of them as good is to spoil them by thinking they are good.

actually no. i dont think much good of myself at all. and if there is any good in me, God has given me that, since He made me with certain talents and gifts, and combine that with spiritual gifts and God has designed and gifted me with some purpose in mind. Even coming to belief in Him and repentance was because of His Law, and His grace in the pure gospel of Christ. I was convicted of law in my conscience - and then His grace followed. but nonetheless - technically, i did choose these things by receiving them, humbling myself to hear the voice of God - then responding in repentance and eventually faith in Christ.

So you think Jesus was telling them to listen to the leaders, even when they spoke outside of Moses? Remember that they had added to the law, many comandments, to which Jesus said that they by their traditions had made the law of God of no effect.

heh - ohh i remember, dont worry.

yeah, Jesus is saying to listen to what they say, but not to imitate what they do. Because they teach correct things from the Word, but when they go to do them, they miss the point and fail to actually do.

God bless,
jd

[rhutchin]

rhutchin,

Aren't you guys being totally arbitrary here? You seem to have invented this strange idea of two types of righteousness - God-pleasing righteousness and human righteousness. Apparently human righteousness is so worthless that I have to wonder why any Bible authors would bother ascribing it to anyone as a positive quality. Everything I know of what the Bible says and of Jewish beliefs at those times makes me believe that every single bible author and Jew would have regarded "righteousness" as god-pleasing and never for a second would have taken seriously a notion of righteousness which wasn't God-pleasing. It would be like saying to someone that "there are two types of 'good', good which is good and good which is bad"... the very notion is absurd.

In short:
* What is your evidence for thinking there are two types of righteousness?


The distinction is between that which a man calls “good” or righteous and that which God calls “good” or righteous.

God tells us that there is a way that seems right to a man but it is the way of death. God further says that man’s thoughts are not His thoughts and man’s ways are not his ways.

If a man calls something good or righteous, does that make it good or righteous in God’s eyes? The answer is, No. Men are, all the time, telling others what is good or righteous in their opinion, and it seems clear that we do have two types of righteousness and this is not a strange idea invented for this thread.

Take the case of Terry Schiavo. One group says that it is murder to allow her to die. Another says that it is good to allow it. Both groups of men say what they believe is good. Can both groups be correct? We have different positions on what is “good” or righteous being expressed among men. Is it so far fetched to think that there can be differing views on what is “good” or righteous between man and God?

[Ormly]

The distinction is between that which a man calls “good” or righteous and that which God calls “good” or righteous.

God tells us that there is a way that seems right to a man but it is the way of death. God further says that man’s thoughts are not His thoughts and man’s ways are not his ways.

If a man calls something good or righteous, does that make it good or righteous in God’s eyes? The answer is, No. Men are, all the time, telling others what is good or righteous in their opinion, and it seems clear that we do have two types of righteousness and this is not a strange idea invented for this thread.

Take the case of Terry Schiavo. One group says that it is murder to allow her to die. Another says that it is good to allow it. Both groups of men say what they believe is good. Can both groups be correct? We have different positions on what is “good” or righteous being expressed among men. Is it so far fetched to think that there can be differing views on what is “good” or righteous between man and God?

Apples and oranges thinking. Non-righteous and yet the righteous are justified by faith. Go figure how you can't reconcile your thinking yet persist in your error. It is you who lack the ability to make proper distinctions.

[Tercel]

Well Rhutchin, what is really at issue is what the bible calls righteous and whether your distinction can be applied to that. You see, there are a lot of bible verses that attribute righteousness to men. I think I am correct in presuming that the vast majority of the time when the Bible does this it does in fact indicate that the men are indeed acting in a god-pleasing fashion. If someone wants to argue that no one can be righteous in this way, then they would need to explain why we are justified in ignoring/re-interpreting so much of the bible.

I fully agree that just because a man-in-the-street calls something righteous, it doesn't mean that it really is. But surely when the Bible calls something righteous, it does mean that it really is righteous. So when you're reading your bible how do you distinguish between true-righteousness and false-righteousness without assuming your conclusions?

[rhutchin]

Apples and oranges thinking. Non-righteous and yet the righteous are justified by faith. Go figure how you can't reconcile your thinking yet persist in your error. It is you who lack the ability to make proper distinctions.

Once again, Ormly's inability to explain a position stifles conversation. Poor Ormly. He can't get people to understand the points that he cannot explain.

[rhutchin]

Tercel
Aren't you guys being totally arbitrary here? You seem to have invented this strange idea of two types of righteousness - God-pleasing righteousness and human righteousness. Apparently human righteousness is so worthless that I have to wonder why any Bible authors would bother ascribing it to anyone as a positive quality. Everything I know of what the Bible says and of Jewish beliefs at those times makes me believe that every single bible author and Jew would have regarded "righteousness" as god-pleasing and never for a second would have taken seriously a notion of righteousness which wasn't God-pleasing. It would be like saying to someone that "there are two types of 'good', good which is good and good which is bad"... the very notion is absurd.

In short:
* What is your evidence for thinking there are two types of righteousness?

rhutchin
The distinction is between that which a man calls “good” or righteous and that which God calls “good” or righteous.

God tells us that there is a way that seems right to a man but it is the way of death. God further says that man’s thoughts are not His thoughts and man’s ways are not his ways.

If a man calls something good or righteous, does that make it good or righteous in God’s eyes? The answer is, No. Men are, all the time, telling others what is good or righteous in their opinion, and it seems clear that we do have two types of righteousness and this is not a strange idea invented for this thread.

Take the case of Terry Schiavo. One group says that it is murder to allow her to die. Another says that it is good to allow it. Both groups of men say what they believe is good. Can both groups be correct? We have different positions on what is “good” or righteous being expressed among men. Is it so far fetched to think that there can be differing views on what is “good” or righteous between man and God?

Tercel
…what is really at issue is what the bible calls righteous and whether your distinction can be applied to that. You see, there are a lot of bible verses that attribute righteousness to men. I think I am correct in presuming that the vast majority of the time when the Bible does this it does in fact indicate that the men are indeed acting in a god-pleasing fashion. If someone wants to argue that no one can be righteous in this way, then they would need to explain why we are justified in ignoring/re-interpreting so much of the bible.

I fully agree that just because a man-in-the-street calls something righteous, it doesn't mean that it really is. But surely when the Bible calls something righteous, it does mean that it really is righteous. So when you're reading your bible how do you distinguish between true-righteousness and false-righteousness without assuming your conclusions?

We do read many verses, particularly in the OT, describing people as righteous. The distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous (the wicked) is seen in verses like--

Malachi 3
18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

Luke 1
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

We do not always know who is righteous and who is not as the following suggests--

Matthew 23
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

2 Corinth 11
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Yet, in the Psalms and in Romans, Paul says that there is none righteous, none that doeth good. Paul also tells us that righteousness comes by faith--

Hebrews 11
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Philippians 3
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Then we have the testimony of John--

1 John 2
29 If ye know that [Christ] is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of [Christ].

What do we conclude of all this? My conclusion is that all men are wicked so that none are righteous, not even one. They are wicked and do not seek God.

Yet God seeks out men whom He makes righteous and gives them works of righteousness to do. So, it is not man who does good but God who does good through man.

Does any man do good in his own power or desire? NO.

Does God do good through man giving man the power and desire to do good? YES.

[Ormly]

Once again, Ormly's inability to explain a position stifles conversation. Poor Ormly. He can't get people to understand the points that he cannot explain.

Attempting explain to the willfiully ignorant is a waste of time. It is you who needs to show where my remark is wrong. But you won't; you can't. Your neglect prevents you.

[GoBahnsen]

Even coming to belief in Him and repentance was because of His Law, and His grace in the pure gospel of Christ. I was convicted of law in my conscience - and then His grace followed. but nonetheless - technically, i did choose these things by receiving them, humbling myself to hear the voice of God - then responding in repentance and eventually faith in Christ.
So technically you humbled yourself? How did you do that? Will power? Why did you do it and not the next guy (providing he will never do it, we don't know, he still might), but why? Are you just a more humble guy by nature? The Bible says you were dead in sins and a child of wrath by nature (Eph 2). So how did you, being dead in sins, a child of wrath by nature come to humble yourself?


Why aren't so many your same age doing that in Iran or in India? Are you just "fortunate" to have had access to the Gospel and a Bible? And then, of course, many have had access, but they didn't humble themselves like you did. Can you explain that in a way that gives God all the praise and glory?
I mean your willingness to humble yourself. Where does God fit in to that?
Assuming in your view, God was trying to get the other guy to humble himself as well. So all things being equal, how do you ascribe glory to God for your willingness to be humble?

