What is "good" in God's sight?

[The Biblicist]

Yes....that's true.

But that's not what Biblicist contends....

Think about what you are agreeing to. If an inward work is required first to produce "good works" or "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" then obviously no such "good" works precedes that OR it is an unnecessary work of God. Thus previous works are "evil" in God's sight as there are not "good" works until AFTER we are "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works."

 

[Benjamin]

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

I have 4......

You have 4 Calvinist children?!?

:laugh::laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

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.)

Anybody who can reason that the "elder" son was already dead, buried and in heaven as an infant is incapable of being reasoned with about anything at all.

First, where did the younger son return to, heaven? According to this kind of rationale he must have not repented until he got to heaven because where he came back to meet the Father was where the elder son was residing.

Are there fatted calves in heaven which can be killed and eaten?

He came back exactly where he left and he did not leave heaven!

I am through responding to such absolute nonsense!

 

[Benjamin]

Sinners by nature BECOME sinners by choice...

You Determinist never cease to amaze me with this double-talk.

Seriously Bib, take a class in basic logic and critical thinking skills, maybe you and Luke should team up. :smilewinkgrin:

You're arguments defy all measures of reasoning for truth...

 

[Inspector Javert]

Anybody who can reason that the "elder" son was already dead, buried and in heaven as an infant is incapable of being reasoned with about anything at all.

First, where did the younger son return to, heaven? According to this kind of rationale he must have not repented until he got to heaven because where he came back to meet the Father was where the elder son was residing.

Are there fatted calves in heaven which can be killed and eaten?

He came back exactly where he left and he did not leave heaven!

I am through responding to such absolute nonsense!

Well, I do not agree with Winman's interpretation of that parable .

I am only contending that you have to rightly contend his arguments on their own terms...that's all.

I don't think the elder son is an infant as Win does....but he isn't a "grown-adult" either.... (not really).

He's a fictional representation of a certain attitude which doesn't have to have an actual example in REAL LIFE at all.

The elder son is just an IDEA....He's a concept designed to teach us a point....

The Father represents a real person (God)
The Prodigal represents a real person (us)
The "citizen of a far country can represent Satan or "The World"

The elder brother represents......
JUST AN IDEA.....but no one in particular...The elder brother is fictitious...

His point is simply to illustrate something about the Prodigal and his relationship to the father.

Winman assumes too much (IMO) about the elder brother.

The "elder brother" represents nothing in particular... he represents just an attitude about how the Father treats the Prodigal....

It's the Father and the Prodigal that matters....The "elder brother" is pretty much nothing but a concept....

But, while I disagree with Winman on that facet of that parable....

I don't consider his points overall as unreasonable.
He is reasonable...infinitely so IMO...
I think if a thread were dedicated to it, he might easily abandon that idea.

While I disagree with the identity of the elder brother (and the 120k+ or whatever, people in the book of Jonah) actually...

That doesn't mean his arguments are unreasonable and wrong...

I agree with most of his conclusions. Even if some of his examples don't (I.M.O.) make his case.

 

[Winman]

Well, I do not agree with Winman's interpretation of that parable .

I am only contending that you have to rightly contend his arguments on their own terms...that's all.

I don't think the elder son is an infant as Win does....but he isn't a "grown-adult" either.... (not really).

He's a fictional representation of a certain attitude which doesn't have to have an actual example in REAL LIFE at all.

The elder son is just an IDEA....He's a concept designed to teach us a point....

The Father represents a real person (God)
The Prodigal represents a real person (us)
The "citizen of a far country can represent Satan or "The World"

The elder brother represents......
JUST AN IDEA.....but no one in particular...The elder brother is fictitious...

His point is simply to illustrate something about the Prodigal and his relationship to the father.

Winman assumes too much (IMO) about the elder brother.

The "elder brother" represents nothing in particular... he represents just an attitude about how the Father treats the Prodigal....

