Ec 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
Pelagius himself agrees....so what.
Isa 64:6 ¶ But we are all as an unclean thing,
Pelagius himself agrees.
and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
You personally disagree with that statement even though it is Bible itself.
The Bible calls
RIGHTEOUSNESS as "filthy rags".....the point of your post will be to claim that what God was calling (by comparison) "filthy rags"...wasn't actually "
RIGHTEOUSNESS" to begin with....You will call it sin...
And the Bible won't call it sin. It will call it "RIGHTEOUSNESS".
And that same Bible says "Woe unto them that call evil good"...
You will re-define words and deny Scripture throughout your post.
and we all do fade as a leaf
That isn't what you believe....you believe every "leaf" (human) was already faded and dead...
You deny that humans "fade" as a leaf....(which obviously used to be vibrant and green...) you will claim they were always brown and dead from moment one. Which is un-biblical.
and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Another thing you don't believe...
you believe that we all were individual participants in Adam's sin...and were therefore never PRESENT to be "TAKEN-AWAY" to begin with.
You believe all persons were NEVER in God's favour. NEVER...
And therefore, they cannot possibly have been "taken-away" by definition.
We all agree that even the most wicked of men can do RELATIVE good.
We absolutely do not agree:
What is "relative" good?
You may be a Moral relativist...
but, I personally am not.
Good is what God commands and "Evil" is defiance of his commands. There is nothing "relative" about it.
I do not believe that "goodness" is EVER by any definition "RELATIVE".
That is Atheist Naturalist Philosophy which has no place in the schema of any Bible-Believing Christian.
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.
Yes, so long as you aren't a Moral Relativist....Yes.
However, what does God require from the lost man to do "good" by His definition of "good"?
Obey his Law.
1. Is "good" defined merely by EXTERNAL conformity to God's Law - Pharisees
According to Jesus yes....here's some Scripture for you:
Mat 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees[/B],<---we are talking about Pharisees here hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, <---this was RIGHT and GOOD and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, <---That's where they went WRONG...but that doesn't omit the "good" as Jesus will say later in this very same verse. judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done,<---That's "good"...it's obedience to a command and not to leave the other undone. They left some parts undone...therefore they have sinned by omission.
2. Is "good" defined by INTERNAL and EXTERNAL conformity to God's Law?
No.
Does God weigh the heart to judge the actions?
To the New Testament Christian who is subject to the Law of Liberty and the Law of Love....YES.
To the Old Testament Adam subject to the law of fruit-eating......or the Old Testament Jew subject to the Mosaic Law? NO, absolutely not.
3. What is required for INTERNAL conformity to God's Law? Right heart/motive?
No, not even according to your own Theology, not so. Your Theology would teach that every individual is sinful because they individually partook of Adam's direct sin personally in the garden. via spermatozoa (and that's sheer Manicheanism).
Adam had no such commands of "heart motive" or where his intentions must lie. He was told NOT to EAT THE FRUIT... Period. To disobey was sin, to obey was to remain PERFECTLY righteous in God's eyes and in accordance with God's Law.....That's Bible.
4. Is 1 Cor. 10:31 a command?
To Adam, no.
To Noah, no.
To Moses, no.
To New Testament Chrisitians subject to the Law of Liberty????? YES!!
If so, can lost people keep it?
"Lost" people sinned in Adam in your world-view...did God ever Give Adam1 Cor. 10:31 as a command?????
NO.
God never told Adam to tithe either.
God never told New Testament Christians to tithe.
God never told the Jews under Mosaic Law to give according as God "purposed in their heart" either.....He just gave them an actual numerical figure.....10%
...And God didn't care whether that 10% was given lovingly out of the purpose of the heart or whether it was rendered begrudgingly either........
HE DEMANDED IT. And to disobey was sin, and to obey was to do what Jesus said (and I quote):
these ought ye to have done
...That's not sin...it's obedience.
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?
Dude....you didn't read James chapter 2 did you????
in James 2 Biblicist, They DIDN'T actually obey the Law...they DISOBEYED IT!!!
James is written to Jews who had heard from Jesus this during his Earthly ministry:
Jesus, when challenged by those Jews about the "greatest commandment in the Law" (I'll refresh your memory)
Mat 22:37
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38
This is the first and great commandment
But...that isn't what Jesus was referencing in James chapter two...he was referencing this:
Mat 22:39
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
How do I know that that is the relevant portion of that passage???
Simple....I'm a Biblicist on this one, and I see what James references in chapter 2:
Jam 2:8
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
So....James (also written to Jews) was referencing Matt 22:39
But...were the Jews to whom James was speaking ACTUALLY following that law???
No, they weren't and James has already told us above (see e.g. The Bible) here:
Jam 2:2
For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
Jam 2:3
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
SEE!!!
James was pointing out that they WEREN'T obeying the law...but being "partial".
Jam 2:9
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
In other words, does violating one command violate all commands as a general rule
Yes. This is good logic.
and thus to keep one command is to keep all commands?
No, that's bad logic...
I'll suggest a simple syllogism to explain why that logic fails:
Does failing to pay all my bills mean I shall have to declare bankruptcy or undergo foreclosure etc?
Yes.
Does paying all my bills mean I will become rich?
No.
As Professory Digory said in the Chronicles of Narnia...
"Goodness, what ARE they teaching these kids in these Schools?"
What underlying principle is demanded by this rule?
That the Jews whom you mistakenly think were obeying the Law were clearly spoken of by James to have NOT actually obeyed that law...because they were only loving their "RICH" neighbors....
That's the underlying principle.
6. Can an act of obedience be judged as "good" if it is not done out of "love"?
Maybe not "good" in the sense of "MERITORIOUS"...but not EVIL......
You would teach us that for an unsaved father to give his own child a doll out of affection is an EVIL deed....
That's deranged.
It isn't meritorious, no. But it isn't "evil" if anything, it's morally neutral.
7. What is God's definition of "love"?
Himself.
Which opens up an entirely new world of difficulty for the Calvinist who maintains that God from the get-go "HATED" Esau...
But, that's another one of the problems Calvinists face, which I don't.
NE 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)?