What is "good" in God's sight?

[Skandelon]

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.

I read your response and you failed to address this CLEAR and UNDENIABLE BIBLICAL distinction between the "righteousness by law" and the "righteousness by faith". All you have to do is tell us which TYPE of righteousness you are addressing because thus far EVERYTHING you have said simply confounds these two views of righteousness by denying the clear distinction in the text that I have quoted for you numerous times.

Both of your options speak of a righteousness that must be "pursued" rather than one inherently inseparable from personal character already obtained.

First, these are NOT MY options, they are distinctions made by Paul. Second, you still didn't answer the question. Which of the TWO types of righteousness that PAUL, the apostle, identifies are you wanting to discuss? The righteousness by law or the righteousness by faith? After you tell us which one YOU want to address then we can move to the next part of our discussion, but you can't confound these two views of righteousness (goodness) and expect this discussion to make any sense.

For example, the righteousness of God is not something God must pursue but something He already "IS" by inherent moral nature.

Again, the word 'pursue' is not my word. It's Paul's. And we aren't talking about God's eternal immutable nature, we are talking about mans....as was Paul in the two passages I quoted...of which you have not addressed as of yet in your rebuttals.

Thirdly, man IS a moral creature. HE "IS" either unrightous or righteous by NATURE.

Then why does Paul speak of men's pursuit of righteousness? Moreover, why does he speak of men's ability to attain righteousness by faith as apposed to by works, if what you believe is true? That is what you are avoiding in this discussion. You are not avoiding MY WORDS, but Paul's...

 

[Skandelon]

Biblicist,

You seem to think that a man must be made righteous in order to pursue righteousness by faith, which is confounding. It's like saying you must bathe and get clean in order to want to be bathed and made clean. With all due respect, it's pure non-sense.

 

[The Biblicist]

I read your response and you failed to address this CLEAR and UNDENIABLE BIBLICAL distinction between the "righteousness by law" and the "righteousness by faith". All you have to do is tell us which TYPE of righteousness you are addressing because thus far EVERYTHING you have said simply confounds these two views of righteousness by denying the clear distinction in the text that I have quoted for you numerous times.

My oh my! Let me as blunt as possible. In regard to the doctrine of justification there are two options just as you clearly claim which are represented by "A" and "B" in your question. However, in regard to the topic of righteousness and unrighteousness both of these options fit within only ONE of two more general options that the Bible does address clearly and that Paul addresses clearly. The minor of these two more general options deals with consequences of pursuit of righteousness while the major of these two general options deal with the INHERENT CAUSE of righteousness and unrighteousness

You are intent upon limitng our discussion to only one option of these two more GENERAL options. You want to deal with CONSEQUENCES (pursuit of Justification A or B) whereas, I want to include ALL THE BIBLICAL DATA which demands the inclusion of the other option which is the MAJOR option that deals with CAUSE.

The bible does not limit the subject of righteousness to merely consequential pursuit or justification but deals also with the reason for that pursuit or the CAUSE found with and inherent in the moral nature of a being.

If I go along with your LIMITED DATA then the subject will be skewed from the beginning. This may be very clever on your part and a good debate tactic, but it is at the very least, ignoring more important Biblical data on this subject, if not at most, intentionally trying to skew the subject.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist,

You seem to think that a man must be made righteous in order to pursue righteousness by faith, which is confounding. It's like saying you must bathe and get clean in order to want to be bathed and made clean. With all due respect, it's pure non-sense.

Your question presumes your own position to be true, so it is like asking when are you going to stop beating your wife.

The Bible says that it is "with the heart" man believeth not merely with the mind. The "heart" includes the "desires" and "love" of the soul. You know very well what my position is, it is only with the "new" heart created in "righteousness and true holiness" that faith can originate from. Moreover, please don't distort my position by claiming I am putting a chronological order with regeneration first and conversion second as you know that is not my view. Just as with the Old Testament statement "turn us O Lord and we shall be turned" demonstrates they are simeltaneous actions with only a logical cause and effect relationship but the action of turning is not completed until the object is actually turned. Hence, there is no such thing as a regenerated unbeliever or an unregenerated believer. And yes, I can proivde the grammatical evidence and texts to support this interpertation and have already done so many times in the past.

 

[The Biblicist]

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!

