What is "good" in God's sight?

[The Biblicist]

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.

No, you did not ask me to 'suppose" as here are your words from Post #85

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?' - Skandelon - Post #85

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism covers large segments of varied explanations and that is my point. Nevertheless, quoting ONE person to accuse my position as not in line with Calvinists is simply absurd.

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.

And I was right! You did not prove it! Piper does not reject or deny that regenerative righteousness precedes imputed righteousness. He is speaking about the relationship of "gifts" and "fruits" that he and I both agree follow initial conversion and are worked out of the newly created new man by the Holy Spirit. He is not addressing the relationship between regeneration and what it is versus imputed righteousness and what it is BUT he is addressing the relationship of Post-salvation "gifts" and "fruit" to imputed righteousness.


In order to prove that Piper or any othe Calvinist disagrees with me, you must show he believes that regeneration and what it constitutes follows imputed rightousness and YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT.

 

[The Biblicist]

Both Calvinism and Arminianism covers large segments of varied explanations and that is my point. Nevertheless, quoting ONE person to accuse my position as not in line with Calvinists is simply absurd.





And I was right! You did not prove it! Piper does not reject or deny that regenerative righteousness precedes imputed righteousness. He is speaking about the relationship of "gifts" and "fruits" that he and I both agree follow initial conversion and are worked out of the newly created new man by the Holy Spirit. He is not addressing the relationship between regeneration and what it is versus imputed righteousness and what it is BUT he is addressing the relationship of Post-salvation "gifts" and "fruit" to imputed righteousness.


In order to prove that Piper or any othe Calvinist disagrees with me, you must show he believes that regeneration and what it constitutes follows imputed rightousness and YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT.

However, we are both off track. The OP has to do with what is "good" in God's sight. Good is defined by God's own moral nature or what God "IS" and everything less than what God "IS" is the definition of what sin IS - COMING SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. The Law only reveals what God "IS".

Your problem is that fallen man "IS" not what God "IS" morally! As Jesus told the rich young ruler "There is NONE GOOD but ONE and that IS God." However, the Rich Young Ruler believed that he himself was "agathos" or intrinsically as "good" as God and so Christ directed him to the Ten Commandments as the written STANDARD of what God "IS" morally. The rich young man then vocalized He was as "Good" as the Law required and so Jesus then put his confession to the practical test saying "IF thou wilt be PERFECT" (as he probably IGNORANTLY claimed) then go sell all your riches or all those things he DEPENDED ON TO SUSTAIN HIM in this world, give the money to the Poor (practical obedience to the second part of the decalogue) and then come and follow me (complete dependence on Christ by faith - or the practical obedience to the first part of the decalogue).

He WOULD NOT do it and Jesus said it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to do that as the real problem is RICH IN SELF-WORTH - SELF-DEPENDENCE and not really a matter of external riches as they only MANIFEST the true riches in SELF-CENTEREDNESS. Hence, there "IS" none good and "IS" refers to the STATE OF BEING rather than consequential actions. Jesus told his own disciples they could "DO NOTHING" without him that is acceptable before God and they were believers. The fallen man can DO nothing Good in God's sight because of what fallen man "IS" - he comes short of the glory of God in regard to what he IS morally and thus he IS sinful by nature and an evil tree CANNOT bring forth "good" fruit any more than a thistle bush can bring forth figs or a thorn bush can bring forth grapes.

 

[Winman]

However, we are both off track. The OP has to do with what is "good" in God's sight. Good is defined by God's own moral nature or what God "IS" and everything less than what God "IS" is the definition of what sin IS - COMING SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. The Law only reveals what God "IS".

Your problem is that fallen man "IS" not what God "IS" morally! As Jesus told the rich young ruler "There is NONE GOOD but ONE and that IS God." However, the Rich Young Ruler believed that he himself was "agathos" or intrinsically as "good" as God and so Christ directed him to the Ten Commandments as the written STANDARD of what God "IS" morally. The rich young man then vocalized He was as "Good" as the Law required and so Jesus then put his confession to the practical test saying "IF thou wilt be PERFECT" (as he probably IGNORANTLY claimed) then go sell all your riches or all those things he DEPENDED ON TO SUSTAIN HIM in this world, give the money to the Poor (practical obedience to the second part of the decalogue) and then come and follow me (complete dependence on Christ by faith - or the practical obedience to the first part of the decalogue).

