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

My oh my! Let me as blunt as possible. In regard to the doctrine of justification there are two options just as you clearly claim which are represented by "A" and "B" in your question. However, in regard to the topic of righteousness and unrighteousness both of these options fit within only ONE of two more general options that the Bible does address clearly and that Paul addresses clearly. The minor of these two more general options deals with consequences of pursuit of righteousness while the major of these two general options deal with the INHERENT CAUSE of righteousness and unrighteousness

You are intent upon limitng our discussion to only one option of these two more GENERAL options. You want to deal with CONSEQUENCES (pursuit of Justification A or B) whereas, I want to include ALL THE BIBLICAL DATA which demands the inclusion of the other option which is the MAJOR option that deals with CAUSE.

The bible does not limit the subject of righteousness to merely consequential pursuit or justification but deals also with the reason for that pursuit or the CAUSE found with and inherent in the moral nature of a being.

If I go along with your LIMITED DATA then the subject will be skewed from the beginning. This may be very clever on your part and a good debate tactic, but it is at the very least, ignoring more important Biblical data on this subject, if not at most, intentionally trying to skew the subject.

 

Your question presumes your own position to be true, so it is like asking when are you going to stop beating your wife.

The Bible says that it is "with the heart" man believeth not merely with the mind. The "heart" includes the "desires" and "love" of the soul. You know very well what my position is, it is only with the "new" heart created in "righteousness and true holiness" that faith can originate from. Moreover, please don't distort my position by claiming I am putting a chronological order with regeneration first and conversion second as you know that is not my view. Just as with the Old Testament statement "turn us O Lord and we shall be turned" demonstrates they are simeltaneous actions with only a logical cause and effect relationship but the action of turning is not completed until the object is actually turned. Hence, there is no such thing as a regenerated unbeliever or an unregenerated believer. And yes, I can proivde the grammatical evidence and texts to support this interpertation and have already done so many times in the past.

 

It is more logical to deal with cause first rather than consequences as cause logically precedes consequences. It is more logical to deal with the cause for pursuit of righteousness than the methods and consequences for pursuit of righteousness. Above, I have laid out the problem of cause clearly. What a person IS morally determines what he DOES morally just as what God IS morally determies what He DOES morally. If a tree is "bad" by nature IT CANNOT produce "good" fruit without the nature being changed and none but God can change the moral nature of man as that is a creative act noted by Paul in the clear cause and effect relationship declared in the words "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" (Eph. 2:10). Note that the change necessary to produce "good" works is a creative act performed by God INTERNALLY within the spiritually dead elect (Eph. 2;1,6,8,10).

 

Yeah that would be confounding IF I really believed that. But since I don't believe that you can put that objection to rest. I gave you an Old Testament verse that clearly shows that the cause and effect relationship between regeneration and conversion are inseparable from each other in regard to time "turn us and we shall be turned." Of course, your whole position rests entirely upon denying that claim but demanding a strict chronological relationship. However, a common sense consideration of the words "turn us AND we shall be turned" shows identical action with only a logical order between cause and effect.

 

Lets take it one statement at a time. "he need not pursue righteousness if he IS righteous by nature." You don't pursue what you ARE - it is oxymoronic to do so.

Secondly, "If he IS unrighteous by nature, then and only then does pursuit of righteousness enter the picture." If he is UNrighteous BY NATURE, then he is wholly without righteousness and in need of it.

At this point is where you options "A" or "B" come into view. If he IS UNrighteous by nature then an "evil" tree CANNOT produce "good" fruit = righteousness; something "clean" (righteousness) cannot come out of an UNclean thing; therefore it is also oxymoronic that justification can be accomplished by your own works which are nothing less than products of an UNrighteous nature. Hence, righteousness cannot originate from anything you ARE by nature and thus it must originate from a source OUTSIDE of yourself that "IS" righteous by nature.

How then does something "UNCLEAN" = "UNRIGHTEOUS" = "BAD" by nature produce "good" = "righteousness"? The only Biblical answer is that it must be "CREATED in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" - Eph. 2:10. Thus an EXTERNAL source of POWER and of RIGHTEOUSNESS must change your NATURE from "unclean" to "clean" and from "unrighteous" to "righteous" and from "sinful" to "holy" and thus the "new" heart is "CREATED in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24/Col. 3:10) and it is with this created righteous nature - or "new" heart that faith originates within us as "with the heart man believeth."

Now, concerning your argument based upon CHRONOLOGICAL rationale, the new birth and conversion are simletaneous in action or in the words of the prophet "turn us O God and we shall be turned" and thus God doing the turning is the cause but if God turns we are BEING turned" so only God's power (turning us) is the cause that logical precedes conversion "be turned".

Yes, "THROUGH" faith NOT BECAUSE OF faith but "through" like a pipe is used "through" which water flows thus demanding simeltaneously the coexistence of both the pipe and water flowing in the pipe at one and the same time. In salvation terms, faith is the pipe, whereas the water is the creative saving power of God.
In terms of process, some appointed instrument brings the gospel UNTO the elect in word only. At that appointed time, the Holy Spirit empowers or takes up residence in the word as His creative word making the transition of the gospel from UNTO him to INTO his heart. At this point, the CREATIVE power of the Holy Spirit has the heart for its object of creativity which brings into existence within the heart the very "substance" of faith or what Paul calls the "Light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ.' The "light of the knowledge of God IN THE FACE OF Jesus Christ" refers to inner experiential revelation "of God" within the DARKENED heart. This inner revelatory knowledge consists of revealing God "in the face of" Jesus Christ or to say it another way, God is revealed in the redemptive Person and work of Jesus Christ as proclaimed in the gospel. This "light" expels and replaces the darkness of unbelief as does light from a light bulb expells and replaces darkness in a room.

Thus the very creative word (empowered gospel) that produces the substance of faith (hope of the gospel) in the heart is also the very object of that created faith in the heart. The "substance" of that faith IS salvation as presented in the gospel. Hence, the gospel comes not in "word only" but "IN POWER" and "IN THE SPIRIT" as a creative word producing a new believing heart, and thus it also comes simeltaneously "IN MUCH ASSURANCE" as it creates the very "substance" of faith or the "hope" of salvation expressed in the gospel. Therefore, the pipe (faith) is simeltaneous with the flowing water of life (Salvation by the creative word of the Gospel).

The created righteous heart is different than "imputed" righteousness obtained by faith. The first is IMPARTED by a creative act of God that produces the substance of faith while the latter is IMPUTED due to faith. The former makes us a "child" of God whereas the latter provides us legal status as a "son" of God. The former gives us SPIRITUAL life whereas the latter provides us "eternal life" as a Legal bestowment. The former changes our moral nature while the latter changes our legal position before God.

Righteousness created in the "new" heart is different than "imputed" righteousness as a product of faith.

 

As a Calvinist were you never taught the difference between IMPARTED versus IMPUTED righteousness??? The former requires an act of creation as in Ephesians 4:24 "CREATED in righteousness and true holiness" whereas the former is FORENSIC righteousness that is IMPUTED. These are very simple and clear Biblical distinctions. I am surprised that as a former "calvinist" you are completey unaware of imparted versus imputed righteousness???

 

You quote one particular person and think that Piper is the standard for all Calvinists? Calvinist differ on many things. However, Piper is not disagreeing with me at all. He is not even referring to imparted "righteousness" but rather imparted "gifts" and "fruits" of the Spirit. Gifts and fruits of the Spirit are "imparted" through the new nature within us. However, the new creature within us was not "imputed" but "created." So you really don't understand the person you are quoting.