It is more logical to deal with cause first rather than consequences as cause logically precedes consequences. It is more logical to deal with the cause for pursuit of righteousness than the methods and consequences for pursuit of righteousness. Above, I have laid out the problem of cause clearly. What a person IS morally determines what he DOES morally just as what God IS morally determies what He DOES morally. If a tree is "bad" by nature IT CANNOT produce "good" fruit without the nature being changed and none but God can change the moral nature of man as that is a creative act noted by Paul in the clear cause and effect relationship declared in the words "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" (Eph. 2:10). Note that the change necessary to produce "good" works is a creative act performed by God INTERNALLY within the spiritually dead elect (Eph. 2;1,6,8,10).

 

[Skandelon]

I don't have time right now to go through all of this, but the bottom line is that you seem to think the cause of being made righteous (being cleansed, made new, reborn, good) makes the effect of men wanting to pursue righteousness (being cleansed, made new, reborn, good), which is confounding.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't have time right now to go through all of this, but the bottom line is that you seem to think the cause of being made righteous (being cleansed, made new, reborn, good) makes the effect of men wanting to pursue righteousness (being cleansed, made new, reborn, good), which is confounding.

Yeah that would be confounding IF I really believed that. But since I don't believe that you can put that objection to rest. I gave you an Old Testament verse that clearly shows that the cause and effect relationship between regeneration and conversion are inseparable from each other in regard to time "turn us and we shall be turned." Of course, your whole position rests entirely upon denying that claim but demanding a strict chronological relationship. However, a common sense consideration of the words "turn us AND we shall be turned" shows identical action with only a logical order between cause and effect.

 

[Skandelon]

Look at the entire context of that passage and anyone can see it doesn't fit your interpretation:

16 This is what the LORD says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the LORD. "They will return from the land of the enemy. 17 So there is hope for your future," declares the LORD. "Your children will return to their own land. 18 "I have surely heard Ephraim's moaning: 'You disciplined me like an unruly calf, and I have been disciplined. Restore me, and I will return, because you are the LORD my God. 19 After I strayed, I repented; after I came to understand, I beat my breast. I was ashamed and humiliated because I bore the disgrace of my youth.' 20 Is not Ephraim my dear son, the child in whom I delight? Though I often speak against him, I still remember him. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I have great compassion for him," declares the LORD. 21 "Set up road signs; put up guideposts. Take note of the highway, the road that you take. Return, O Virgin Israel, return to your towns. 22 How long will you wander, O unfaithful daughter? The LORD will create a new thing on earth-- a woman will surround a man."

Clearly this is about a wayward or backslidden child, not one yet to become a child. Plus, for the child to say, "Restore me and I will return," suggests a willingness on his part to be cleansed PRIOR to his being cleansed. It would be like a rebellious child sending word back to his estranged father saying, "forgive me and I will come home."

 

[Skandelon]

Yeah that would be confounding IF I really believed that. But since I don't believe that you can put that objection to rest.

You said, "...he need not pursue righteousness if he IS righteous by nature. If he IS unrighteous by nature, then and only then, does pursuit of righteousness enter the picture."

That is exactly what I accused you of believing. You think someone has to be irresistibly made righteous in order to pursue righteousness, which is confounding. It's like saying that a parent has to forceable give his child a bath in order for the child to desire a bath.

One attains righteousness through FAITH, yet your dogma suggests one must attain righteousness in order to have faith. That is confounding and no doubt the reason that even Calvinists disagree with each other regarding this point in their system.

 

[Yeshua1]

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:

God views good works in realtionship to salvation as ANY of them we do before salvation as evil deeds, as they do not qualify asbeing done by His perfect standards, ONLY Jesus works were acceptable in themselves as 'good" before God!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.



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.

We are sinners because of our natures, before we choose to even sin!

 

[Yeshua1]

Biblicist,

You seem to think that a man must be made righteous in order to pursue righteousness by faith, which is confounding. It's like saying you must bathe and get clean in order to want to be bathed and made clean. With all due respect, it's pure non-sense.

he is saying we must be made right in sight of God, BEFORE we have acceptable good works in His sight!

 

[Skandelon]

he is saying we must be made right in sight of God, BEFORE we have acceptable good works in His sight!