He WOULD NOT do it and Jesus said it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to do that as the real problem is RICH IN SELF-WORTH - SELF-DEPENDENCE and not really a matter of external riches as they only MANIFEST the true riches in SELF-CENTEREDNESS. Hence, there "IS" none good and "IS" refers to the STATE OF BEING rather than consequential actions. Jesus told his own disciples they could "DO NOTHING" without him that is acceptable before God and they were believers. The fallen man can DO nothing Good in God's sight because of what fallen man "IS" - he comes short of the glory of God in regard to what he IS morally and thus he IS sinful by nature and an evil tree CANNOT bring forth "good" fruit any more than a thistle bush can bring forth figs or a thorn bush can bring forth grapes.

Who said anything about man being good? Not me, I have quoted Mat 7:11 and Luk 11:13 half a dozen times now. Do these scriptures say man is good? NO! They say man is evil.

Nevertheless, man is able to do individual good things. A man can truly love his family and take care of them. This is good. A man can tell the truth, this is good. A man can return a lost wallet because he believes that is what God wants him to do, that is good.

And men can believe the gospel. This is good, but it does not merit salvation. Only when he believes on Jesus as God commanded God imputes righteousness to that person.

You are either confused or you simply do not understand my point. I am not trying to prove man is good. There is no man that is good. I am trying to prove that man can DO good, which scripture says he can.

Cain was evil, we know he died lost. But God implied he had the ability to do good, and that if he did good and gave a proper sacrifice it would be accepted.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Do you deny that God implied Cain could do well, and that if he did so he would be accepted?

Yes or no?

 

[Skandelon]

No, you did not ask me to 'suppose" as here are your words from Post #85

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?' - Skandelon - Post #85

Keep reading...post #91

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?

 

[Skandelon]

And I was right! You did not prove it! Piper does not reject or deny that regenerative righteousness precedes imputed righteousness.

This is getting a bit far fetched, don't you think? You are now even resorting to having to change the terms from 'imparted righteousness' to 'regenerative righteousness' to make it work for you. Clearly Piper said that imparted righteousness (fruit and gifts) was built on the foundation of imputed righteousness. You two simply approach this differently as you already acknowledged in your initial reply. So what? Who cares if you and Piper differ a bit? Right? That was your initial argument.

Showing that you take a different approach is only significant in that you accused me of not understanding Calvinism as if this perspective is so widely known and accepted by all Calvinists that anyone who doesn't know it deserves your belittling ridicule. You messed up. Just own it and move on.

I could challenge you to produce several other Calvinistic scholars who approach your perspective of imparting vs. imputing righteousness in the exact same way you do...if I really cared all that much.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is getting a bit far fetched, don't you think? You are now even resorting to having to change the terms from 'imparted righteousness' to 'regenerative righteousness' to make it work for you.

Piper does not believe that imputed righteousness occurs before regeneration and he does not believe that regeneration is imputed righteousness. He does believe that regeneration is being "created in Christ Jesus" and he does believe that this creative work is being described in Ephesians 4:24 "created IN RIGHTEOUSNESS and true holiness." He does believe this CREATED inward man is created in righteousness and thus imparted by the Spirit of God to the person of the elect whereas justification provides only a LEGAL POSITIONAL righteousness before God. So there is no disagreement between us.

Clearly Piper said that imparted righteousness (fruit and gifts) was built on the foundation of imputed righteousness.

You are twisting his words. Both of us believe technically that the "gifts" and "fruits" of the Spirit which are manifested in post-saved life of the believer by his works are manifested after having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith. Both of us equally believe that the SOURCE of these "fruits" and "gifts" are from the new created man or the regenerated new man from which they are imparted into our lives. Neither of us believe that the SOURCE of these "fruits" or "gifts" is "imputed righteousness."

You two simply approach this differently as you already acknowledged in your initial reply. So what? Who cares if you and Piper differ a bit? Right? That was your initial argument.

No, that was not my initial argument but your complete misunderstanding of what I said. I only objected to making ONE SOURCE the rule for all Calvinists - period. I further went on to deny we differed at all on this point but that supposed difference was purely imaginary on your part as you have misunderstood and misrepresented what Piper was actually saying. I challenged you to prove that Piper believed that regeneration and justification were either one and the same or that justification occurs bef ore regeneration. You know you can't meet that challenge and so you divert, pick, and further distort both of us.