I'm not trying to belittle or take you apart, I'm trying to get you to see what so many others of us have seen (we say by grace alone we see-and this post may be a means of grace to you). Because you seem to want to own your willingness to be humble. It is BECAUSE you did that, that God was able to proceed with you.

We say, God's grace moved upon us in such a way as to humble us before Him. The other guy? If he never humbles out, we humbly say God left him to himself. Partiallity in God? Yes. Though God is not partial, in the sense that He only looks for middle class white folks, God is partial in that He has a "foreknown" people, His elect. Abraham experienced this, Moses as well. All the people of God experience God's partial grace to them. So they make no claim upon their "willingness" to be humble. They say it's all of grace. I humbled out because of grace.

Not just grace available. But grace that moves a heart. But you don't embrace this kind of grace? It's too forceful? You want God to wait and see if jd will do his part? Dead in sins, child of wrath by nature...jd, will he get it together and humble himself....BECAUSE if dead in sins jd will just DO THAT...God can proceed. Is this what you believe?

I don't mean to be coming at you heavy handed. It's just that your statement above, made for a launching pad that really gets at the heart of what a Calvinist Christian wants the non Calvinist Christian to recognize. Grace from A to Z. Not just "available to all grace", but grace that moves the elect of God into enter union with Christ. Not a grace that dead sinners must find, but a grace that finds dead sinners and raises them, powerfully to new life.

I aologize jd, if you feel roughed up by me. I'm just trying to communicate what I see grace to be from Scripture. I hope you can see it too, or show me where I've got it wrong.

Thanks for listening, GB

[smaller]

So technically you humbled yourself? How did you do that? Will power? Why did you do it and not the next guy (providing he will never do it, we don't know, he still might), but why? Are you just a more humble guy by nature? The Bible says you were dead in sins and a child of wrath by nature (Eph 2). So how did you, being dead in sins, a child of wrath by nature come to humble yourself?

I am going to insert the Christian Universalist perspective in this post, but generally Calvinists and URists will agree on the Sovereignty issue, except the URist has a greater and higher [more light] view of Sovereignty than Calvinism.


Why aren't so many your same age doing that in Iran or in India? Are you just "fortunate" to have had access to the Gospel and a Bible? And then, of course, many have had access, but they didn't humble themselves like you did. Can you explain that in a way that gives God all the praise and glory?
I mean your willingness to humble yourself. Where does God fit in to that?
Assuming in your view, God was trying to get the other guy to humble himself as well. So all things being equal, how do you ascribe glory to God for your willingness to be humble?

And it is at this point that the Calvinist and the URist will begin to make their respective separations.

What makes you think that all who do not acknowledge and receive do not serve God's Purposes? You will readily admit that they do serve God's Purposes as far as "judgment" goes, and this would be a proper view in part.

What then makes you think that these people who are "bound with unbelief" have not born a GREATER BURDEN in this life????

What makes you think that these people, ALL OF THEM, are not God's offsprings as Paul taught in Acts 17:25-31???

What makes you think that the "assurances" given by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was not given to "all men" as the same segment of that Acts 17 scripture teaches?

And even more to the point, what makes you think you can get by with your "sin" while others are tortured alive in fire forever for theirs? It is to this point that I have the most disdain for all the self righteous nonsense that masquerades as "Christianity."

You not only limit the atonement to "you" who can "mouth the words" but you make God Himself a Child Torturer/Burner in the process. And you are so proud of it to boot, thinking that this is somehow "Sovereignty" in action. Guess what? Your "position" aint Sovereignty by any stretch of the imagination. It is just more of "men's (Mr. Calvin's) false limitations" upon God.


I'm not trying to belittle or take you apart, I'm trying to get you to see what so many others of us have seen (we say by grace alone we see-and this post may be a means of grace to you).

What goes around comes around Mr. GB. You make your parade with some bizarre form of Sovereignty understanding that is also ripped with holes that cannot be filled.

You see I too believe in "Absolute and Divine Sovereignty" but not a form of Sovereignty so foolish as to think I can condemn others for sin while I also have "it." (Romans 2:1)


Because you seem to want to own your willingness to be humble. It is BECAUSE you did that, that God was able to proceed with you.

And you are no different. You claim you have been "Divinely Granted" Grace, yet you use grace to go back and beat the other slaves of sin ABSOLUTELY SENSELESS to the extent that they will burn alive forever in fire if they do not "cotton" to your form of Sovereignty.