Sorry, that's not what he said...

Paul said that they PURSUED RIGHTEOUSNESS either by works or by faith. Calvinists think they have to be made righteous (given a new nature which is 'good') in order to pursue righteousness, which is confounding.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry, that's not what he said...

Paul said that they PURSUED RIGHTEOUSNESS either by works or by faith. Calvinists think they have to be made righteous (given a new nature which is 'good') in order to pursue righteousness, which is confounding.

No one seeks to do good is what Apostle paul stated, do you agree with him?

 

[Skandelon]

No one seeks to do good is what Apostle paul stated, do you agree with him?

Pauls said, "No one is righteous...no one is good." Which means that no one has or ever will attain righteousness by works of the law. NO one will ever merit their salvation by law. It says NOTHING about man's inability to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled from that fallen condition.

 

[The Biblicist]

You said, "...he need not pursue righteousness if he IS righteous by nature. If he IS unrighteous by nature, then and only then, does pursuit of righteousness enter the picture."

That is exactly what I accused you of believing. You think someone has to be irresistibly made righteous in order to pursue righteousness, which is confounding. It's like saying that a parent has to forceable give his child a bath in order for the child to desire a bath.

Lets take it one statement at a time. "he need not pursue righteousness if he IS righteous by nature." You don't pursue what you ARE - it is oxymoronic to do so.

Secondly, "If he IS unrighteous by nature, then and only then does pursuit of righteousness enter the picture." If he is UNrighteous BY NATURE, then he is wholly without righteousness and in need of it.

At this point is where you options "A" or "B" come into view. If he IS UNrighteous by nature then an "evil" tree CANNOT produce "good" fruit = righteousness; something "clean" (righteousness) cannot come out of an UNclean thing; therefore it is also oxymoronic that justification can be accomplished by your own works which are nothing less than products of an UNrighteous nature. Hence, righteousness cannot originate from anything you ARE by nature and thus it must originate from a source OUTSIDE of yourself that "IS" righteous by nature.

How then does something "UNCLEAN" = "UNRIGHTEOUS" = "BAD" by nature produce "good" = "righteousness"? The only Biblical answer is that it must be "CREATED in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" - Eph. 2:10. Thus an EXTERNAL source of POWER and of RIGHTEOUSNESS must change your NATURE from "unclean" to "clean" and from "unrighteous" to "righteous" and from "sinful" to "holy" and thus the "new" heart is "CREATED in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24/Col. 3:10) and it is with this created righteous nature - or "new" heart that faith originates within us as "with the heart man believeth."

Now, concerning your argument based upon CHRONOLOGICAL rationale, the new birth and conversion are simletaneous in action or in the words of the prophet "turn us O God and we shall be turned" and thus God doing the turning is the cause but if God turns we are BEING turned" so only God's power (turning us) is the cause that logical precedes conversion "be turned".

One attains righteousness through FAITH,

Yes, "THROUGH" faith NOT BECAUSE OF faith but "through" like a pipe is used "through" which water flows thus demanding simeltaneously the coexistence of both the pipe and water flowing in the pipe at one and the same time. In salvation terms, faith is the pipe, whereas the water is the creative saving power of God.
In terms of process, some appointed instrument brings the gospel UNTO the elect in word only. At that appointed time, the Holy Spirit empowers or takes up residence in the word as His creative word making the transition of the gospel from UNTO him to INTO his heart. At this point, the CREATIVE power of the Holy Spirit has the heart for its object of creativity which brings into existence within the heart the very "substance" of faith or what Paul calls the "Light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ.' The "light of the knowledge of God IN THE FACE OF Jesus Christ" refers to inner experiential revelation "of God" within the DARKENED heart. This inner revelatory knowledge consists of revealing God "in the face of" Jesus Christ or to say it another way, God is revealed in the redemptive Person and work of Jesus Christ as proclaimed in the gospel. This "light" expels and replaces the darkness of unbelief as does light from a light bulb expells and replaces darkness in a room.