If you really had a point, you could show that Piper believes justification occurs prior to regeneration but you know he does not believe that and so you just invent things to nip and pick at.

I could challenge you to produce several other Calvinistic scholars who approach your perspective of imparting vs. imputing righteousness in the exact same way you do...if I really cared all that much.

No problem! All you have to do is show how they define what regeneration is in contrast to what justification is -period - end of story. I am surprised that as a former professed Calvinist that you don't understand the calvinistic position on regeneration and what it is??? It is a very simple thing to show that Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10 and Ephesians 2:10 are all interpreted by Calvinists as descriptive of regeneration as a creative work imparts righteousness in the form of a NEW INWARD MAN. That is so elementary of Calvinist interpretation it is utterly dumbfounding that you stumble at that point and even challenge it as a Calvinistic interpretation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Keep reading...post #91

My response was not to post #91 but to post #85. Neither does post #91 even mention the word "suppose" or "supposition" or any other such idea:

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? - Skandelon #91

 

[The Biblicist]

Regeneration is an INTERNAL "washing" - Tit. 3:5! The implication is the removal of spiritual filth = sin. It is an internal cleansing. It is the creation of "righteousness and true holiness". It is the creation of a new inward man that IS righteous. That is not justification. Justification refers to righteousness that is EXTERNAL to our person and is LEGALLY IMPUTED before God as our POSITION. It is not the IMPARTING of righteousness to our person. Sanctification has its source in regeneration or the impartation of a righeous and holy nature whichs is progressively worked out into our daily lives. The new inward man is not due to IMPUTATION of righteous but it is IMPARTED by the power of the Holy Spirit within us - a created righteous nature in us. This should be elementary! It should be elementary that imparted righteous from the Spirit of God to our Person is not imputed righteousness or our LEGAL POSITION IN HEAVEN. Imparted righteous is INTERNAL whereas imputed righteousness is EXTERNAL to our Person.

 

[Luke2427]

Ec 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Isa 64:6 ¶ But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

We all agree that even the most wicked of men can do RELATIVE good. We all agree that the born again child of God under the leadership and power of the Holy Spirit can do good in God's sight. However, what does God require from the lost man to do "good" by His definition of "good"?

1. Is "good" defined merely by EXTERNAL conformity to God's Law - Pharisees

2. Is "good" defined by INTERNAL and EXTERNAL conformity to God's Law? Does God weigh the heart to judge the actions?

3. What is required for INTERNAL conformity to God's Law? Right heart/motive?

4. Is 1 Cor. 10:31 a command? If so, can lost people keep it?

5. Is God's standard for "good" for individual acts any different than his standard for "good" for justification if the rule of James 2:10-11 is applied? In other words, does violating one command violate all commands as a general rule and thus to keep one command is to keep all commands? What underlying principle is demanded by this rule?

6. Can an act of obedience be judged as "good" if it is not done out of "love"? Are unloving words and actions sin/evil?

7. What is God's definition of "love"?

Numbers 4 and 6 are really the issue in my opnion.

Another thought to add to that is "without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God."

Since part of God's attribute of goodness is that real good PLEASES him then we can assume that every single human being on earth who is not placing faith in Jesus Christ as Lord NEVER DOES ANY GOOD WHATSOEVER.

The problem with guys like Winman is that they have a very trashy definition of "good."

They do not see "good" as God sees it. They judge "good" the exact same way an atheist judges "good." An atheist argues that God cannot be good if he is not good to him (the atheist) all of the time since he (the atheist) is good. The atheist knows he and other atheists are "good" because they do many very "good" things. Winman would agree with them.

But the Bible (which almost always stands at odds with Winman and the atheists he defends ) says that good is measured first vertically (man to God) or it does not count horizontally (man to man).

Good works that do not glorify our Father in heaven are not good works- period.

Sinners do not do good- period.

Even their plowing is wicked according to the Bible.

 

[The Biblicist]

Who said anything about man being good? Not me, I have quoted Mat 7:11 and Luk 11:13 half a dozen times now. Do these scriptures say man is good? NO! They say man is evil.

You are claiming that "clean" can come out of something "unclean" and Job says "not one" can DO this!

