What is "good" in God's sight?

[The Biblicist]

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

This exactly what I am saying. One must first be "created" in Christ Jesus, which is the impartation of righteousness by a creative act of God BEFORE they can DESIRE or DO works of righteousness. Lost people do not righteously pursue righteousness because they have NO HEART for righteousness and their pursuit is for SELF-JUSTIFICATION which is disobedience to God's Word.

Paul said that they PURSUED RIGHTEOUSNESS either by works or by faith.

The pursuit of righteousness by works is not a God given desire but is disobedience to God and a clear rejection of Jesus Christ and thus a sinful desire and act. So Paul is not approving that desire or pursuit but merely declaring that is what they are doing and condemning it.

Calvinists think they have to be made righteous (given a new nature which is 'good') in order to pursue righteousness, which is confounding.

That is precisely what Paul is teaching in Ephesians 2:10. No lost person pursues righteousness ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL but in defiance of His revealed will as a matter of SELF-JUSTIFICATION. Only the person FIRST created in Christ Jesus "UNTO" good works has the proper motive and desire to pursue the righteousness of God ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL.

 

[The Biblicist]

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."

The translation you have chosen is not consistent with the Hebrew Text. The very same word translated "restore" is the same word translated "return." Thus the KJV presents a more consistent translation "turn me and I shall be turned."

Second, initial repentance begins a life long practice of repentance and so the priniciples found in initial repentance characterize the continuance of repentance. Just as, "for it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure" characterizes initial salvation it characteries the continuing work of salvation in the life of the believer.

Third, this is a child of God under discipline as you assessed who already has the new nature with the desire to please God but this is the confession of INABILITY to turn unless God does the turning.

Fourth, you rightly have stated that the desire to be turned preceded turning by the chastened person, so also, in initial salvation God first creates the desire (new heart) which LOGICALLY precedes the act of turning.

Thus the DESIRE is created (new heart) and does not originate from the fallen nature but from the new heart which LOGICALLY precedes conversion. The child of God in the continuing process of repentance after initial repentance acknowledges TOTAL INABILITY to turn apart from God first initiating it.

 

[Skandelon]

The translation you have chosen is not consistent with the Hebrew Text

No, its not consistent with your systematic view of scripture:

ESV: "...bring me back that I may be restored, for you are the LORD my God..."

Holman: "Restore me, and I will return, for you, Lord, are my God."

NAS: "Bring me back that I may be restored, For You are the LORD my God"

NIV: "Restore me, and I will return, because you are the LORD my God."

NRS: "Bring me back, let me come back, for you are the Lord my God."

NKJV: "Restore me, and I will return, For You are the Lord my God."

And the list goes on and on...I'll let you take it up with the hundreds of linguistic scholars who differ with your perspective...

 

[Skandelon]

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.

So you start by inferring Piper doesn't represent your view (i.e 'you think Piper is the standard for all Calvinists...CAlvinist differ on many things'), then change to defending your position as being in perfect alignment with Piper, then blame me for not understanding Piper. So, which is it?

Piper taught one is first imputed with righteousness and upon that foundation they are imparted with gifts and fruits of righteousness. You argued that impartation was FIRST and by it men have faith, then are imputed with Christ's righteousness.

Which is it? I agree that Calvinists disagree with each other, but you seem to be disagreeing and agreeing with him at the same time.

 

[Skandelon]

This exactly what I am saying. One must first be "created" in Christ Jesus, which is the impartation of righteousness by a creative act of God BEFORE they can DESIRE or DO works of righteousness. Lost people do not righteously pursue righteousness because they have NO HEART for righteousness and their pursuit is for SELF-JUSTIFICATION which is disobedience to God's Word.

So, do you believe that our broken humiliation, by which we cry out to God to rescue us, trusting only in Him because we have no other hope, is a 'meritorious work of righteousness?'

Could it be that our broken humiliation is just that and nothing more, and God graciously CHOOSES (only because of his goodness) to credit righteousness to those who humble themselves and ask for it? Does asking for forgiveness have to merit being forgiven in your mind? Does God owe forgiveness to those who humbly ask for it? Do you really believe that humiliation earns God's favor because humility somehow carries a value of sorts in and of itself? OR could it be that the value is God's grace because HE CHOSE to grace the humble. Could it just be that God give grace to the humble because HE IS GOOD, not because of the 'goodness' of humiliation and brokenness in us???? Could that be?

 

[The Biblicist]

No, its not consistent with your systematic view of scripture:

ESV: "...bring me back that I may be restored, for you are the LORD my God..."