Thus the very creative word (empowered gospel) that produces the substance of faith (hope of the gospel) in the heart is also the very object of that created faith in the heart. The "substance" of that faith IS salvation as presented in the gospel. Hence, the gospel comes not in "word only" but "IN POWER" and "IN THE SPIRIT" as a creative word producing a new believing heart, and thus it also comes simeltaneously "IN MUCH ASSURANCE" as it creates the very "substance" of faith or the "hope" of salvation expressed in the gospel. Therefore, the pipe (faith) is simeltaneous with the flowing water of life (Salvation by the creative word of the Gospel).

yet your dogma suggests one must attain righteousness in order to have faith. That is confounding and no doubt the reason that even Calvinists disagree with each other regarding this point in their system.

The created righteous heart is different than "imputed" righteousness obtained by faith. The first is IMPARTED by a creative act of God that produces the substance of faith while the latter is IMPUTED due to faith. The former makes us a "child" of God whereas the latter provides us legal status as a "son" of God. The former gives us SPIRITUAL life whereas the latter provides us "eternal life" as a Legal bestowment. The former changes our moral nature while the latter changes our legal position before God.

Righteousness created in the "new" heart is different than "imputed" righteousness as a product of faith.

 

[Skandelon]

Righteousness created in the "new" heart is different than "imputed" righteousness as a product of faith.

Wow. Whatever it takes to keep the dream alive, huh?

 

[The Biblicist]

Wow. Whatever it takes to keep the dream alive, huh?

As a Calvinist were you never taught the difference between IMPARTED versus IMPUTED righteousness??? The former requires an act of creation as in Ephesians 4:24 "CREATED in righteousness and true holiness" whereas the former is FORENSIC righteousness that is IMPUTED. These are very simple and clear Biblical distinctions. I am surprised that as a former "calvinist" you are completey unaware of imparted versus imputed righteousness???

 

[Skandelon]

As a Calvinist were you never taught the difference between IMPARTED versus IMPUTED righteousness??? The former requires an act of creation as in Ephesians 4:24 "CREATED in righteousness and true holiness" whereas the former is FORENSIC righteousness that is IMPUTED. These are very simple and clear Biblical distinctions. I am surprised that as a former "calvinist" you are completey unaware of imparted versus imputed righteousness???

I'm not sure you even have full grasp of what some Calvinists teach:

"The best place to look in the Scriptures for a theological grasp of the language of justification is Romans 3:28-5:21. Within the first 12 verses of chapter 4 you might notice the prevalence of the verb “count.” Eight times in twelve verses Paul uses the Greek word logizomai and applies it to the means of faith by which both Abraham and other believers are justified before God. A quick survey of English translations finds the following words used to translate logizomai. The ESV, which we use at The Village Church, has “counted” as does the NLT. The NASB and NIV have the word “credited” whereas the ASV has “reckoned.” All of these stress the same nuance of being “considered” righteous. What Paul is saying is not that Abraham actually became righteous by faith, but rather that Abraham was considered, counted, or reckoned as righteous, that the righteousness of God was credited to his account, and that therefore Abraham (and those who are like him in faith), was “declared righteous.” Paul is not writing that we are transformed into people who possess righteousness, but rather that we have been united to Christ and because of our union with Him (the emphasis of Romans 5), we have that which He possesses, that is, righteousness. We are in Christ and thus what is His is credited to our account. Here is how John Piper expresses the difference between the two terms:

"Imputation" is different from "impartation." God does "impart" to us gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit, so that we have them and they are in us growing and they are ours. But all of that gracious impartation through the Spirit is built on an even more firm foundation, namely, imputation - the work of God outside of us: God's own righteousness, not imparted to us, but imputed to us. Credited to us, as Romans 4:6 and 11 say. Put to our account. Reckoned to be ours. - John Piper​

Piper has imputation coming first, then the impartation of gifts and fruits, but you have it the opposite, as you said, "The first is IMPARTED by a creative act of God that produces the substance of faith while the latter is IMPUTED due to faith."

Like most Calvinistic obfuscations even those within the ranks can't fully follow all their twists and turns.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not sure you even have full grasp of what some Calvinists teach:

You quote one particular person and think that Piper is the standard for all Calvinists? Calvinist differ on many things. However, Piper is not disagreeing with me at all. He is not even referring to imparted "righteousness" but rather imparted "gifts" and "fruits" of the Spirit. Gifts and fruits of the Spirit are "imparted" through the new nature within us. However, the new creature within us was not "imputed" but "created." So you really don't understand the person you are quoting.