You are claiming that a thorn bush can produces figs and Jesus says that is impossible.

You are claiming that "without me" (Christ) even the lost can produced "good" fruit whereas Jesus tells his own disicples they "can do nothing" in producing "good" fruit.

You are claiming that "good" in God's sight is possible from an unclean heart with a wrong motive and there is no other right motive but in all that you DO, YOU DO FOR THE GLORY OF GOD and anything less is coming "short of the glory of God" which is the basic definition of sin.

God's word tells how a man is to take care of his family and it is not merely providing external things but he has a spiritual duty to raise up his children in the "admonition of the Lord" and love his wife "as Christ loved the church" as that is fundemental in the institution of Marriage as God purposed it and thus the duty of all husbands regardless of their spiritual state.

You define "good" just like the pharisees define "good" - external conformation regardless of internal motive.

 

[Winman]

You are claiming that "clean" can come out of something "unclean" and Job says "not one" can DO this!

No I am not. I am not claiming that man is good or clean.

You are claiming that a thorn bush can produces figs and Jesus says that is impossible.

This is where scripture shows you wrong. Jesus showed men have both the option and ability to determine what kind of tree they are.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

A man can choose to do good or bad.

You are claiming that "without me" (Christ) even the lost can produced "good" fruit whereas Jesus tells his own disicples they "can do nothing" in producing "good" fruit.

I have never said any such thing. When Cornelius did good, he was praying to God, he was giving alms to the poor because that is what God taught in the scriptures.

Many unregenerated people know the Ten Commandments and will tell the truth because that is what they believe God wants them to do. Their good works are "wrought in God".

You are claiming that "good" in God's sight is possible from an unclean heart with a wrong motive and there is no other right motive but in all that you DO, YOU DO FOR THE GLORY OF GOD and anything less is coming "short of the glory of God" which is the basic definition of sin.

I beg your pardon, it was JESUS who said evil men can give good gifts to their children. It was JESUS who said sinners can love one another and do "good" to each other. Jesus didn't say "evil", he said "good".

And this is what I am saying, evil man can do individual good acts or works. But no man is "good" which means sinless or perfect.

God's word tells how a man is to take care of his family and it is not merely providing external things but he has a spiritual duty to raise up his children in the "admonition of the Lord" and love his wife "as Christ loved the church" as that is fundemental in the institution of Marriage as God purposed it and thus the duty of all husbands regardless of their spiritual state.

God's word tells us hundreds of things to do, and rarely does any man perform ALL of them. I bet even you fall short once in awhile.

You define "good" just like the pharisees define "good" - external conformation regardless of internal motive.

I define good as obedience. When Jesus condemned the Pharisees, he did not condemn them for tithing. He said they SHOULD have done this. Their tithing was good, even if most other things they did was evil.

Luk 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

There was nothing wrong with the Pharisees tithing, they should have tithed. It was good.

If it was evil for the Pharisees to tithe as you teach, then Jesus told them they should sin. This proves your view to be a complete fallacy.

 

[The Biblicist]

No I am not. I am not claiming that man is good or clean.

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

Learn how to read correctly! I did not say you denied man is evil. I said, you are claiming that something "clean" can come from something "unclean." You are claiming "good" works can come from "evil" persons. Job said that is impossible. Learn how to read correctly!

Job says that "not one" can bring "clean" out of something "unclean" but you are repudiating his words and claiming that something "clean" = good - can come out of something "unclean" = evil/bad.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is where scripture shows you wrong. Jesus showed men have both the option and ability to determine what kind of tree they are.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

First, you are not even addressing the text I quoted from Matthew 7:15-20! The text I quoted claims it is IMPOSSIBLE for a thorn bush to produce figs or a thistle bush to produces grapes just as Job claims it is impossible for something "clean" or "good" to come out of something "unclean" or bad. So you cannot even address the text being quoted but must run to another text and pit text against text - your normal response!

Second, Where in this text does it say that it is MAN who makes the tree good or bad????????? Where in this text does it say that it is SELF that makes the tree good or bad?? Parables are drawn from REALITIES found in the daily life of his hearers! Where in nature can you find a tree that makes itself good or bad? You don't know what you are talking about and you don't have a clue concerning this parabolic statement.

