Limited free will

[Rippon]

You Scramble Things

Only an irrational mind would say punishing someone else for the sins of another is right.

The above has nothing to do with the context of my post --and you know it.

You,Van,had said:"Why would God still blame us for our choices after He hardened our heart? My answer is He would not."

I,Rip,had said in reply:"Your 'answer' is dead wrong. People are still blameworthy and deserve Perdition. God is not culpable."

Blaming God for sins is reprehensible.

no one said salvation depends on human desire.

This is what you said Van:"Romans 9:16 teaches men can will and work to be saved,thus spiritual inability is once again shown to be mistaken doctrine."

I responded to your nonsense with :"You turn Scripture on its head. Listen and read closely:'It does not,therefore,depend on human desire or effort,but on God's mercy.' "

How you can take what Romans 9:16 states and completely reverse it?!

And why the dishonesty? When you quote me --quote honestly what I say in context --otherwise you are being deceitful.

 

[Luke2427]

Note the effort to dispute the meaning of words, rather than the topic. More obfuscation, misdirection: Folks that is all they have. Limited Free Will is the Biblical Doctrine. Calvinism is mistaken doctrine and the mistakes are obvious.

Note the claim without warrant.

In case anybody is dumb enough to miss it- that's all he has.

He CLAIMS something is biblical and then expects you to accept it because he said so.

No exegesis. Nothing. Just "Folks its biblical but they deny it."

What meaningless, how does he like to say it?- twaddle.

 

[Rippon]

Note the claim without warrant.

In case anybody is dumb enough to miss it- that's all he has.

He CLAIMS something is biblical and then expects you to accept it because he said so.

No exegesis. Nothing. Just "Folks its biblical but they deny it."

What meaningless, how does he like to say it?- twaddle.

I miss his shucking and jiving. I think he's on empty.

 

[saturneptune]

I miss his shucking and jiving. I think he's on empty.

The thread is about limited free will, not limited intelligence.

 

[saturneptune]

Calvinism turns scripture on its head. And another obfuscation - no one said salvation depends on human desire.

Back that statement up with Scripture.

 

[quantumfaith]

The thread is about limited free will, not limited intelligence.

I have to admit, that is funny. Great wit SN

 

[Rippon]

The thread is about limited free will, not limited intelligence.

I neither said,nor implied what you have stated.

 

[Rippon]

Back that statement up with Scripture.

He made two statements.

 

[The Biblicist]

The idea we are free to choose from among available options is consistent with our experience. Scripture tells us God sometimes restricts our options, i.e. hardening the hearts of some such that they will reject the gospel, i.e. Romans 11.



So the complete absence of free will is irrational and unrestricted free will is unbiblical. Calvinists assert since we are free to choose among various sinful actions, but unable to choose the narrow path that leads to life, it makes sense for God to punish us for the sin we chose. Rational minds object.

The truth is that man's will is as free and as unincumbered as God's will. The truth is there is no such thing as a "will" free from the nature of the one in possession of that will.

The truth is that both Greek words translated "will" in the New Testament demand that the will is merely the vehicle of either the intellect or emotions and has absolutely no freedom but is the tool of mind or heart to express itself.

God can do anything He pleases both in the sense of ability (Omnipotent) and in the sense of desire (holiness) but He cannot do anything contrary to His own nature. His will is a slave to His nature. God does not possess the power of contrary MORAL choice becasue not even the "shadow" of turning is not possible in His moral Being.

Man cannot do anything he pleases as he is limited both in power and in nature.

God is the author of sin only in the sense that he created the faculty of choice and thus by that creative act gave permission (but not approval) for the choice of evil to exist. However, he is not the author of sin in regard to approval as He created volitional beings with full moral responsibility for their own choices with full light of His disapproval of evil choices.

Moreover, the Bible says that evil was "FOUND" in Lucifer not created in him by God. Thus in finality, the Bible teaches secondary causes as the immediate and morally accountable cause for all evil whereas God is righteous in creating the faculty that permits the choice of evil.