It's the Father and the Prodigal that matters....The "elder brother" is pretty much nothing but a concept....

But, while I disagree with Winman on that facet of that parable....

I don't consider his points overall as unreasonable.
He is reasonable...infinitely so IMO...
I think if a thread were dedicated to it, he might easily abandon that idea.

While I disagree with the identity of the elder brother (and the 120k+ or whatever, people in the book of Jonah) actually...

That doesn't mean his arguments are unreasonable and wrong...

I agree with most of his conclusions. Even if some of his examples don't (I.M.O.) make his case.

Thank you Inspector!

I like the Inspector. As you see, we do not agree on everything, but I like his attitude. He THINKS. He is open minded. He is not afraid to think outside the box like 99.94% of the rest of you. He reads the scriptures with the intent of learning what they REALLY say, not what some Manichaen Gnostic taught fifteen hundred years ago. Most folks here are still in the Dark Ages, LITERALLY. You guys are superstitious, you think sin is transmitted physically. You probably all say "God bless you" when someone sneezes because you believe an evil spirit will rush in when you sneeze your spirit out.

We disagree, but he can see that the scriptures show men can do righteous works. Total Inability is plain false doctrine.

 

[convicted1]

The only "good" that God sees us is the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Our righteousness is as filthy rags...

 

[Winman]

The only "good" that God sees us is the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Our righteousness is as filthy rags...

Go back and read Willis. The scriptures do say our RIGHTEOUSNESSES. Look up that word in a dictionary, it does not mean evil. Men can do 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.

This was Peter speaking about Cornelius. Cornelius was not saved at this point, he had not heard the gospel yet. He did not have the Holy Spirit, he did not receive that until after he believed the gospel. Yet Peter confirms that Cornelius feared God and did righteous works.

Total Inability is false doctrine.

 

[convicted1]

I stand by my previous post. Any righteousness we have is imputed to us by Jesus Christ...

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't think the elder son is an infant as Win does....but he isn't a "grown-adult" either.... (not really).

He's a fictional representation of a certain attitude which doesn't have to have an actual example in REAL LIFE at all.

The elder son is just an IDEA....He's a concept designed to teach us a point....

The Father represents a real person (God)
The Prodigal represents a real person (us)
The "citizen of a far country can represent Satan or "The World"

The elder brother represents......
JUST AN IDEA.....but no one in particular...The elder brother is fictitious...

Your assessment is even more bizaare than his. You arbritarily without one scintilla of contextual evidence assign the elder to to merely an non-personal "idea" while insisting that every other individual is a person.

Both of you do not have a clue to the contextual purpose of all three of these parables.

1. Look who he is addressing:

- 2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

2. Look at what brought on the parables

- This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

They did not regard themselves as "sinners" and therefore in no need of repentance of sin.

These parables are designed to show that Heaven rejoices ONLY over those who repent rather than over those who do no need repentance.

1. The one sheep was lost and was brought back to the house of the shepherd while the 99 are left in the wilderness and NEVER descibed as lost and found the conclusion is:

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

The ninety and nine never are represented as NEVER being lost, or gone astray or needed to be found or rejoicing over.

2. The nine coins are pictured as NEVER being lost and found and the conclusion is:

Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

Meaning, there is more rejoicing in heaven over this one that is lost and found than over the nine that were never lost and never needing to be found.

3. The Elder son is pictured as NEVER being lost and found and NEVER AT ANY TIME disobeyed one command and thus NEVER NEEDING REPENTANCE.

CONCLUSION: the Ninety nine, the nine coins and elder son all represent the Pharisees and scribes that see others as sinner but NEVER SEE THEMSELVES as sinners and therefore NEVER NEED REPENTANCE.

 

[Winman]

I stand by my previous post. Any righteousness we have is imputed to us by Jesus Christ...

You can stand by any belief you choose, doesn't make it biblical. Peter absolutely implied that Cornelius did righteous works.