You are in blatant denial of so many scriptures it is beyond my count but this denial starts with the scriptures listed at the bottom of every one of my posts.

Love does no ill and Love does not fail, e-s-p-e-c-i-a-l-l-y when it comes to God's Own offsprings.

What is it that makes you think that the poor "homosexual" isn't serving a greater purpose than you are? Or perhaps the "murderer?" These particular offsprings of God have been BOUND TO THE MORE VILE THINGS than you thankfully will ever see, but you do not see THAT WHERE SIN ABOUNDS GRACE DOES MUCH MORE ABOUND.

It is at this point where your form of "Sovereign God" falls pathetically short and UNABLE to GRANT LOVE and GRACE to all His offspring and EVENTUAL SEPARATION from that which ALL MEN (including YOU) are bound unto.

These reasons are why you also remain a self righteous BRAT just like you are berating your "arminian brothers" for.


We say, God's grace moved upon us in such a way as to humble us before Him. The other guy? If he never humbles out, we humbly say God left him to himself.

God leaves nothing to "chance." It is God Himself who is in the process of carefully and painfully extracting every iota of craftsmanship from the lives of every single person, good and bad, one and the other.

You are not "immune" from the perils that have been set upon "all mankind" in this life. In fact I personally consider it is most "Christians" who bear the absolute greatest form of sin and hatred that is available on the planet earth, that of condemning any other person to burn alive forever in fire for the same "sin" that they also "have." There is NO GREATER SIN available than that Mr. GB. go figure.


Partiallity in God? Yes. Though God is not partial,

Typical "Christian" double talk. You know also that I believe in every single eternal damnation scripture and I do not have to do the double talk dance to figure it out so that I, I, I get off the hook while nearly all the balace fry alive.


in the sense that He only looks for middle class white folks, God is partial in that He has a "foreknown" people, His elect.

I think we have already dissected the way you "separate" the elect from the non-elect. You lump everyone into the "same lump" and then deny that you have a vessel of destruction in "your lump" that Paul called the sin indwelling him, NO LONGER I. I do not deny the "total destruction of the sinner."

At least Paul did not deny the reality of the construction of his body.


Abraham experienced this, Moses as well. All the people of God experience God's partial grace to them.

And there was also a Moses that God sought to KILL.

Yet you will take Pharoah, whom God clearly raised to SHOW God's POWER and you condemn that man to burn alive forever, not seeing the "portion of Pharoah" that was "hardened" and the portion of Pharoah that was God's offspring.

If you separated yourself and others from the "sin" you are also bound with you will arrive at a rightful conclusion. Until then your position only makes God the Father of total depravity seeing how all People are God's offspring, yet you say "all" are totally depraved. (another small[er] hole in your doctrinal bucket.)


So they make no claim upon their "willingness" to be humble. They say it's all of grace. I humbled out because of grace.

Not just grace available. But grace that moves a heart. But you don't embrace this kind of grace? It's too forceful? You want God to wait and see if jd will do his part? Dead in sins, child of wrath by nature...jd, will he get it together and humble himself....BECAUSE if dead in sins jd will just DO THAT...God can proceed. Is this what you believe?

And are you any better? You "claim" Grace unto yourself because you supposedly "show evidence" of faith, but of course "faith" works through "Love." Got any? Oh, that's right! You supposedly have "pity" on those who are about to fry alive forever in "fire" but both you AND YOUR SOVEREIGN GOD are "helpless" and INEFFECTIVE to do anything about them, except to TORTURE THEM. You can "try" to love "them" but of course the "end result" of your love is to show "them" their "ultimate reality." That of being tortured alive in fire by God WHO IS LOVE, right? Uh huh. Right. Sure.

And you cannot tell that your version of God is enough to make any common person ill. The lowest form of slave of sin on the planet has more compassion than the God of Calvinism. The fact remains, you have a God that is SIFTED THROUGHT THE MIND of John Calvin, a man once TOTALLY DEPRAVED by your own accounts. Is it any wonder that such a view comes out of a MAN? No.


I don't mean to be coming at you heavy handed. It's just that your statement above, made for a launching pad that really gets at the heart of what a Calvinist Christian wants the non Calvinist Christian to recognize.

