What is "good" in God's sight?

[Inspector Javert]

Biblicist says:

Again, you are ignoring that Romans 3:9-18 is denying that a person "IS" good in person or by his actions. Notice the actions are but the consequences of the cause.

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

Q.E.D.

 

[Winman]

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

That No one disagrees with your quotes from Isaiah...

Not I, not Pelagius....
Not anyone actually...

Of course no one disagrees with the text! It is the INTEPRETATION of the text where the disagreement is found. That is true with every text used by you and me and others. Dah!

I think it's a rhetorical trick of presenting oneself as more pious than one's opponent in order to give credence to their own conclusions whereas....

I do not know of whom you speak. I certainly have never presented myself as "more pious" than my opponents. Why do you bring this discussion down to this personal level??? My posts are concerning with difference of interpretation without regard to the personal piety of my opponent!

As an Arminian (as it were) I assume we all accept the assumption that men are rather nasty and somewhat slimey creatures

That is not true of Winman's view! Is it really your view? You said "men" and not "humans"! Do you claim that ALL HUMANS (except Christ) fall into that categorical description or just SOME?

I (frankly) viewed your quoting of Isaiah (which proves that everyone is a sinner....duh... :sleeping_2
As a cheap rhetorical trick designed to fool morons into thinking that Calvinist Philosophy is inherently more pious than other views...

I think it's a trash tactic, and I hate it.

You have to be kidding? Right? You are the one performing a cheap and nasty trick as you are conveying that YOUR INTEPRETATION of Isaiah 64:4-6 is the only acceptable interpetation and if we don't agree with it then we are being nasty and cheap. Come on, give us a break from this absolute nonsense! Isaiah 64:4-6 does not support your soterilogy if it is interpeted by common sense rules of interpretation and the proof is that you have not responded to the interpetation I presented but have sidestepped it by reducing the whole discussion to a low personal level. Now, that is a cheap trick bar none.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I agree, I have heard Calvinists almost seem to boast of how evil they are.



No, they are not to be outdone in this department, if you are evil, they are SUPER evil.



I think you've hit the nail right on the head.



Arminians simply believe man retains free will and has the ability to choose whether he believes or rejects the gospel.



It does fool the dummies. :thumbsup:

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

This is your MO - pit one scripture against another scripture or change the subject or context rather than dealing with the problems of your intepretation in the text we are dealing with. We have dealt with Cornelious many times and so this is your out for facing the problems of your interpetation in Isaiah and in Romans. Sad!

 

[Winman]

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.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Any capable exegete knows that you cannot use interpretative narratives to overturn and contradict doctrinal passages that deal directly with the issue. This is the MO of you guys when you cannot deal with clear explicit doctrinal passages that directly address this issue and contradict your dogma. You always resort to pitting scripture against scripture or highly interpretative parables or narrative passages to sustain and defend your dogma's.

 

[The Biblicist]

My bit about "Moral Relativism" wasn't an accurate or fair form of debate...
I was hasty.

I mis-represented what you were saying.

I erred there. And I apologize.
That must be stricken from the record. My bad.

You are not a "Moral Relativist" in the commonly understood phrase.

Well, thank you. Besides Skandalon, no one else has ever admitted they said something mistakenly. I appreciate the honesty and commend you for it.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Of course no one disagrees with the text! It is the INTEPRETATION of the text where the disagreement is found. That is true with every text used by you and me and others. Dah!

That text is non-debateable and irrelevant to the discussion.

Everyone already agrees with man's Universal sinfulness. This verse was only possibly used in order to present the notion that if someone denied Original Sin, they must deny also Universal Wickedness....
Otherwise...it's irrelevant.

I do not know of whom you speak. I certainly have never presented myself as "more pious" than my opponents.

I am not saying that you PERSONALLY are presenting yourself as more "pious" than your opponents, but rather that you present them in order to convey that Calvinism (as it were) is a more "pious" explanation than that posed from an Arminian perspective....

Step 1.)
Be an obvious Calvinist

Step 2.)
Post a Scripture about how all humans suck and how utterly awesomely kewl God is and how much he doesn't suffer from human suck-ness.