 

[The Biblicist]

You can stand by any belief you choose, doesn't make it biblical. Peter absolutely implied that Cornelius did righteous works.

Corneilus was a regenerated man already as a believer in the OT Gospel (Acts 10;43) but merely did not know that Jesus was the Christ and did not know that the New Testament congregation of baptized believers carried on the work of Christ and was the institution through which the saved were to serve and thus save their lives in the form of good works (1 Cor. 3:12-15). Peter and the brethren from the church in Jerusalem would not have gone to their house or accepted them for baptism and church membership without divine intervention which God provided by repeating the baptism in the Spirit and gifts that occurred on the day of Pentecost - Acts 11:1-15.

You can deny this till your blue in the face but it is still the true interpretation of this text - period.

 

[Winman]

Your assessment is even more bizaare than his. You arbritarily without one scintilla of contextual evidence assign the elder to to merely an non-personal "idea" while insisting that every other individual is a person.

Both of you do not have a clue to the contextual purpose of all three of these parables.

1. Look who he is addressing:

- 2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

2. Look at what brought on the parables

- This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

They did not regard themselves as "sinners" and therefore in no need of repentance of sin.

These parables are designed to show that Heaven rejoices ONLY over those who repent rather than over those who do no need repentance.

1. The one sheep was lost and was brought back to the house of the shepherd while the 99 are left in the wilderness and NEVER descibed as lost and found the conclusion is:

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

The ninety and nine never are represented as NEVER being lost, or gone astray or needed to be found or rejoicing over.

2. The nine coins are pictured as NEVER being lost and found and the conclusion is:

Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

Meaning, there is more rejoicing in heaven over this one that is lost and found than over the nine that were never lost and never needing to be found.

3. The Elder son is pictured as NEVER being lost and found and NEVER AT ANY TIME disobeyed one command and thus NEVER NEEDING REPENTANCE.

CONCLUSION: the Ninety nine, the nine coins and elder son all represent the Pharisees and scribes that see others as sinner but NEVER SEE THEMSELVES as sinners and therefore NEVER NEED REPENTANCE.

This is horrible interpretation of scripture. Jesus condemned the Pharisees. Read Matthew 23;

23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
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.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.


Jesus condemned the Pharisees in the harshest terms. He in no way hinted or implied they were righteous and need no repentance. He called them serpents and vipers, hypocrites, blind guides, etc...

The point of Luke 15 is that those "sinners" Jesus ate with belonged to God and were valuable to him. If even one was lost, like a good shepherd God would go out and seek that lost sheep. And if that lost sinner repented, there was more joy in heaven for that sinner that repented than 99 who never went astray and needed no repentance.

Now of course, if you believe in Original Sin you cannot conceive of any person who has never sinned. But if you realize that men are made upright, then there are literally billions of children who are not sinners yet. And many millions of children die before they can ever commit any sin. This accounts for the ninety-nine verses one ratio.

But no way is Jesus implying the Pharisees were righteous, even in their own minds.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is horrible interpretation of scripture. Jesus condemned the Pharisees. .

You need to read more carefully. I never said that Jesus said they were righteous. I said they believed they had no need of repentance as they did not view themselves as sinners.

The parable MOCKED them by showing that heaven rejoiceth over those who know they are sinners and repented rather than over those who saw themselves as never lost and never needing repentance. Jesus merely pictured them as they perceived themselves while picturing the publican's and sinners as they perceived themselves - sinners in need of repentance.

 

[The Biblicist]

You need to read more carefully. I never said that Jesus said they were righteous. I said they believed they had no need of repentance as they did not view themselves as sinners.

The parable MOCKED them by showing that heaven rejoiceth over those who know they are sinners and repented rather than over those who saw themselves as never lost and never needing repentance. Jesus merely pictured them as they perceived themselves while picturing the publican's and sinners as they perceived themselves - sinners in need of repentance.

