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

No, you did not ask me to 'suppose" as here are your words from Post #85

So, do you believe that our broken humiliation, by which we cry out to God to rescue us, trusting only in Him because we have no other hope, is a 'meritorious work of righteousness?' - Skandelon - Post #85

 

Both Calvinism and Arminianism covers large segments of varied explanations and that is my point. Nevertheless, quoting ONE person to accuse my position as not in line with Calvinists is simply absurd.

And I was right! You did not prove it! Piper does not reject or deny that regenerative righteousness precedes imputed righteousness. He is speaking about the relationship of "gifts" and "fruits" that he and I both agree follow initial conversion and are worked out of the newly created new man by the Holy Spirit. He is not addressing the relationship between regeneration and what it is versus imputed righteousness and what it is BUT he is addressing the relationship of Post-salvation "gifts" and "fruit" to imputed righteousness.


In order to prove that Piper or any othe Calvinist disagrees with me, you must show he believes that regeneration and what it constitutes follows imputed rightousness and YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT.

 

However, we are both off track. The OP has to do with what is "good" in God's sight. Good is defined by God's own moral nature or what God "IS" and everything less than what God "IS" is the definition of what sin IS - COMING SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. The Law only reveals what God "IS".

Your problem is that fallen man "IS" not what God "IS" morally! As Jesus told the rich young ruler "There is NONE GOOD but ONE and that IS God." However, the Rich Young Ruler believed that he himself was "agathos" or intrinsically as "good" as God and so Christ directed him to the Ten Commandments as the written STANDARD of what God "IS" morally. The rich young man then vocalized He was as "Good" as the Law required and so Jesus then put his confession to the practical test saying "IF thou wilt be PERFECT" (as he probably IGNORANTLY claimed) then go sell all your riches or all those things he DEPENDED ON TO SUSTAIN HIM in this world, give the money to the Poor (practical obedience to the second part of the decalogue) and then come and follow me (complete dependence on Christ by faith - or the practical obedience to the first part of the decalogue).

He WOULD NOT do it and Jesus said it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to do that as the real problem is RICH IN SELF-WORTH - SELF-DEPENDENCE and not really a matter of external riches as they only MANIFEST the true riches in SELF-CENTEREDNESS. Hence, there "IS" none good and "IS" refers to the STATE OF BEING rather than consequential actions. Jesus told his own disciples they could "DO NOTHING" without him that is acceptable before God and they were believers. The fallen man can DO nothing Good in God's sight because of what fallen man "IS" - he comes short of the glory of God in regard to what he IS morally and thus he IS sinful by nature and an evil tree CANNOT bring forth "good" fruit any more than a thistle bush can bring forth figs or a thorn bush can bring forth grapes.

 

Piper does not believe that imputed righteousness occurs before regeneration and he does not believe that regeneration is imputed righteousness. He does believe that regeneration is being "created in Christ Jesus" and he does believe that this creative work is being described in Ephesians 4:24 "created IN RIGHTEOUSNESS and true holiness." He does believe this CREATED inward man is created in righteousness and thus imparted by the Spirit of God to the person of the elect whereas justification provides only a LEGAL POSITIONAL righteousness before God. So there is no disagreement between us.

You are twisting his words. Both of us believe technically that the "gifts" and "fruits" of the Spirit which are manifested in post-saved life of the believer by his works are manifested after having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith. Both of us equally believe that the SOURCE of these "fruits" and "gifts" are from the new created man or the regenerated new man from which they are imparted into our lives. Neither of us believe that the SOURCE of these "fruits" or "gifts" is "imputed righteousness."

No, that was not my initial argument but your complete misunderstanding of what I said. I only objected to making ONE SOURCE the rule for all Calvinists - period. I further went on to deny we differed at all on this point but that supposed difference was purely imaginary on your part as you have misunderstood and misrepresented what Piper was actually saying. I challenged you to prove that Piper believed that regeneration and justification were either one and the same or that justification occurs bef ore regeneration. You know you can't meet that challenge and so you divert, pick, and further distort both of us.

If you really had a point, you could show that Piper believes justification occurs prior to regeneration but you know he does not believe that and so you just invent things to nip and pick at.

No problem! All you have to do is show how they define what regeneration is in contrast to what justification is -period - end of story. I am surprised that as a former professed Calvinist that you don't understand the calvinistic position on regeneration and what it is??? It is a very simple thing to show that Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10 and Ephesians 2:10 are all interpreted by Calvinists as descriptive of regeneration as a creative work imparts righteousness in the form of a NEW INWARD MAN. That is so elementary of Calvinist interpretation it is utterly dumbfounding that you stumble at that point and even challenge it as a Calvinistic interpretation.

 

My response was not to post #91 but to post #85. Neither does post #91 even mention the word "suppose" or "supposition" or any other such idea:

Ok, allow me to reword that...are you under the impression that repentance done as a free responsible act (as in our system) somehow merits or earns forgiveness and eternal life? If so, why? On what basis do you draw that conclusion? - Skandelon #91

 

Regeneration is an INTERNAL "washing" - Tit. 3:5! The implication is the removal of spiritual filth = sin. It is an internal cleansing. It is the creation of "righteousness and true holiness". It is the creation of a new inward man that IS righteous. That is not justification. Justification refers to righteousness that is EXTERNAL to our person and is LEGALLY IMPUTED before God as our POSITION. It is not the IMPARTING of righteousness to our person. Sanctification has its source in regeneration or the impartation of a righeous and holy nature whichs is progressively worked out into our daily lives. The new inward man is not due to IMPUTATION of righteous but it is IMPARTED by the power of the Holy Spirit within us - a created righteous nature in us. This should be elementary! It should be elementary that imparted righteous from the Spirit of God to our Person is not imputed righteousness or our LEGAL POSITION IN HEAVEN. Imparted righteous is INTERNAL whereas imputed righteousness is EXTERNAL to our Person.

 

You are claiming that "clean" can come out of something "unclean" and Job says "not one" can DO this!

You are claiming that a thorn bush can produces figs and Jesus says that is impossible.

You are claiming that "without me" (Christ) even the lost can produced "good" fruit whereas Jesus tells his own disicples they "can do nothing" in producing "good" fruit.

You are claiming that "good" in God's sight is possible from an unclean heart with a wrong motive and there is no other right motive but in all that you DO, YOU DO FOR THE GLORY OF GOD and anything less is coming "short of the glory of God" which is the basic definition of sin.

God's word tells how a man is to take care of his family and it is not merely providing external things but he has a spiritual duty to raise up his children in the "admonition of the Lord" and love his wife "as Christ loved the church" as that is fundemental in the institution of Marriage as God purposed it and thus the duty of all husbands regardless of their spiritual state.

You define "good" just like the pharisees define "good" - external conformation regardless of internal motive.

 

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Learn how to read correctly! I did not say you denied man is evil. I said, you are claiming that something "clean" can come from something "unclean." You are claiming "good" works can come from "evil" persons. Job said that is impossible. Learn how to read correctly!

Job says that "not one" can bring "clean" out of something "unclean" but you are repudiating his words and claiming that something "clean" = good - can come out of something "unclean" = evil/bad.

 

First, you are not even addressing the text I quoted from Matthew 7:15-20! The text I quoted claims it is IMPOSSIBLE for a thorn bush to produce figs or a thistle bush to produces grapes just as Job claims it is impossible for something "clean" or "good" to come out of something "unclean" or bad. So you cannot even address the text being quoted but must run to another text and pit text against text - your normal response!

Second, Where in this text does it say that it is MAN who makes the tree good or bad????????? Where in this text does it say that it is SELF that makes the tree good or bad?? Parables are drawn from REALITIES found in the daily life of his hearers! Where in nature can you find a tree that makes itself good or bad? You don't know what you are talking about and you don't have a clue concerning this parabolic statement.

 

Again, you interpet the Law as did the Scribes and Pharisees - MERE EXTERNAL CONFORMATION or OUTWARD OBEDIENCE - which is not necessarily obedience in God's sight. You think speaking the truth with ones lips avoids lying just as avoiding actual literal physical fornication is obedience to the law "thou shalt not commit adultery. Obedience to the Law REQUIRES A RIGHT HEART/MOTIVES and God looks upon the heart to judge the external actions of the mouth and body.

Sin is "COMING SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD" and when words and actions are without the right heart motive which is "whatsoever ye say or do, DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD" then such OUTWARD CONFORMATIONS are SIN/EVIL in God's sight.

So you are a pharisee when it comes to interpreting "good" by the Law of God - mere external conformation is your only criteria rather than BOTH inward and outward criteria - as only a RIGHT heart can produce RIGHT words and actions.

Again, you believe that "clean" can come forth from the "unclean" but Job, Jesus and Paul claim "not one" can do it. You claim a thistle bush can bring forth figs but Christ claims it is impossible. You claim that man can change his own heart and thus regeneration which is a CREATIVE ACT of God is not necessary as man can change his own heart.

 

The adjective "good" modifies only the term "gift" it does not modify the person or the action of the person giving the gift. Jesus does not say an "evil" person CAN DO good - that is your perverted and extrabiblical forced interpetation upon this text.

Learn grammar before you try to interpet scripture! Evil the devil know HOW to give "good" gifts to his own people as he provides bread and riches to those who serve him but that does not mean the Devil is "good" or does "good" in God's sight.

 

I beg your pardon, Jesus NEVER said any such thing about lost people. The word "DO" in connection with the word "good" is never found in the mouth of Christ in regard to evil people. That is simply what YOU have rewritten scripture to say - that is YOUR WORDS not Christ's. I dare you to find the word "do" in that text or any other text in connection with the word "good" concerning lost people!

 

God does not have TWO different standards of defining "good" but only ONE STANDARD. If fallen man is capable of doing ONE GOOD ACT he is sinless and perfect as to fail in ONE POINT is to fail in EVERY point and so to KEEP ONE POINT IS TO KEEP EVERY POINT.

It requires LOVE to keep ONE POINT as much as to keep EVERY POINT because LOVE is the keeping of the commandments (1 Jn. 5:2-3) or don't you know that? Love is a HEART attribute and if fallen man can LOVE he does not need to be saved or need a "new" heart or need to born again.

Your dogma is straight from hell and is of the devil in its entirety.

 

Read the context! Don't you know this is said in a context of HYPROCRISY!!!!

You dont' understand a word of what Christ said. He said the kept they MINOR things - externals but did not keep the MAJOR things or INTERNALS and thus what they did was NOT GOOD in God's sight but hypocritical! Don't you realize this is found in the context of HYPOCRISY???????? Read the context!

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

Your soteriology is that of the Scribes and Pharisees and hypocrites, as you think OUTWARD OBEDEINCE is true obedience to God's Law when true obeidence to the Law requires BOTH outward and inward conformation. Mere outward obedience in words and deeds is HYPOCRISY!!

Therefore, obedience to ANY SINGLE LAW requires both INWARD and OUTWARD obedience and no lost man is able to do that as you cannot bring a "clean" thing out of an "unclean" thing (evil inward heart).