Step 3.)
Proceed to launch into a Calvinist/anti-Arminian argument which is basically un-related to the initial verse posted.

Step 4.)
Fool an idiot.

I'm not accusing you of some form of "Personal" arrogance or "pietism" (of the nasty sort) but rather the tactic itself. I can smell Calvinism....from MILES AWAY....

I can tell you whether a man is a Calvinist by the glasses he wears....
LITERALLY....

SERIOUSLY....

They wear slightly thinner (and more fashionably acceptable) versions of "B.C." glasses....
Just watch them.

That particular type of text-proofing is simply one of those styles which is obvious.

Why do you bring this discussion down to this personal level??? My posts are concerning with difference of interpretation without regard to the personal piety of my opponent!

I apologize if you misunderstand....

I'm not saying you are PERSONALLY setting yourself up in some pietistic way.....

I am suggesting that Calvinist apologetic is rife with a euphemistic form of "pietism" which posts non-debateable and (subsequently irrelevant) passages which present Calvinism as the more pious view and pits itself against a less pious view by posting non-debated verses about how God is rather kewl but that people kinda suck...

BOTH SIDES know this...

But, no, it was not designed to mean that you were posing YOURSELF as more inherently pious...I do not intend that meaning. Perhaps, if you were an Arminian....you would understand what I'm talking about better.

I was not calling you a braggart or prideful

....................................................................................................................... I presented but have sidestepped it by reducing the whole discussion to a low personal level. Now, that is a cheap trick bar none.

Blah blah blah....
blah blah....

I wasn't referencing you personally...
but an under-handed common Calvinist tactic...
not YOU.

 

[Winman]

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.

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?

 

[The Biblicist]

You don't get it, scripture shows man originally upright and without sin.

Only IN the garden not OUTSIDE of it.

No piece of clothing ever starts out filthy, all clothing is originally pristine clean. No piece of clothing starts out as a rag, all clothing starts out whole.

He did NOT say that your "UNrighteousnesses" are as filthy rags as though they started as "righteousness" and "clean rags" but "ALL our RIGHTEOUSNESSES" are as filthy rags. Think about it! In other words, what starts out as filthy rags is "OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" and not "some" but "ALL"! Think about it!

No leaf starts out faded, all leaves begin green, moist, and ALIVE.

"dying thou shalt surely die" all because of sin. The infant in the cradle is in the dying process and the absolute proof is that infants can and do die right at the beginning of the dying process. He is speaking of our OUTWARD MAN the flesh.

No leaf starts out being taken away by the wind, all leaves begin attached to the tree or plant.

He is not speaking about a "leaf" but "our iniquities."

See, it is right in front of you and plain as day, all men start out upright just as scripture says. But all men go out in sin and become filthy and corrupt.

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

We ARE sinners by nature when born but we become sinners by choice when we rationally determine to do wrong when we understand what is right. That is where we "go astray" in regard to willful choice. We are already sinners by nature because we do not come into this world with a clean or pure heart but a self-centered heart which any parent that is not mentally incapable can clearly see right away.

All men have "gone aside" or "gone astray" which shows originally they were not lost or astray as Jesus showed in Luke 15.

The context makes it very clear this person was already of age of inheritance and the going astray was WILLFUL. No such person as represented by his elder brother exists as there is no human that liveth and sinneth not but the profession of this full grown man was that he NEVER AT ANY TIME violated any commandment of His Father.

Scripture says all men have "become" filthy. This shows they were not originally filthy.

It is shown over and over and over again, but you are blind to it because your mind has been conditioned by false doctrine.

You will ALWAYS be in error until you see this.

Sinners by nature BECOME sinners by choice and sinners by choice BECOME more hardened in sin as they grow older.

 

[Skandelon]

Can clean (good works) come from something/someone that IS unclean

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

And this is the issue. These texts claim that the individual is as an "unclean" thing. Both Jesus and Paul claim there is not one who "IS" good and yet Pelagius and you repudiate Job and claim something "clean" (good) can come out of something that God's Word repeatedly says "IS" not good.

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

 

[Winman]

Only IN the garden not OUTSIDE of it.

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.