Holman: "Restore me, and I will return, for you, Lord, are my God."

NAS: "Bring me back that I may be restored, For You are the LORD my God"

NIV: "Restore me, and I will return, because you are the LORD my God."

NRS: "Bring me back, let me come back, for you are the Lord my God."

NKJV: "Restore me, and I will return, For You are the Lord my God."

And the list goes on and on...I'll let you take it up with the hundreds of linguistic scholars who differ with your perspective...

ASV: "turn thou me, and I shall be turned;"

AV: "turn you me, and I shall be turned;"

Darby: "turn thou me, and I shall be turned;"

Calvin's Bible: "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned,"

Douray: "Convert me, and I shall be converted,"

JB: "turn thou me, and I shall be turned;"

Leeser: "Cause me to return, and I will return;

Webster: "turn thou me, and I shall be turned;"

Young's: "Turn me back, and I turn back,"

And the list goes on.........! So don't give me that line of logic that all scholars agree with your choice of translation.

Moreover, anyone can look at the Hebrew text and see it is the EXACT SAME WORD translated "turn" that is translated "turned." The first is found in the imperative mode while the second is imperfect in tense. So there is no excuse to translate them by different words unless a theological bias is in play?????

 

[The Biblicist]

So you start by inferring Piper doesn't represent your view (i.e 'you think Piper is the standard for all Calvinists...CAlvinist differ on many things'), then change to defending your position as being in perfect alignment with Piper, then blame me for not understanding Piper. So, which is it?

First, Calvinists do not agree on every point.

Second, Piper's quote does not agree with your use of it.

Third, You know very well that Piper and every other Calvinist teach that regenerative righteousness (new heart) proceeds both imputed righteousness and gifts and fruits of the Spirit so play this silly game.

Will you claim that Piper denies that conversion is the fruit of regeneration?????

 

[Skandelon]

And the list goes on.........! So don't give me that line of logic that all scholars agree with your choice of translation.

You don't find it a bit contradictory that the agent making this request is willing to make the request given that God has yet to 'turn him?'

:applause:

 

[The Biblicist]

So, do you believe that our broken humiliation, by which we cry out to God to rescue us, trusting only in Him because we have no other hope, is a 'meritorious work of righteousness?'

You can't be serious??? Do you understand that little of the Calvinistic position to ask such a question??? We believe that "repentance" is inseparable from "faith" and both are fruits of regeneration and you know that. So obviously, we do not believe that repentance is a "meritorious work of righteousness."

 

[Skandelon]

You don't find it a bit contradictory that the agent making this request is willing to make the request given that God has yet to 'turn him?'

:applause:

I know, I know, God has to impart on him a willingness to turn for him to ask for God to turn him so that God will impute an irresistible turning after he asks for the turning that God made him want to ask for...

Again, do you guys have a decoder ring of some kind? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

You can't be serious??? Do you understand that little of the Calvinistic position to ask such a question??? We believe that "repentance" is inseparable from "faith" and both are fruits of regeneration and you know that. So obviously, we do not believe that repentance is a "meritorious work of righteousness."

Ok, allow me to reword that...are you under the impression that repentance done as a free responsible act (as in our system) somehow merits or earns forgiveness and eternal life? If so, why? On what basis do you draw that conclusion?

 

[The Biblicist]

I know, I know, God has to impart on him a willingness to turn for him to ask for God to turn him so that God will impute an irresistible turning after he asks for the turning that God made him want to ask for...

Again, do you guys have a decoder ring of some kind? :smilewinkgrin:

Follow your own interpretation! He is speaking as a saved man not a lost man. Hence, he already has the new heart that desires what God desires but he does not have THE ABILITY and this is admission of TOTAL INABILITY to turn himself. If a saved man is TOTALLY UNABLE to turn himself, then how much more a unregenerated man????

Second, in the initial act of salvation the desire comes first because it is CREATED by God (new heart) = created righteous heart = as "desire" is a "heart" attribute. Thus "with the heart" (new heart) man beleiveth by CALLING UPON the name of the Lord and is justified = imputed righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok, allow me to reword that...are you under the impression that repentance done as a free responsible act (as in our system) somehow merits or earns forgiveness and eternal life? If so, why? On what basis do you draw that conclusion?

Since your system is not Biblical but antibiblical in regard to salvation, then that kind of repentance would be Biblically termed "worldly sorrow" and is of the flesh - 2 Cor. 7:10

 

[Skandelon]

First, Calvinists do not agree on every point.