It doesn't get nearly as far as you suppose, but your view does serve to show your own shortcomings because you do indeed practice a worse form of "self righteousness." The very complaint that the Arminian uses against YOU.


Grace from A to Z.

But you do not adhere to anywhere near a form of ALL ENCOMPASSING GRACE. Your "Grace" alphabet BEGINS AND ENDS AT U.

Your "Sovereign God" just can't quite bring Himself to LOVE HIS OWN OFFSPRINGS and is therefore only obliged to TORTURE THEM ALIVE to somehow "prove" His Glory. I say your view only serves to show God's Gory, not Glory.

Really, what kind of "Father" does such things and can still ascribe to the term "Father???"


Not just "available to all grace", but grace that moves the elect of God into enter union with Christ. Not a grace that dead sinners must find, but a grace that finds dead sinners and raises them, powerfully to new life.

Yep. Grace "filtered and limited." Clearly not as Sovereign as you present or are even "capable" of conceiving."


I aologize jd, if you feel roughed up by me. I'm just trying to communicate what I see grace to be from Scripture. I hope you can see it too, or show me where I've got it wrong.

Thanks for listening, GB

Likewise. I really don't expect an answer from you, but a dose of your own medicine is always in order. Most double son's of hell are not remotely interested in AN ABSOLUTE DIVINE AND SOVEREIGN GRACE TO ALL HIS OFFSPRINGS. If only you could be set on fire for a few seconds in the hell by God that you promote to others, then perhaps a bit of compassion would come about for those upon whom you vaunt this fate. Well I doubt that would work either.

You see the hatred that reeks from your pores is NOT YOU, but that to which you have been bound. It is what "they" are meant to do and you are captured, hook, line, and sinker. A fallen commrade in the battle of LOVE.

Thank God it's a temporary anomaly that was meant for judgment in this life and permanent eradication from eternity.

enjoy!

smaller

[commonman]

Well, that's certainly an assumption that a lot of people make. Why should I believe that no one could have made it back themselves? Jesus himself appears to grant that there are some who do not need his help when he says "I have not come to call the righteous but the wicked" (Mat 9:13), in context he is explaining why he is predominantly working with prostitutes and other social outcasts rather than with the religious leaders.

Here are two good reasons why you should believe that no one could make it back themselves:

For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. - Ecclesiastes 7:20

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one - Romans 3:10

[rhutchin]

Attempting explain to the willfiully ignorant is a waste of time. It is you who needs to show where my remark is wrong. But you won't; you can't. Your neglect prevents you.


Let's see. Ormly won't explain what he means because he considers it a waste of his time to do so, so he asks me to explain what he means (presumably it is not a waste of time for others to explain what Ormly means). He is right, however, when he says "But you won't; you can't." I won't because I can't understand what he is talking about and he can't and won't explain what he is talking about because he probably doesn't understand himself either.

Ormly always says that others cannot understand that which he cannot explain.
Ormly doesn't understand what he believes because he cannot even explain it to himself.

Ormly's cute. You gotta love him.

[Ormly]

Let's see. Ormly won't explain what he means because he considers it a waste of his time to do so, so he asks me to explain what he means (presumably it is not a waste of time for others to explain what Ormly means). He is right, however, when he says "But you won't; you can't." I won't because I can't understand what he is talking about and he can't and won't explain what he is talking about because he probably doesn't understand himself either.

Ormly always says that others cannot understand that which he cannot explain.
Ormly doesn't understand what he believes because he cannot even explain it to himself.

Ormly's cute. You gotta love him.

You still can't/don't get it right. I said it was a waste of time to try to explain it to the willfully ignorant. That means you.

[rhutchin]

And it is at this point that the Calvinist and the URist will begin to make their respective separations.

What makes you think that all who do not acknowledge and receive do not serve God's Purposes? You will readily admit that they do serve God's Purposes as far as "judgment" goes, and this would be a proper view in part.

What then makes you think that these people who are "bound with unbelief" have not born a GREATER BURDEN in this life????

What makes you think that these people, ALL OF THEM, are not God's offsprings as Paul taught in Acts 17:25-31???

What makes you think that the "assurances" given by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was not given to "all men" as the same segment of that Acts 17 scripture teaches?

And even more to the point, what makes you think you can get by with your "sin" while others are tortured alive in fire forever for theirs? It is to this point that I have the most disdain for all the self righteous nonsense that masquerades as "Christianity."

