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

Biblicist says:

The Bible says:
Act 10:22
And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God

Q.E.D.

 

If a person tells the truth, that is good, that is no sin. To claim telling the truth is a sin as Biblicist does is to make God's commandments nonsensical. They would have absolutely no real meaning at all. If it is just as sinful to be honest as it is to steal, then what need is there of a commandment saying, Thou shalt not steal? It would be utterly meaningless if Biblicist's view is correct.

What is wrong is to be proud and despise others because you are honest. This is what Jesus showed in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican.

Luk 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

The Pharisee was far more obedient to God's laws than the publican. He really was not an extortioner, which publicans were. He was not unjust, or an adulterer.

These are all good things, and the Pharisee should have done these things. The problem with the Pharisee was that he exalted himself. He believed he could earn eternal life through merit, he believed he was much better than other men, and despised others. He was blind to his faults.

The publican was honest hearted. He knew he was a sinner and freely admitted it. He did not pretend he could merit life but cast himself solely on God's mercy. He was forgiven.

Nevertheless, the Pharisee truly did many good works. If he would have been humble they would have been accepted like Cornelius.

 

This is Iconoclast's Modus Operandi....

A gazillion (irrelevant and off-topic) verses which do not in any way actually demonstrate his view to be correct vs. anothers....

In the Military we called someone who couldn't actually shoot well someone who went cyclic on an automatic weapon as simply engaging in "spray and pray"....

Just hurl billions of verses and hope that two of them actually stick.....

Some people....actually think that Icon has an actual point when he does this.

Usually though, in non-soteriological topics...he actually DOES have a real point...
But on this topic he's "spraying and praying" and then he'll pretend that since he can copy/paste more references than you that he's actually more Biblical.

I hate that.

I DO use the Scriptures (and I quote them)....but only if they are relevant to the topic at hand.
Biblicist's quoting of Isaiah was utterly irrelevant...

He might as well have prefaced his argument with Genesis 1:1 as though we all denied his Philosophical conclusion on account of it. It's a tricky tactic, and some people are reeled in by it.

 

Yes, Cornelius was not saved, and he did not have the Holy Spirit until after he believed the gospel, but before he even heard the gospel Peter said Cornelius did "righteous works"

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

The scriptures do not teach that unregenerated men cannot fear God or do righteous works. Cornelius proves a man without the Spirit can both believe in God and do good works that are accepted with God.

 

I was never in the military, but I grew up on the beach surfing in Florida. We had guys we called "townies"

This is a "townie"



This is the real deal.



Can you see the difference?

 

That goes back to the question of the OP. How are you defining what is 'good?' If you mean 'meritorious' or 'deserving' of forgiveness and reward, then I would answer one way, but if you mean 'something God has chosen to grace' then I'd answer differently.

 

There must be an internal change first in us in order to have our ;good works" acceptable to God!

 

False.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The word "they" points back to the word "man" and shows this verse is speaking of all men.

I have scripture that says God made all men upright, you cannot provide a single verse that says men are born sinners. You can't show it.

Righteousness is often depicted as a garment in scripture, as when God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins, or when the father put the "best robe" on the prodigal son in Luke 15.

The fact is, no piece of clothing ever starts out dirty or torn. 100% of clothing starts out clean and whole, defects are rejected.

The scriptures show that we have righteousness, we all do some good things, but our garment has been soiled and torn by sin. It has "become" filthy.

If you were born rich, would you tell people you "became" rich? No. But if you were born poor but saved and invested until you were wealthy, then you would tell people you "became" rich.

The fact the scriptures say we have all "become" filthy shows that we all started out clean.

Of course, no Calvinist will ever admit this, as it utterly refutes Calvinism.

Infants die as a consequence of Adam's sin, not because they are sinners. Romans 9:11 clearly shows babies have done no evil. They have not sinned in Adam's loins as you and many others falsely teach.

We are compared to a leaf that has faded and been taken away by the wind. But all leaves start out green and tender and can withstand the wind when they are new. It is sin that weakens and fades us like a leaf, but no man and no leaf starts out faded and dead.

It is right before your eyes, plain as day, but you will ignore this scripture because it refutes your beloved Calvinism.

Paul said the Gentiles by nature do the things contained in the law.

The prodigal was not lost at first, and the elder son was NEVER lost. The prodigal went out when he was of age in sin. This is when he joined himself to a citizen of that far country (Satan). But when he repented, his father said he was alive AGAIN. If we are born dead in sin as you falsely teach, no person could ever be said to be alive again, but this is what Jesus said TWICE.

No, men with free will become sinners by choice. And men with free will can believe on Jesus to be forgiven their sins as well.

 

Biblicist believes men are controlled by their nature. He believes all men are born with a sin nature, and therefore they are unable to receive and believe the gospel.

Biblicist's view is utterly refuted by Adam and Eve. If Biblicist's view was correct, then Adam and Eve could not possibly sin, because they both had a "very good" nature (Gen 1:31).

Jesus said "either make" the tree good and his fruit good, "or else" make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt. This shows men have both the option and ability to determine what their own nature is.

So Biblicist simply does not understand what the scriptures really teach.

 

It seems some believe that asking someone to cleanse you is itself considered already being clean.

That's like insisting that for someone to realize they need a bath they must be given one first.

 

Yes....that's true.

But that's not what Biblicist contends....

Biblicist contends that our "good" works are (by definition) "evil".

That's....

Well, that's what he's saying anyway.

And he's calling our Theology of Sin "superficial" :laugh:

Maybe so....but, it's not as self-defeating and contradictory as his is.:wavey: