Good Verses Evil Men

The 'picture' painted in Scripture is the distinction between the regenerated man and the lost. There can only be one Treasure found in a good heart and that is the Holy Spirit.

Romans 3:10-12 KJV
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

 

Right on! These people have no respect for the scritpures. They jerk proof texts out of context as in this case. Here is the fuller context:

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.34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.


Jesus plainly and explicitly tells them they are "evil" and therefore they have an evil heart (tree) which cannot bring forth good things. This is a warning against the unregenerate religious hpocrits that their "evil things" will be brought into judgment. This text has nothing to do in context with the saved.

 

The heading should be: Good Versus Evil Men

 

Hi padredurand,

Of course the verses you quoted are saying that there are none good because there are none that DOETH good.

What about John the Baptist when he was in the womb and before he was regenerated? Could he be described as "good"?

"For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb" (Lk.1:15).

In the following passage the Lord Jesus compares little children to the "kingdom of heaven":

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Common sense dictates that the Lord Jesus would not compare little children to the kingdom of heaven unless He thought that they are "good."

 

You try to force your ideas on this verse but if your view is a right then neither adam or Eve would have sinned.

If you are right then we must believe that because they sinned and their fruit was evil then they could not have possibly been a good tree to begin with.

 

Here is a description of Cornelius before he heard the gospel and before he was saved:

"Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee" (Acts 10:21-22).

 

John was not good in the absence of the Holy Spirit - and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Notice Jesus did not say, "Let them come for they are good." He said, "Let them come to Me." What is illustrated is the great yet simplistic demonstration of faith.

I have no issue with the words of Christ, "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." (Luke 18:19 KJV)

 

Your presumptuous premise from which you argue is that Post-fallen men are are born into this world like pre-fallen Adam and Eve and thus free from SELECTIVE consequences of a fallen condition!

You refuse to accept that Adam stood in a different relationship to mankind than any other humans and that is why you can quote Ezek. 18:20 and apply it equally to Adam as to you and me!

You refuse to accept that Christ stood in a different relationship to mankind than any other humans and that is why you can ignore the significance of the virigin birth in regard to Heb. 2:17.

You are WILLFULLY ignorant and as long as you continue to choose to be WILLUFLLY ignorant you will remain so and you will contiue to operate from the rediculous and unbiblical premises.

 

Notice that Jerry can't deal with the contextual facts that I presented and so he switches to the JUMP and PIT routine in order to escape each and every text we discuss! When he can't deal with the immediate context and the facts of the immediate context he simply SWITCHES the conversation to another text or another argument and we repeat the merry-go-round JUMP and PIT routine.

 

You may be right: He did say, after all...there is none good but one.

Right?

God bless.

 

Every cult bases their major doctrine on ambiguous portions of scripture or obvious exceptions to the rule. That is the cultic standard operation.

John the Baptist like Christ was not the NORM among human beings for many contextual factors which are obvious to most Bible students. However, you fella's want to take exceptions to the rule and make them the rule.

John's birth was supernatural just like Isaac's because he was born beyond natural age of child bearing.

John's ministry was the subject of specific Old Testament prophecies.

John was a prophet of God and sent to do a special mission different than any mission that any previous man or any future man would ever do.

In some sense John was Elijah sent back to Israel.

However, we are supposed to ignore all these EXCEPTIONS to the rule and treat both Christ and John as THE RULE among men?????????

 

I asked you,

What about John the Baptist when he was in the womb and before he was regenerated? Could he be described as "good"?

Where is your evidence that John was not good in the absence of the Holy Spirit?

The Lord Jesus compared them with the kingdom of heaven--"for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

Even with that in view you are willing to argue that they are not "good"?

So the parents of John the Baptist could not be considered "good":

"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Lk.1:6).

Here Matthew Henry puts the words of the lord Jesus which you quoted in their proper perspective:

"Note, God only is good, and there is none essentially, originally, and unchangeably, good, but God only. His goodness is of and from himself, and all the goodness in the creature is from him; he is the Fountain of goodness, and whatever the streams are, all the springs are in him" (Matthew Henry, Commentary at Matthew 19:17).

 

I was merely addressing the "spin" which you were trying to force on those verses. And you said nothing that even began to answer what I said!

If your view is a right then neither Adam nor Eve would have sinned.

If you are right then we must believe that because they sinned and their fruit was evil then they could not have possibly been a good tree to begin with.

 

Matthew Henry believed in justification by works and therefore naturally he is going to side with your position. If you would have read about four paragraphs above the one you quoted you would have seen what he believes.

 

Are you saying this is the NORMAL state of an infant? Are you saying his birth is the NORMAL birth of all infants? His birth was supernatural just as Isaac's. Are you saying that John the Baptist is the NORMAL among human beings in regard to his birth, his life, his ministry, his calling, his identity with Elijah????

If not, then why use him as the example of what you believe is NORMAL among infants?