 

[Winman]

The truth is that man's will is as free and as unincumbered as God's will. The truth is there is no such thing as a "will" free from the nature of the one in possession of that will.

The truth is that both Greek words translated "will" in the New Testament demand that the will is merely the vehicle of either the intellect or emotions and has absolutely no freedom but is the tool of mind or heart to express itself.

God can do anything He pleases both in the sense of ability (Omnipotent) and in the sense of desire (holiness) but He cannot do anything contrary to His own nature. His will is a slave to His nature. God does not possess the power of contrary MORAL choice becasue not even the "shadow" of turning is not possible in His moral Being.

Man cannot do anything he pleases as he is limited both in power and in nature.

God is the author of sin only in the sense that he created the faculty of choice and thus by that creative act gave permission (but not approval) for the choice of evil to exist. However, he is not the author of sin in regard to approval as He created volitional beings with full moral responsibility for their own choices with full light of His disapproval of evil choices.

Moreover, the Bible says that evil was "FOUND" in Lucifer not created in him by God. Thus in finality, the Bible teaches secondary causes as the immediate and morally accountable cause for all evil whereas God is righteous in creating the faculty that permits the choice of evil.

Scripture does not show that man by nature is unable to do good, in fact, it clearly shows man by nature is ABLE to do good.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

The scriptures show that the Gentiles "do by nature the things contained in the law". Men are not only able to do good, they actually do good.

Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Yet another verse saying the Gentiles by nature fulfilled the law. They did not have the law, but they kept the law because it was their nature.

So, this teaching that man has an utterly depraved nature that cannot will to do good is completely unfounded. Scripture directly says the exact opposite.

 

[The Biblicist]

Scripture does not show that man by nature is unable to do good, in fact, it clearly shows man by nature is ABLE to do good.

Be honest enough to admit that Romans 3:9-19 (and similar texts) and the words "all" and "none" and "every mouth" and "all the world" found in this passage must be explained away by you OR interpreted by you to be less than "every" mouth or "all the world" or "all" in order for your interpretation of the following verses to be correct!

Be honest enough to admit that the universal language in Romans 3:9-19 must be repudiated by your interpetation of the following verses to less than universal in nature!

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

The scriptures show that the Gentiles "do by nature the things contained in the law". Men are not only able to do good, they actually do good.

First, lets see if the above verse can harmonize with what Paul claims to be the conclusion of this very section in Romans 3:9-19. If it can harmonize then you are wrong.

Remember, there is a debate in scripture between man and God in reference to what it means to "Do" the Law. Remember, the Jews who had the law claimed to "do" the law? Remember, in this context (vv. 1-5; 17-25) it is a context of those who claim to "do" the law but Paul is proving they are HYPOCRITS and that they really do not do the law as they claim. Remember, the verses that immediately precede the two verses you quote say this:

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

And yet the Jews in verses 17-22 claim to not only do the law but claim to be teachers of the law.

However, the question to asked in this context is in what sense did the Gentiles do the law (vv. 1-5)? Did they do the law according to their own standards or according to God's standards? For example Jesus claimed that no Jew was a doer of the Law according to God's Standard:

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? - Jn. 7:19

The rich young ruler was one of those Jews who claimed he had kept all the law when Jesus previously told him there is "none good but one" and it was not the rich young ruler!

Now it is true that the Jew was a doer of the law as he perceived it. And it is true that the gentile was a doer of the law as he perceived it by the conviction or approval of conscience. However, Paul's point is that on judgement day man will not be judged according to how man perceives doing the Law but according to how God defines doing the Law and Paul's universal verdict is recorded in Romans 3:9-19 and agrees perfectly with Christ's verdict of the Jews in Jn. 7:19.

Paul's point is that the gentile does not have the written law but does have the conscience which acts as a judge within him convicting and condoning his actions. Hence, this provides the basis for eternal judgment of the Gentile as the written law provides the basis for eternal judgement against the Jew. Paul's point is that all men will be judged according to the light they are given but to pass the judgement they cannot be guilty of violating the light they are given as to violate in one point is to violate every point (Jm. 2:10-12). Hence, in reality there is NONE RIGHTEOUS gentile or Jew (Rom. 3:9) if doing the law is judged by God's standard rather than by man's standard.

Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Paul is not claiming that such is a reality! He uses the presuppositional "if" in this statement. That is, IF the gentile fulfills the law of conscience, then he would be in a position to judge the Jew who violates the written law. However, there is no gentile that has not violated the law of His conscience as Paul explicitly claims when speaking of the Gentile in Romans 3:9 and that is why he can say the whole "world" is condemned and "every" mouth is condemned as no such person exists apart from the person of Christ. Christ alone is the only human that could claim there was no sin "in" him and that he never "did" sin. That is why THE WHOLE WORLD needs not merely a Savior but such a savior that is wholly without sin.

In these verses you are quoting. First you take them out of their immediate context which is to demonstrate that God njudges righteously and that no man can pass this judgment based on their own perceived good works and his conclusion to both Gentiles and Jews is universal condemnation (Rom. 3:9-19).

Remember, regardless if the law you violate is that of conscience or that written on paper both require the same standard to be regarded as doing the Law - sinless perfection as to vioalte in one point is to violate all points regardless if the law is written on conscience or paper. There is no human that has not violated conscience and every human exposed to the written form has violated it. If you could find one man who did not violate either law of conscience or written law then that man could justly condemn all who merely make the claim they keep the law of conscience or paper - the only man that can make that claim is Christ and that is precisely why HE IS THE JUDGE of all men.

 

[Winman]

Be honest enough to admit that Romans 3:9-19 (and similar texts) and the words "all" and "none" and "every mouth" and "all the world" found in this passage must be explained away by you OR interpreted by you to be less than "every" mouth or "all the world" or "all" in order for your interpretation of the following verses to be correct!

Be honest enough to admit that the universal language in Romans 3:9-19 must be repudiated by your interpetation of the following verses to less than universal in nature!

I do not have to explain one word of scripture away. Romans 3 certainly says that all men are sinners, but it does not say men are unable to do some good.

If I said that none of my neighbors ever goes to church, no, not one, would you honestly understand that to mean they were UNABLE to go to church? I think if you are honest you would admit that no reasonable person would ever jump to that conclusion from this statement. Yet, that is exactly what you do with scripture. When scripture states the fact that no one seeks God, you ASSUME inability, when it is not saying that at all, it is simply stating the fact that no man seeks God.

So, let's see who is honest, you or me. :thumbsup:

When scripture says there is no man that doeth good, it is not saying that 100% of what man does is evil, and I can prove that from scripture.

Mat 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Jesus did say that men are evil, but they know HOW (addresses ability) to give good gifts to their children. This verse directly says men know HOW or have the ability to do good things.

Luk 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Jesus said sinners love those who love them. This is not evil, this is good, we should love those that love us. Yes, Jesus is clearly saying it is far better to love those that hate you, nevertheless, it is no sin to love those that love you.

Jesus also said sinners do good to those who do good to them. Yes, Jesus is clearly saying it is greater to do good to those who do evil to you, nevertheless, it is no sin to do good to those that do good to you.

So, when scriptures say there is none that doeth good, it is not saying that men NEVER do good, it is saying there is no man that ALWAYS does good. And there is scripture that directly supports this interpretation;

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

When scripture says there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good, it is not saying that man NEVER does good, it is saying there is no such thing as a perfect man who NEVER sins.

You cannot throw out scripture where the Lord Jesus himself directly says that sinners do good. All scripture must agree and cannot contradict itself.

So when scripture says there is no man that doeth good, it is not saying that no man EVER does good, it is saying no man ALWAYS does good.

Let's see if you are honest enough to concede that Jesus said sinners do good.

Total Inability is false doctrine.

 

[Winman]

Paul is not claiming that such is a reality! He uses the presuppositional "if" in this statement. That is, IF the gentile fulfills the law of conscience, then he would be in a position to judge the Jew who violates the written law. However, there is no gentile that has not violated the law of His conscience as Paul explicitly claims when speaking of the Gentile in Romans 3:9 and that is why he can say the whole "world" is condemned and "every" mouth is condemned as no such person exists apart from the person of Christ. Christ alone is the only human that could claim there was no sin "in" him and that he never "did" sin. That is why THE WHOLE WORLD needs not merely a Savior but such a savior that is wholly without sin.