He did NOT say that your "UNrighteousnesses" are as filthy rags as though they started as "righteousness" and "clean rags" but "ALL our RIGHTEOUSNESSES" are as filthy rags. Think about it! In other words, what starts out as filthy rags is "OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" and not "some" but "ALL"! Think about 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.

"dying thou shalt surely die" all because of sin. The infant in the cradle is in the dying process and the absolute proof is that infants can and do die right at the beginning of the dying process. He is speaking of our OUTWARD MAN the flesh.

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.

He is not speaking about a "leaf" but "our iniquities."

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.

We ARE sinners by nature when born but we become sinners by choice when we rationally determine to do wrong when we understand what is right. That is where we "go astray" in regard to willful choice. We are already sinners by nature because we do not come into this world with a clean or pure heart but a self-centered heart which any parent that is not mentally incapable can clearly see right away.

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

The context makes it very clear this person was already of age of inheritance and the going astray was WILLFUL. No such person as represented by his elder brother exists as there is no human that liveth and sinneth not but the profession of this full grown man was that he NEVER AT ANY TIME violated any commandment of His Father.

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.

Sinners by nature BECOME sinners by choice and sinners by choice BECOME more hardened in sin as they grow older.

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.

 

[Winman]

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.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

God by his very nature "IS" good and therefore by He can DO good as the character of His being determines the character of His actions.

I would say, that you could say God "IS" righteous and God "IS" holy and God "IS" love and therefore as a CONSEQUENCE God's actions are righteous, holy and love. However, can you say that man IS unrighteous, and man is unholy and man IS unloving and therefore as a CONSEQUENCE man's actions are unrighteous, unholy and unloving? Can you say that?

God IS good and that is defined according to His NATURE or what He "IS", whereas the Law of God merely REVEALS what God "IS". Therefore, "good" must be defined by contrasting what God "IS" versus what any other being "IS" by nature with the Law only serving to REVEAL/educate what God "IS" by nature.

You seem to be attempting to remove the discussion and definition of "good" from what the Law reveals God "IS" by nature in comparison with what any other creature "IS" by nature, to legal consequences that abstractly define "good". If that is intentional, then I commend you for being very clever. However, if this is not something you have thought through or never considered but is a mere unintended consequence then you need to rethink your line of thought. You are making the definition of God abstract from what a being "IS" by nature to judicial consideration of ones actions whether they are legally "meritorious" or to causes external to the nature of man originating with the power of God.

Bottom line, you are attempting to define "good" by shifting the discussion from the INTERNAL nature of what a being IS to what their EXTERNAL actions merit in terms of eternal consequeances OR power EXTERNAL to their nature may make them meritorious in God's sight.

 

[Inspector Javert]

He did NOT say that your "UNrighteousnesses" are as filthy rags as though they started as "righteousness" and "clean rags"

Yes, we know....but, your goal is to re-define the word "righteousness" as "UN-righteousness".

We don't...

It's "righteousness" just like Jesus said, and you can't escape that. Regardless of how much you hate it.

but "ALL our RIGHTEOUSNESSES" are as filthy rags. Think about it!

We have, and therefore we understand that even though an otherwise sinful man can do that which is "RIGHT".....


It doesn't MERIT God's favour.

SINFUL men do that which is "righteous"....

but, they are all sinners in God's eyes, because they are guilty of breaking God's law on an innumerable number of points...

That's what Romans 1 and 2 are about. They haven't kept ALL the law, and are therefore guilty...

That doesn't mean that at any point they DO keep the law...that they are sinning for doing so.

That's insane.

In other words, what starts out as filthy rags

Negative...

That's not Scripture Biblicist...
Jesus didn't say "All good things aren't good things, but rather they are bad things"...

Like you are saying.
Winman just made a perfectly reasonable exegetical and Biblical point which you ignore....
He said "filthy" rags were once clean...

You are attempting to prove they were NEVER clean...
And you have no verse to prove that...NONE.

is "OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" and not "some" but "ALL"! Think about it!

He has....
A LOT
He's not as stupid as you think.

The infant in the cradle is in the dying process

NO THEY AREN'T!!!

They are ALREADY DEAD!!

Do you have ANY, I mean, ANY clue what you personally teach...

Infants aren't "DYING"....
They're DEAD!!!!!