This is the very exact same context when Jesus told the very same persons this:

Mr 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Not that there were any such people who are "righteous" without need of repentance but He presented them according to how they viewed themselves and said salvation is not for them or anyone like them because they never saw themselves as sinners or sick.

 

[Winman]

You need to read more carefully. I never said that Jesus said they were righteous. I said they believed they had no need of repentance as they did not view themselves as sinners.

The parable MOCKED them by showing that heaven rejoiceth over those who know they are sinners and repented rather than over those who saw themselves as never lost and never needing repentance. Jesus merely pictured them as they perceived themselves while picturing the publican's and sinners as they perceived themselves - sinners in need of repentance.

No, Jesus was not mocking the Pharisees. Jesus was showing the Pharisees that these "sinners" they despised were God's sheep and that God valued them very highly. If even one was lost, God would go out like a shepherd and seek that lost sheep. So much for Limited Atonement.

Now, it was Jesus himself who spoke of 99 sheep that did not go astray and needed no repentance.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

These 99 just persons which need no repentance do not match up with the Pharisees. First of all, there were not 99 Pharisees for every sinner in Israel. Second, Jesus never gave the Pharisees the impression they were just and needed no repentance.

Although parables are fiction, they still reflect genuine spiritual truths. I simply do not believe Jesus would speak of fictional persons that could not possibly exist if Original Sin is true.

No, I believe the 99 just persons represent children who have not sinned yet. This is supported in Matthew 18 where Jesus repeats this same parable speaking of little children.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Matthew 18 is all about little children. Jesus places a small child in the midst of his disciples and tells them they must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. Jesus said that these little children have angels who always behold his Father's face.

This is hardly describing horrible little sinners.

Then once again, Jesus repeats the parable of a shepherd with 100 sheep (none are lost). One goes astray and becomes lost, the shepherd searches until he recovers it. Then he repeats there is more joy over this lost sheep who is recovered than 99 sheep which WENT NOT ASTRAY.

Then Jesus clearly says it is not his Father's will that one of THESE LITTLE ONES should perish.

So, I believe there is strong scriptural evidence to show Jesus is speaking of little children when he speaks of the 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance.

 

[Winman]

This is the very exact same context when Jesus told the very same persons this:

Mr 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Not that there were any such people who are "righteous" without need of repentance but He presented them according to how they viewed themselves and said salvation is not for them or anyone like them because they never saw themselves as sinners or sick.

And that is where you are wrong. Little children who die before they can sin are righteous. They have not sinned. They are not lost, they have not gone astray.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Paul shows Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. If Original Sin were true, then Jacob and Esau would have actually sinned with Adam in his loins in the garden, and Paul could not say they had done no evil.

So Romans 9:11 refutes Original Sin. It also shows there are just persons who have not sinned as Jesus described in Luke 15. In fact, there are many billions of children who have died before they were born or shortly thereafter.

 

[The Biblicist]

And that is where you are wrong. Little children who die before they can sin are righteous. They have not sinned. They are not lost, they have not gone astray.

That is where you are wrong. Fig trees do not produce figs in order to become a fig tree but because they are a fig tree. Thistle bushes do not produce figs because they are not fig trees. Likewise, when children grow up and commit sinful acts, they do so not in order to be sinners by nature but because they are sinners by nature.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Paul shows Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. If Original Sin were true, then Jacob and Esau would have actually sinned with Adam in his loins in the garden, and Paul could not say they had done no evil.

They did not sin in the mother's womb because they were not capable of discerning right from wrong and committing willful acts of sin or willful acts of good, but the text does not say they were not sinners by nature in the mother's womb due to their union with Adam. They are sinners by nature and when they are able to discern right from wrong they do choose to sin because they ARE sinners BY NATURE. So Romans 9:11 does not refute Original Sin but only refutes foreseen faith as the basis for election.

 

[Skandelon]

This is what we see happening in Romans. Paul teaches on the one hand that NNE 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)?

Answer: There are TWO different kinds of 'righteousness' (goodness) being addressed. Romans 3:19-21 introduces that transition and Romans 9:30-32 spells is out very clearly...

Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Rom 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.​

Biblicist,
Please read this again and tell us which type of 'righteousness' (goodness) you want to address because thus far you have continued to confound the two making this discussion circular and meaningless. I'll make it as simple as I can by giving multiple choice. When you speak of man's "Goodness" or "Righteousness" are you referring to:

A. A righteousness that is pursued by faith.

or

B. A righteousness that is pursued by works of the law.​

Please answer A or B and then explain your answer. Thank you.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist,
Please read this again and tell us which type of 'righteousness' (goodness) you want to address because thus far you have continued to confound the two making this discussion circular and meaningless. I'll make it as simple as I can by giving multiple choice. When you speak of man's "Goodness" or "Righteousness" are you referring to:

A. A righteousness that is pursued by faith.

or

B. A righteousness that is pursued by works of the law.​

Please answer A or B and then explain your answer. Thank you.

Let me see if I can reword my previous response to your options as you obviously never read it or did not understand it because you made no response but merely repeated yourself.

Both of your options speak of a righteousness that must be "pursued" rather than one inherently inseparable from personal character already obtained. For example, the righteousness of God is not something God must pursue but something He already "IS" by inherent moral nature. God "IS" holy and God "IS" righteous and God "IS" love. Therefore, due to the causal nature of what God "IS" what He DOES is holy, righteous and loving.

Secondly, the Law merely reveals what God IS as causal for what God does as consequential. The law has nothing to do with obtaing his own inherent moral nature but only REVEALS it and reveals whether or not any moral creature measure up to it or comes short of it.

Thirdly, man IS a moral creature. HE "IS" either unrightous or righteous by NATURE. If he IS righteous by nature then what he DOES is righteous, holy and loving. If he IS unrighteous by nature then what he DOES is unrightoues, unholy and unloving. Can anyone bring out of an unclean thing something clean? "no not one." Can a tree that is "bad" by nature produce "good" fruit? No!

Fourthly, he need not persue righteousness if he IS righteous by nature. If he IS unrighteous by nature, then and only then, does pursuit of righteousness enter the picture.

Your "A" or "B" options are designed to completely ignore, if not deny the question of inherent moral nature as CASUAL for what God or any moral creature DOES, as what he DOES is consequential to NATURE. Your "A" or "B" options move the discussion to HOW unrighteous men persue and obtain righteousness. Do they "A" obtain it externally from another source - God - OR do they obtain it by consequential works originating from self?

So your options "A" or "B" come short of the whole Biblical perspective on righteousness and thus pervert/distort the conversation.

Let me repeat what I formerly said, God IS holy and therefore what He DOES is holy. God IS righteous and therefore what He DOES is righteous. God IS love and therefore what He DOES is loving. His moral nature is CAUSAL for what He DOES or His actions. You know this and admit this of God but can you admit this of any of his MORAL creatures? I think this is precisely what you are denying and want to skirt by your limitation to options "A" or "B" in regard to man. You want to speak about CONSEQUENTIAL righteousness as a matter of persuit rather than CAUSAL righteousness as a matter of NATURE.

Likewise, fallen man IS either righteous or unrightous by nature and therefore what he DOES corresponds to what he IS by nature. The Law only REVEALS what He IS by what He DOES. If he IS righteous, holy and love there is no need for persuit of righeousness. If he IS unrighteous, unholy and unloving then such righteousness can only be persued and obtained OUTSIDE of himself. The fact that such righteousness must be persued by faith demands that man IS by nature unrigheous, unholy and unloving. Thus, if fallen man IS unholy, unrighteous and unloving then ALL that he DOES is unholy, unrighteous and unloving or sinful in God's sight. Therefore, can a tree that is evil by nature bring forth "good" fruit??? The answer is NO! Can anyone bring "CLEAN" out of an UNCLEAN? The answer is NO!