1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured What is "good" in God's sight?

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 1 of 9
  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Ec 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

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

    We all agree that even the most wicked of men can do RELATIVE good. We all agree that the born again child of God under the leadership and power of the Holy Spirit can do good in God's sight. However, what does God require from the lost man to do "good" by His definition of "good"?

    1. Is "good" defined merely by EXTERNAL conformity to God's Law - Pharisees

    2. Is "good" defined by INTERNAL and EXTERNAL conformity to God's Law? Does God weigh the heart to judge the actions?

    3. What is required for INTERNAL conformity to God's Law? Right heart/motive?

    4. Is 1 Cor. 10:31 a command? If so, can lost people keep it?

    5. Is God's standard for "good" for individual acts any different than his standard for "good" for justification if the rule of James 2:10-11 is applied? In other words, does violating one command violate all commands as a general rule and thus to keep one command is to keep all commands? What underlying principle is demanded by this rule?

    6. Can an act of obedience be judged as "good" if it is not done out of "love"? Are unloving words and actions sin/evil?

    7. What is God's definition of "love"?
     
    #1 The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2014
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    jesus Himself stated what God required of those seeking to get saved/justified by works of the law, "to love the Lord your God will ALl your heart and mind and strenght, and to love others JUST as you love yourself", and we can NEITHER in way God requires!
     
    #2 Yeshua1, Feb 5, 2014
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Arminians will concede this is necessary to be justified by works but what is necessary to make anything (works, persons) intrinsically good (agathos)? Mere external conformity to Law? Or must there also be INTERNAL conformity to Law? Both internal and external conformity? Can an unregenerated man produce INTERNAL and EXTERNAL conformity to God's Law? What is it that makes a work "good" in God's sight?
     
    #3 The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2014
  4. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #4 Inspector Javert, Feb 5, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2014
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Job disagrees with Pelagius - Job. 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

    And this is the issue. These texts claim that the individual is as an "unclean" thing. Both Jesus and Paul claim there is not one who "IS" good and yet Pelagius and you repudiate Job and claim something "clean" (good) can come out of something that God's Word repeatedly says "IS" not good.
     
    #5 The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    First quote it accurately. It does not say "righteousnesses" but "OUR righteousnesses" are as filthy rags in God's sight and I do PERSONALLY agree with this statement as even the "good" works of the saved originate with the indwellling Spirit working through the regenerated new "inward man" which is created in "righteousness and true holiness" - Eph. 4:24/Col. 3;10
     
    #6 The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    He is speaking of the HUMAN BODY the MATERIAL SELF not the regnerated new man. The inward man never fades, never is referred to as aging, or getting old or deminishing but it is our OUTWARD MAN that perishes day by day. So you simply don't understand and thus wrongly apply these words.
     
    #7 The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    First, the text does not say that we have been taken away "from righteousness" as that is your spin on the text. It states we have been "taken away" by our iniquities. Our iniquites are likened to the "wind" lifting us up and taking us away UNDER THE POWER OF THE WIND. Likewise, THE POWER OF SIN is what takes us away as the "law of sin" is operating in every earth born human being from the moment of physical birth.
     
    #8 The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014
  9. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    You've obviously never read anything by Pelagius personally then have you???

    be honest.

    You have not.

    Because he doesn't say that.
     
    #9 Inspector Javert, Feb 5, 2014
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    I have explained what I mean many times and so I just stated it unqualified. So let me explain it once again so you do not again misrepresent what I mean. It is this world that defines "good" in relative terms and the Bible recognizes that the world defines it this way as Paul (and other Biblical writers) speaks expressly about comparing men with men and comparing self with others as the natural practice in this world or the human perspective of "good...better and best." It is "relative" goodness in comparison with "absolute" goodness or sinless perfection. The Bible makes a distinction between "perfect" in the sense of "maturity" in contrast to "perfect" in the sense of sinless perfection. If you don't know or admit this you simply are ignorant of the Scriptures.

    When God defines what He means by "good" it is conformity to His commandments/law but it is not mere OUTWARD conformity but INWARD conformity first as causal and OUTWARD conformity second as consequential or else it is in His sight "sin" or "evil."

    Here is exactly where you and Wiman "come short of the glory of God" in your definition of "good." You believe a "clean" things (good works) can come from an "unclean" thing (fallen nature = a nature fallen from the glory of God as the standard of righteousness).
     
    #10 The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014
  11. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #11 Inspector Javert, Feb 5, 2014
  12. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Defining "good" is important to a profitable discussion regarding the scriptures teaching regarding how one attains righteousness.

    "Good" may reference the concept of meriting righteousness through works, and by that definition then no one is "good."

    However, if one means "good" as in being broken, surrendered in humility to God, then that is totally different and it causes confusion.

    This is what we see happening in Romans. Paul teaches on the one hand that NO ONE is righteous, no not one, but then a few chapters later references Abraham as one who was righteous. So, which is it? How can Abraham be righteous (good), when no one is righteous (good)?

    Answer: There are TWO different kinds of 'righteousness' (goodness) being addressed. Romans 3:19-21 introduces that transition and Romans 9:30-32 spells is out very clearly...

    Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

    Rom 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.​
     
    #12 Skandelon, Feb 5, 2014
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    No, I have never read Pelagius, Calvin, Augustine or much of any other uninspired men. You are the one that brought in Pelagius as one who would agree with the text but would disagree with my interpretation of the text. Hence, I assumed that you would not do that if Pelagius agreed with me. Now, if you claim he does agree with me then what is your point as I see no point except inconsistency with his own views?
     
    #13 The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014
  14. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    My bit about "Moral Relativism" wasn't an accurate or fair form of debate...
    I was hasty.

    I mis-represented what you were saying.

    I erred there. And I apologize.
    That must be stricken from the record. My bad.

    You are not a "Moral Relativist" in the commonly understood phrase.
     
    #14 Inspector Javert, Feb 5, 2014
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    You are quick to call others liars! However, I never said that YOU SAID that! I said that is "your spin" on it and the context of your words demonstrate that is your spin on it as you did say this:

    You believe all persons were NEVER in God's favour. NEVER...

    And therefore, they cannot possibly have been "taken-away" by definition.

    So you were claiming that sin could never take us way from "God's favor" which is a standing in righteousness before God as anything else cannot be in "God's favor."
     
    #15 The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014
  16. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    You don't get it, scripture shows man originally upright and without sin.

    No piece of clothing ever starts out filthy, all clothing is originally pristine clean.

    No piece of clothing starts out as a rag, all clothing starts out whole.

    No leaf starts out faded, all leaves begin green, moist, and ALIVE.

    No leaf starts out being taken away by the wind, all leaves begin attached to the tree or plant.

    See, it is right in front of you and plain as day, all men start out upright just as scripture says. But all men go out in sin and become filthy and corrupt.

    Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

    All men have "gone aside" or "gone astray" which shows originally they were not lost or astray as Jesus showed in Luke 15.

    Scripture says all men have "become" filthy. This shows they were not originally filthy.

    It is shown over and over and over again, but you are blind to it because your mind has been conditioned by false doctrine.

    You will ALWAYS be in error until you see this.
     
    #16 Winman, Feb 5, 2014
  17. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    That No one disagrees with your quotes from Isaiah...

    Not I, not Pelagius....
    Not anyone actually...

    It is my PERSONAL OPINION that much of common Calvinist apologetic consists largely of euphemism of speaking and writing SOARINGLY about God's greatness and virtue and man's utter wickedness and depravity....

    but only in contexts that every other Christian already agrees with.

    I think it's a rhetorical trick of presenting oneself as more pious than one's opponent in order to give credence to their own conclusions whereas....

    As an Arminian (as it were) I assume we all accept the assumption that men are rather nasty and somewhat slimey creatures and that God is rather quite the GREATEST and most Sovereign and Holy being, and therefore, soaring rhetoric used by Calvinists on verses which are non-debatable, or topics which are inherently agreed upon by both parties are not constructive debate but tricks of cultic rhetoric which do not actually honor Christ.

    I (frankly) viewed your quoting of Isaiah (which proves that everyone is a sinner....duh... :sleeping_2:)
    As a cheap rhetorical trick designed to fool morons into thinking that Calvinist Philosophy is inherently more pious than other views...

    I think it's a trash tactic, and I hate it.
     
    #17 Inspector Javert, Feb 5, 2014
  18. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I agree, I have heard Calvinists almost seem to boast of how evil they are.

    No, they are not to be outdone in this department, if you are evil, they are SUPER evil.

    I think you've hit the nail right on the head.

    Arminians simply believe man retains free will and has the ability to choose whether he believes or rejects the gospel.

    It does fool the dummies. :thumbsup:
     
    #18 Winman, Feb 5, 2014
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Can clean (good works) come from something/someone that IS unclean, or do you make a distinction between what a Person IS versus what they DO??



    Broken by what? Surrendered in humility how? What is the CAUSE for this transformation?


    You are confusing PERSONAL with IMPUTED righteousness. Romans 3:9-18 denies that there is any human being who by virtue of his own Person "IS" righteous or can DO righteousness. Romans 4:1-4 makes it clear that Abraham had no PERSONAL righteousness. Romans 4:5-25 makes it very clear that the only righteousness he obtained was by IMPUTATION.



    Again, you are ignoring that Romans 3:9-18 is denying that a person "IS" good in person or by his actions. Notice the actions are but the consequences of the cause. Whereas, Romans 3:19-20 is referring to conforming to the Law of God to be justified by what a Person IS and his PRACTICE.
     
    #19 The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014
  20. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are about a BILLION verses (well, give or take) which describe the sheep as having GONE ASTRAY....

    There are none which say the sheep was miraculously birthed outside of the confines of the sheep-fold to begin with.

    It's an assumed position which is read into Scripture which was unknown to Yahweh-worshipping Jews (or the early Christians) until Augustine inserted the idea that matter (which is morally neutral) was (or even could be) "evil" or "good"....
    It was Manicheanism then, and it's Manicheanism now.

    The Bible could not POSSIBLY be more clear than that (as Biblicist has even said) sin is and I quote:
    "Transgression of God's Law"...

    And then he will spend hours on B.B. denying PRECISELY that very obvious (and accurate) definition that he himself provided in his last thread.
     
    #20 Inspector Javert, Feb 5, 2014
Page 1 of 9
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...