What a bunch of hooey, you are constantly trying to explain away scripture that refutes your view. Paul had already said that the Gentiles obeyed the law.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Paul is saying the very FACT that the Gentiles "by nature" DO the things contained in the law shows or demonstrates that the law is written on their hearts.

You must get very tired constantly trying to redefine and reintepret what scripture plainly says.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not have to explain one word of scripture away. Romans 3 certainly says that all men are sinners, but it does not say men are unable to do some good.

There is "none that doeth good, no, not one." Did you forget that Paul said that in this passage????

If I said that none of my neighbors ever goes to church, no, not one, would you honestly understand that to mean they were UNABLE to go to church? I think if you are honest you would admit that no reasonable person would ever jump to that conclusion from this statement. Yet, that is exactly what you do with scripture. When scripture states the fact that no one seeks God, you ASSUME inability, when it is not saying that at all, it is simply stating the fact that no man seeks God.

So, let's see who is honest, you or me. :thumbsup:

The Greek word translated "good" in Romans 3 as well in Matthew 19 where Jesus disclaims any but God as "good" refers to intrinsic goodness not merely acts of goodness. Look it up! "agathos" is the word.

Second, Jesus said the heart must be good for the actions can be good as an evil tree "CANNOT" (ability not preference or permission) bring forth good fruit.

Third, you completely ignore that the reason none see and none doeth good is described in verses 13-17 as corrupted in nature without intrinsic goodness and thus without ability to do Good IN GOD'S SIGHT.

Fourth, you ignore that the Law of God can find none good in God's sight but the whole world is condemned as sinful, "every mouth" is stopped from boasting of any goodness in the sight of God's law.

When scripture says there is no man that doeth good, it is not saying that 100% of what man does is evil, and I can prove that from scripture.

No, you can't prove it from scripture. All you can use scripture for is to pit scripture against scripture OR use scripture that speaks of RELATIVE goodness before men rather than before God and His law which is God's only definitive standard for good and the Law cannot find anyone good or that does good in God's sight - Rom. 3:18-19 - as "good" in God's sight requires keeping all the law without failure in one point - James 2:10-11

Mat 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

This text does not prove your point at all! Do you know the difference between "things" and doing good? Even Satan can give "good things" to his servants but that does not mean he can do good.

Jesus did say that men are evil, but they know HOW (addresses ability) to give good gifts to their children. This verse directly says men know HOW or have the ability to do good things.

Yes, and so does the Devil know "HOW" to give good things to His servants too but that does not mean He IS good or can DO good as DOING good is impossible in God's sight unless it comes from a GOOD nature.

Luk 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

He is speaking HORIZONTALLY between men and thus RELATIVE goodness. He is not speaking VERTICAL as in God recognizing either thier nature or their actions as Good! God does not have TWO different standards of good but only one and that standard denies anyone or anything is good unless it is completely without sin.

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

When scripture says there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good, it is not saying that man NEVER does good, it is saying there is no such thing as a perfect man who NEVER sins.

God does not have TWO different standards for "good." He has but ONE and it is sinlessness as the Law is the standard of righteousness and the Law CANNOT pronounce anyone "good" or "righteous" who has violated one point. The contrast above is designed to show that very thing. The reason none on earth "doeth good" is because none on earth are without sin in keeping with God's only standard of what defines "good" in contrast to "condemned."

You are perverting these scriptures, jerking them out of context, pitting them against each other and ignoring that God has but ONE STANDARD that defines "good" and it is NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION of good.

 

[The Biblicist]

What a bunch of hooey, you are constantly trying to explain away scripture that refutes your view. Paul had already said that the Gentiles obeyed the law.

You are JERKING a text out of its immediate and overall context. The immediate context is about HYPOCRITS and how the day of Judgement will REVEAL their hypocrisy by just principles of judgement and the overall context is explicitly stated to prove that there is NONE GOOD (Rom. 3:9) but the "WHOLE WORLD" and "EVERY MOUTH" is condemned by the Law which is God's ONLY standard to define "good."