I'll stop before I lose my frikkin mind about how little you understand about your own Theology...

I'll lose my mind...

I'm going to convert to Calvinism only because I'd be TEN TIMES better at Calvinist Theology than you are. I could seriously debate your own side better than you do.

Infants are "DYING"?????

NO, they're already DEAD!!!
Remember they were magically partakers in Adam's Physical spermatozoa in his sin when he ate a forbidden fruit 6,000 years ago.
THAT'S when the infant died. He isn't "dying".

Do I need to explain to you how "Total Depravity" works???

Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

and the absolute proof is that infants can and do die right at the beginning of the dying process.

"Infants can and do "DIE" right at the beginning of the "DYING" process....

Guess what I can and do "vomit" right at the beginning of the "vomiting" process.

He is not speaking about a "leaf" but "our iniquities."

Negative...he must be speaking of your partaking of Adam's iniquities...
Your personal ones in your Earthly lifetime are irrelevant.

We ARE sinners by nature when born

Negative...
You were a personal partaker in Adam's sin 6,000 years ago...you were not a sinner at "birth".

but we become sinners by choice when we rationally determine to do wrong when we understand what is right.

Adam knew right from wrong, and he sinned WILLFULLY...
Unlike Eve who was deceived.....

Sorry...Adam's sin was known and willful, and you already participated in it long before birth.

We are already sinners by nature because we do not come into this world with a clean or pure heart but a self-centered heart which any parent that is not mentally incapable can clearly see right away.

I keep wondering about Calvinist's children.......

I have 4......

And comparatively... mine aren't really half-bad. Imperfect and un-meriting of God's presence, yes..
But, my oldest (at 5)...RARELY actually sins.

Rarely...

Her heart is PREPOSTEROUSLY and almost fictionally and COMICALLY in the right place....She seeks God on EVERY level....
The next one (at four) is the Devil incarnate....
But not the 5 year old.

I don't believe you people HAVE kids half the time. I already admire the heart and Spirit of my 5-year old. No one I have EVER met is MORE against sin and inherently humbled and repentant when confronted with their wrong-doing than my oldest....

You people's kids must utterly suck.

Winman is right...

Arminians are sinner but you guys are SUPER-SINNERS!!!!
Sorry, I'm not buying the kid thing (now that I have 4 of the creatures)...
I am (and was) more naturally wicked than my quite righteous (but imperfect) 5-year old is....

I wish I had a heart more naturally inclined towards God like hers....It's almost like she's a "Cornelius" or something.....

I get it...You guy's kids apparently are inconceivably demonic....
Mine....are actually pretty durned good.....Better than I was anyway.

Maybe you guys suck at being parents????

The context makes it very clear this person was already of age of inheritance and the going astray was WILLFUL.

By "WILFUL" (which you capitalized) you mean simply nothing more than:
"Necessitated by his nature".

O.K....
So what...

No such person as represented by his elder brother exists as there is no human that liveth and sinneth not

True...
But that's not Winman's philosophy anyway...

He maintains the elder brother was an infant who died....so that takes away your idea of a "human that liveth and sinneth not" doesn't it???

(I actually disagree with his interpretation of that parable B.T.W.)

but the profession of this full grown man was that he NEVER AT ANY TIME violated any commandment of His Father.

That's not his argument...
His argument was always and Ever that the elder brother is an infant who never reached adulthood.....

Again, I disagree....

But, it's not an inconsistent view.

Sinners by nature BECOME sinners

Please just read VEEERRRY SLLLOWWWLLY what you just said here...
and see if it makes any kind of sense:

"Sinners.........................become Sinners".

WOW dude...

WOW!!!!

 

[Inspector Javert]

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

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:

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, we know....but, your goal is to re-define the word "righteousness" as "UN-righteousness".

We don't...

It's "righteousness" just like Jesus said, and you can't escape that. Regardless of how much you hate it.

We have, and therefore we understand that even though an otherwise sinful man can do that which is "RIGHT".....

You are missing his point! He did not say "our righteousness" is considered by God as righteousness but as "filthy rags." Only in OUR EYES is it regarded as "righteousness" but in God's eyes it is regarded as "filthy rags" and "workers OF INQUITY."