You not only limit the atonement to "you" who can "mouth the words" but you make God Himself a Child Torturer/Burner in the process. And you are so proud of it to boot, thinking that this is somehow "Sovereignty" in action. Guess what? Your "position" aint Sovereignty by any stretch of the imagination. It is just more of "men's (Mr. Calvin's) false limitations" upon God...

Love does no ill and Love does not fail, e-s-p-e-c-i-a-l-l-y when it comes to God's Own offsprings.

What is it that makes you think that the poor "homosexual" isn't serving a greater purpose than you are? Or perhaps the "murderer?" These particular offsprings of God have been BOUND TO THE MORE VILE THINGS than you thankfully will ever see, but you do not see THAT WHERE SIN ABOUNDS GRACE DOES MUCH MORE ABOUND.

It is at this point where your form of "Sovereign God" falls pathetically short and UNABLE to GRANT LOVE and GRACE to all His offspring and EVENTUAL SEPARATION from that which ALL MEN (including YOU) are bound unto....

enjoy!

smaller

Is there any sin or any vileness that a person could do that you would consider sufficient to exclude that person from being saved by God?

Do you think a parent should be concerned about his children being bad?

Why do you think that the scriptures spend so much time contrasting the righteous with the wicked? Do you see a purpose for this?

[rhutchin]

You still can't/don't get it right. I said it was a waste of time to try to explain it to the willfully ignorant. That means you.


Moi??

Ormly's cute. You gotta love him.

[smaller]

Is there any sin or any vileness that a person could do that you would consider sufficient to exclude that person from being saved by God?

I consider that the vileness that ALL DO is a direct produce of the sin indwelling them. I do not ascribe this to the captives of same. The cause will be justly dealt with.


Do you think a parent should be concerned about his children being bad?

Of course. I have already warned my children quite severely that if they become the bearers of the greatest sin and hatred available "in mankind" that I will utterly reject them as mouthpieces of evil.


Why do you think that the scriptures spend so much time contrasting the righteous with the wicked?

God has Purposes in "allowance" and "judgment" for everything that He Himself has "allowed" and even "created" to occur in this present environment.

His offspring happen to be here as well, in the middle of it so to speak.

You know by know I see these two positions differently. One side of The Word is written against the rulers of this present darkness. The other edge so to speak is written "for" the offspring of God, whom ALL OF MANKIND are.

If God hardens one man's body to be controlled by that which they are bound to, so be it. I do not judge the offspring, and know that God has a purpose in making His offspring bound in "whatever" way. It all serves His Purposes. This in no way means that the offspring will be burned alive in fire forever. Not even for a second.


Do you see a purpose for this?

Do you?

I consider that God can and will allow many things to example into a form of temporal reality and to test both what is allowed and to test the eternal things to the same i.e. Love, Mercy, Holiness, etc.

The eternal things are enhanced and proven in the process. Only God knows the entirety and intricacies of the processing and testing and proving. I also can do nothing but to presume He Knows what He is doing.

[Tercel]

Here are two good reasons why you should believe that no one could make it back themselves:

For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. - Ecclesiastes 7:20

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one - Romans 3:10Why should Ecc 7:20 convince me of that? I fully agree with Ecc 7:20, virtually everyone sins at least once... so what?

As for Romans 3:10, Paul is quoting from the Old Testament. I suggest you look up the context of his quote (Psalms 14 & 53) and read those passages, and ask yourself whether the meaning you are trying to ascribe to the phrase was what the writers actually meant. You should be unpleasantly surprised.

[Tercel]

We do read many verses, particularly in the OT, describing people as righteous.
...
We do not always know who is righteous and who is not as the following suggests-Though Christ did say that by their fruits we could know them. But the question of whether we can always identify righteousness is a bit irrelevant to the discussion.

Yet, in the Psalms and in Romans, Paul says that there is none righteous, none that doeth good.We have been over this before. How many times do I have to point out to you that the Psalms that Paul quotes do not make a universal declaration of unrighteousness, and that all six of his quotations in Romans 3:10-18 come from passages that make it clear that the unrighteousness is limited to specific people at a specific time and all six of them assert that people exist who are indeed righteous?

But you would prefer to believe the bible contradicts itself? You seem happy to grant that many passages in the bible say that some people are righteous, and happy to say that some passages in the bible say that no people are righteous. If I grant you that the bible is in contradiction here (which I don't), why should I