Clearly. In fact, I'd argue that many of them disagree on many key points of the dogma.

Second, Piper's quote does not agree with your use of it.

I never said otherwise. I was just pointing out why rebuking me for not understanding 'Calvinism's' wide range of perspectives and nuances is not unique to me, as even you would be at odds with some within your own camp.

Third, You know very well that Piper and every other Calvinist teach that regenerative righteousness (new heart) proceeds both imputed righteousness and gifts and fruits of the Spirit so play this silly game.

Not the point. The point was to rebut your rebuke of me for not understanding something that even Calvinists differ on.

In other words, drop the condescension and I won't be forced to point out these nuances within your convoluted worldview.

 

[Skandelon]

Since your system is not Biblical but antibiblical in regard to salvation, then that kind of repentance would be Biblically termed "worldly sorrow" and is of the flesh - 2 Cor. 7:10

If you are going to presume our system then presume IT, and not the straw-man. We believe humility and repentance is exactly what scripture says it is even if is an actual free response of man...so you still haven't answered the question. You've only straw-manned us..

 

[The Biblicist]

Clearly. In fact, I'd argue that many of them disagree on many key points of the dogma.

Just like Armnians even are more varied (pelagians, semi-pelagians, non-calvinists, etc.).

I never said otherwise. I was just pointing out why rebuking me for not understanding 'Calvinism's' wide range of perspectives and nuances is not unique to me, as even you would be at odds with some within your own camp.

My only point was that quoting a SINGLE authority in attempt to deny my position was Calvinistic is absurd as I can find SINGLE arminian authorities to overturn any point you express.

In other words, drop the condescension and I won't be forced to point out these nuances within your convoluted worldview.

Not too long ago, although I did not make any return comment, you spoke in a very condescending manner to me. I simply ignored the condescending remark and provided evidence your point was wrong. I think your remark began with "no disrespect BUT" what I said was "absolute nonsense." It is difficult to know if a condenscending tone is behind much of your words but many times it appears that way many times.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you are going to presume our system then presume IT, and not the straw-man. We believe humility and repentance is exactly what scripture says it is even if is an actual free response of man...so you still haven't answered the question. You've only straw-manned us..

You asked my opinion not your opinion of your position, as a theological position. Of course you do not see your position as I see it.

 

[Skandelon]

Follow your own interpretation! He is speaking as a saved man not a lost man

Which itself brings into question your initial application of this passage since we were discussion the unregenerate becoming regenerate, not the regenerate expressing his need for God's help to recover from his backslidden state.

Hence, he already has the new heart that desires what God desires but he does not have THE ABILITY and this is admission of TOTAL INABILITY to turn himself.

What do you mean by 'turn himself?' Do you mean the desire to be helped by God to be turned? Or do you mean the ability to forgive and restore himself? Because the first is clearly pre-existent given he is making the request and the second is only something God could do and would do upon THAT request.

Second, in the initial act of salvation the desire comes first because it is CREATED by God

Faith comes by hearing, so in that since you are correct. They can't desire something unless the know of it. They can't choose to follow someone they haven't heard of as Paul clearly explains in Romans 10.

 

[Skandelon]

You asked my opinion not your opinion of your position, as a theological position. Of course you do not see your position as I see it.

A supposition is to suppose something IS true. I asked you to suppose OUR position is true and then answer that question under that supposition. Instead you supposed your straw-man was true and replied accordingly.

Does someone who asks for forgiveness, even if they are asking 'freely', deserve to be forgiven? In your eyes, does asking for forgiveness, in our system, merit one not only being forgiven but given eternal life in glory with God? Do you think the request itself is so valuable, so meritorious in and of itself that it earns eternal life?

 

[Skandelon]

Just like Armnians even are more varied (pelagians, semi-pelagians, non-calvinists, etc.).

So, you'd be okay to be lumped in with anti-evangelistic hyper Calvinists or other heretical sects of your position? If not, then don't do that to me. I was referencing mainstream scholars differences on valid points within your system.

My only point was that quoting a SINGLE authority in attempt to deny my position was Calvinistic is absurd

I wasn't attempting to deny your point was 'Calvinistic.' I was attempting to debunk your accusation against me for not understanding your convoluted and ever diverse systematic soteriology.

It is difficult to know if a condenscending tone is behind much of your words but many times it appears that way many times.

I'm not addressing a 'tone' but an actual accusation. You accused me of not understanding or being 'taught' something that you acted as if was clear cut and universally accepted position of your system.