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Paul is saying the very FACT that the Gentiles "by nature" DO the things contained in the law shows or demonstrates that the law is written on their hearts.

So you are now espousing a LOWER Standard for God's law than that given in Romans 3:19-20 or James 2:10-11? Jesus said that NO JEW could keep the written Law but you are now saying the Gentile can DO what the Jew CANNOT do?? Does God have TWO different standards of what is "good" in His sight????

Paul is arguing that only the DOERS of the Law will be justified in the day of Judgement (v. 13) not merely the hearers. The issue is that the Gentiles do not have the written Law and so how can God be just in dealing with them on the day of judgement?? If your interpetation were true God would have no standard to judge Gentiles by either as you demand they both can and do keep what the law of conscience dictates when the Jew cannot!!! Your interpetation is wrong. Paul is simply stating that the conscience "works" the same way as the written law and thus the same principle applied to the Jew can be applied to the Gentile. IF the Jew can keep the law he will be justified just as if the Gentile can keep the law of conscience he will be justified - that is the principle for just judgement. However, the verdict is in and drawn by Paul concerning both JEW and GENTILE that both are equally "UNDER SIN" and "under the law" for the definition of "good" and NONE, NO, NOT ONE can keep the written law or the law of conscience and therefore they are equally condemned and "every mouth" is shut so that none can claim to be or to do good before God's standard of good.

You must get very tired constantly trying to redefine and reintepret what scripture plainly says.

It is quite easy to show you are not interpreting the texts in their immediate or overal context. Your view requires that God has TWO DIFFERENT standards of "good" when in fact the only TWO different standards is the one man has in contrast to the one God has.

 

[The Biblicist]

Winman completely distorts Romans 2-3. There are some contextual basics that must be recognized to interpret this section properly:

1. Romans 1:18-3:23 is all about the wrath of God revealed against unrighteousness and God's just basis for such wrath.

2. Romans 3:9-19 provides first the summary conclusion in Romans 3;9 regarding all men "under sin" and while Romans 3:10-23 provides the expanded conclusion to prove there is none found good under God's Law whether enscribed outwardly on skins/paper or according to conscience which does the "work" of the law.

3. Romans 2:1-26 is about the hypocrit who believes his own works will justify him on the day of judgement over others. In verses 1-5 is the general case of the hypocrit presented. In verses 17-23 is the case of the Jewish hypocrit presented.

4. Romans 2:6-16 provides the principles whereby God will justly judge all who come before him based upon their own works rather than based upon the works of Christ. The basis for the Jews will be the Law of God (vv. 11-13) whereas the just basis for the gentile will be His conscience which does the same "work" as the Law in that it provides a basis to know right from wrong. Ultimately the final standard for both will be the gospel which presents what it really means to be good due to no violation of conscience or written Law before God as presented in the life and death of Jesus Christ (v. 16).

5. Romans 2:27-29 deals with the advantage of circumcision over the Gentiles who have not circumcision on judgement day under the law of God. IF the Jew can keep all the law He will have the advantage over the Gentile who violates the law of conscience. However, IF the gentile can keep the law of His conscience and the Jew violates the written law then the gentile will have the advantage even though he is not circumcised. True righteousness and goodness comes only with a circumcised heart and so the true Jew is both inwardly and outwardly circumcised.

Winman dissects this passage and jerks scripture out of its context merely to suit his dogma rather than interprets it by its immediate and overall context.

 

[Winman]

You are JERKING a text out of its immediate and overall context. The immediate context is about HYPOCRITS and how the day of Judgement will REVEAL their hypocrisy by just principles of judgement and the overall context is explicitly stated to prove that there is NONE GOOD (Rom. 3:9) but the "WHOLE WORLD" and "EVERY MOUTH" is condemned by the Law which is God's ONLY standard to define "good."