 

[The Biblicist]

Many unregenerated people know the Ten Commandments and will tell the truth because that is what they believe God wants them to do. Their good works are "wrought in God".

Again, you interpet the Law as did the Scribes and Pharisees - MERE EXTERNAL CONFORMATION or OUTWARD OBEDIENCE - which is not necessarily obedience in God's sight. You think speaking the truth with ones lips avoids lying just as avoiding actual literal physical fornication is obedience to the law "thou shalt not commit adultery. Obedience to the Law REQUIRES A RIGHT HEART/MOTIVES and God looks upon the heart to judge the external actions of the mouth and body.

Sin is "COMING SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD" and when words and actions are without the right heart motive which is "whatsoever ye say or do, DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD" then such OUTWARD CONFORMATIONS are SIN/EVIL in God's sight.

So you are a pharisee when it comes to interpreting "good" by the Law of God - mere external conformation is your only criteria rather than BOTH inward and outward criteria - as only a RIGHT heart can produce RIGHT words and actions.

Again, you believe that "clean" can come forth from the "unclean" but Job, Jesus and Paul claim "not one" can do it. You claim a thistle bush can bring forth figs but Christ claims it is impossible. You claim that man can change his own heart and thus regeneration which is a CREATIVE ACT of God is not necessary as man can change his own heart.

 

[The Biblicist]

I beg your pardon, it was JESUS who said evil men can give good gifts to their children.

The adjective "good" modifies only the term "gift" it does not modify the person or the action of the person giving the gift. Jesus does not say an "evil" person CAN DO good - that is your perverted and extrabiblical forced interpetation upon this text.

Learn grammar before you try to interpet scripture! Evil the devil know HOW to give "good" gifts to his own people as he provides bread and riches to those who serve him but that does not mean the Devil is "good" or does "good" in God's sight.

 

[The Biblicist]

It was JESUS who said sinners can love one another and do "good" to each other. Jesus didn't say "evil", he said "good".

I beg your pardon, Jesus NEVER said any such thing about lost people. The word "DO" in connection with the word "good" is never found in the mouth of Christ in regard to evil people. That is simply what YOU have rewritten scripture to say - that is YOUR WORDS not Christ's. I dare you to find the word "do" in that text or any other text in connection with the word "good" concerning lost people!

 

[Skandelon]

My response was not to post #91 but to post #85. Neither does post #91 even mention the word "suppose" or "supposition" or any other such idea:

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? - Skandelon #91

"as in our system" = 'as supposed by our system'

Work with me bro...

 

[The Biblicist]

And this is what I am saying, evil man can do individual good acts or works. But no man is "good" which means sinless or perfect.

God does not have TWO different standards of defining "good" but only ONE STANDARD. If fallen man is capable of doing ONE GOOD ACT he is sinless and perfect as to fail in ONE POINT is to fail in EVERY point and so to KEEP ONE POINT IS TO KEEP EVERY POINT.

It requires LOVE to keep ONE POINT as much as to keep EVERY POINT because LOVE is the keeping of the commandments (1 Jn. 5:2-3) or don't you know that? Love is a HEART attribute and if fallen man can LOVE he does not need to be saved or need a "new" heart or need to born again.

Your dogma is straight from hell and is of the devil in its entirety.

 

[The Biblicist]

I define good as obedience. When Jesus condemned the Pharisees, he did not condemn them for tithing. He said they SHOULD have done this. Their tithing was good, even if most other things they did was evil.

Luk 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

There was nothing wrong with the Pharisees tithing, they should have tithed. It was good.

Read the context! Don't you know this is said in a context of HYPROCRISY!!!!

You dont' understand a word of what Christ said. He said the kept they MINOR things - externals but did not keep the MAJOR things or INTERNALS and thus what they did was NOT GOOD in God's sight but hypocritical! Don't you realize this is found in the context of HYPOCRISY???????? Read the context!

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.

Your soteriology is that of the Scribes and Pharisees and hypocrites, as you think OUTWARD OBEDEINCE is true obedience to God's Law when true obeidence to the Law requires BOTH outward and inward conformation. Mere outward obedience in words and deeds is HYPOCRISY!!

Therefore, obedience to ANY SINGLE LAW requires both INWARD and OUTWARD obedience and no lost man is able to do that as you cannot bring a "clean" thing out of an "unclean" thing (evil inward heart).