So you are now espousing a LOWER Standard for God's law than that given in Romans 3:19-20 or James 2:10-11? Jesus said that NO JEW could keep the written Law but you are now saying the Gentile can DO what the Jew CANNOT do?? Does God have TWO different standards of what is "good" in His sight????

Paul is arguing that only the DOERS of the Law will be justified in the day of Judgement (v. 13) not merely the hearers. The issue is that the Gentiles do not have the written Law and so how can God be just in dealing with them on the day of judgement?? If your interpetation were true God would have no standard to judge Gentiles by either as you demand they both can and do keep what the law of conscience dictates when the Jew cannot!!! Your interpetation is wrong. Paul is simply stating that the conscience "works" the same way as the written law and thus the same principle applied to the Jew can be applied to the Gentile. IF the Jew can keep the law he will be justified just as if the Gentile can keep the law of conscience he will be justified - that is the principle for just judgement. However, the verdict is in and drawn by Paul concerning both JEW and GENTILE that both are equally "UNDER SIN" and "under the law" for the definition of "good" and NONE, NO, NOT ONE can keep the written law or the law of conscience and therefore they are equally condemned and "every mouth" is shut so that none can claim to be or to do good before God's standard of good.

It is quite easy to show you are not interpreting the texts in their immediate or overal context. Your view requires that God has TWO DIFFERENT standards of "good" when in fact the only TWO different standards is the one man has in contrast to the one God has.

No one is saying the Gentiles were not sinners, Paul clearly teaches that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Nevertheless, Paul said the Gentiles by nature do the things contained in the the law which shows the law written on their hearts.

You can go to the deepest jungle where no man has ever heard the scriptures, and yet men know right from wrong and have laws. They know it is wrong to kill, or steal, or lie, or commit adultery, etc... And men for the most part obey these laws, this is how society survives.

This is what Paul is speaking about. The Gentiles who did not have the law of Moses innately knew right from wrong and GENERALLY kept the law.

Total Inability is false doctrine, not everything a man does is evil, even unregenerate men tell the truth. And telling the truth is never evil. Men have the ability to do good things.

I have seen Calvinists actually say that when an unregenerate man does good such as telling the truth it is evil. That is ridiculous. If that were so, it would render all law meaningless and unnecessary.

 

[Winman]

There is "none that doeth good, no, not one." Did you forget that Paul said that in this passage????

Exactly. Paul does not say "There is none that is ABLE to do good, no, not one".

Paul does not say one word about men being unable to do good here, you are reading that into scripture.

Again, if I said that none of my neighbors ever goes to church, no, not one, would you understand that to mean they are UNABLE to go to church? NO, and no reasonable person would ever jump to that conclusion, but that is exactly what you are doing with this scripture.

Now, you can be stubborn and obstinate if you want, but any sensible person will tell you you are completely wrong.

The Greek word translated "good" in Romans 3 as well in Matthew 19 where Jesus disclaims any but God as "good" refers to intrinsic goodness not merely acts of goodness. Look it up! "agathos" is the word.

Second, Jesus said the heart must be good for the actions can be good as an evil tree "CANNOT" (ability not preference or permission) bring forth good fruit.

Jesus taught that men can MAKE the tree good and bear good fruit.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Jesus taught that men have the option (either, or else) and ability (make) to be good or evil.

Why do Calvinists ignore this important scripture? I'll tell you why, because it utterly refutes their false doctrine.

So, you just continue to ignore this scripture and see where it gets you.

Third, you completely ignore that the reason none see and none doeth good is described in verses 13-17 as corrupted in nature without intrinsic goodness and thus without ability to do Good IN GOD'S SIGHT.

You got something right, men have CORRUPTED themselves. The word corrupt means to go from a good state to a bad state, such as fruit rotting if you leave it out.

The scripture repeatedly show man going from good to bad. Look at Romans 3;

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The word "become" is very important, because it shows a process. In Psalm 14, David says "become filthy" here. This shows men were not originally filthy, but clean, and have "become" filthy.

If you were born rich, would you tell people you have "become" rich? NO, because you were always rich. But if you were born poor, but worked hard and invested your money until you were wealthy, would you tell people you have "become" rich? YES.

You see this over and over if you open your eyes.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Does any piece of clothing start out as a dirty rag? NO, all clothing starts out clean and whole. Do leaves start out faded and dead? NO, all leaves start out tender, green, and alive.

You do not see this because you have been conditioned by false doctrine. Scripture shows all men start out upright (Ecc 7:29), but all men corrupt themselves and "become" filthy.

Fourth, you ignore that the Law of God can find none good in God's sight but the whole world is condemned as sinful, "every mouth" is stopped from boasting of any goodness in the sight of God's law.

Total baloney, I believe that all men sin and come short of the glory of God.

I do not believe that babies are sinners however, and Romans 9:11 supports this. But everyone who reaches the age where they know right from wrong surely sins.

No, you can't prove it from scripture. All you can use scripture for is to pit scripture against scripture OR use scripture that speaks of RELATIVE goodness before men rather than before God and His law which is God's only definitive standard for good and the Law cannot find anyone good or that does good in God's sight - Rom. 3:18-19 - as "good" in God's sight requires keeping all the law without failure in one point - James 2:10-11

Jesus said men do good. Jesus knows doctrine better than Augustine or Calvin. You believe your Reformed teachers, I will believe Jesus.

This text does not prove your point at all! Do you know the difference between "things" and doing good? Even Satan can give "good things" to his servants but that does not mean he can do good.

Jesus said sinners "do good", discussion over for me. Your argument is not with me, it is with Jesus.

Yes, and so does the Devil know "HOW" to give good things to His servants too but that does not mean He IS good or can DO good as DOING good is impossible in God's sight unless it comes from a GOOD nature.

You seem to know a lot about the devil. I do not know if the devil knows how to do good.

All I know is that Jesus said evil men "know how" to give good things to their children, so men have the ability to do good. Again, your argument is with Jesus, not me.

He is speaking HORIZONTALLY between men and thus RELATIVE goodness. He is not speaking VERTICAL as in God recognizing either thier nature or their actions as Good! God does not have TWO different standards of good but only one and that standard denies anyone or anything is good unless it is completely without sin.

Oh brother. Horizontally? Goofy.

God does not have TWO different standards for "good." He has but ONE and it is sinlessness as the Law is the standard of righteousness and the Law CANNOT pronounce anyone "good" or "righteous" who has violated one point. The contrast above is designed to show that very thing. The reason none on earth "doeth good" is because none on earth are without sin in keeping with God's only standard of what defines "good" in contrast to "condemned."

Exactly, when the scriptures say there is none good, no, not one, it is not saying that everything a man does is evil. It is not saying man is unable to do good. What it is saying is that no man is PERFECT.

You actually said something very right here, but do not even comprehend your own words. To be "good" you must keep the law perfectly, you cannot sin even once.

So, that is why there is "none good", because no man keeps the law perfectly. But men can do some good, men can tell the truth, and often do. It is not a sin to tell the truth, it is good.

You are perverting these scriptures, jerking them out of context, pitting them against each other and ignoring that God has but ONE STANDARD that defines "good" and it is NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION of good.

I am not perverting anything. You are reading into scripture what is not there. Just because the scriptures say no man seeks God does not necessarily mean he is unable to seek God.

I have never jumped off the Empire State Building, no, not once, but that does not mean I am unable to do so.

 

[Rippon]

I have seen Calvinists actually say that when an unregenerate man does good such as telling the truth it is evil.

Again. Horizontally some people do things that are considered good when measured by a human standard. But if any act,even the plowing of a field, is done without a love for God --it is evil in God's eyes.

 

[Winman]

Again. Horizontally some people do things that are considered good when measured by a human standard. But if any act,even the plowing of a field, is done without a love for God --it is evil in God's eyes.

I think perhaps you are misinterpreting scripture.

If your view is correct, it makes more sense to be a thief and steal than it does to be honest, because in your view being honest is just as sinful as stealing.

This is how incredibly stupid Calvinism is. What is even more incredible is that people are foolish enough to believe such nonsensical teaching.

Sorry, I am not naive enough to believe such nonsense.