What is "good" in God's sight?

[Skandelon]

Once again, Skandelon uses sound bite quotes which he has lifted from anti-Calvinist sources to ‘prove’ his Arminian ordo salutis.

I quote from Richard Muller’s Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation.

“Although it is certainly suitable to speak cautiously about the development toward a conception of the order of salvation, or ordo salutis, among the Reformers and their successors in the Reformed tradition, it would be a significant historiographical mistake to speak of Calvin’s or Vermigli’s or Beza’s, Perkins’, Ames’, or indeed Turretin’s doctrine of ordo salutis inasmuch as the term had not yet come into use in its later technical or dogmatic sense.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=jU...8#v=onepage&q=Calvin's ordo salvation&f=false

What you may not realize is that even this quote validates my point. It shows that there are various approaches even from within the Calvinistic camp regarding regeneration over the years, thus belittling comments suggesting that others don't understand the Calvinistic perspective, as if it is some monolithic group, have no substantiation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hypocrisy is to preach one thing and do another. You are mis-defining "hypocrisy".

Read more carefully, I was responding to Winman's quote of Jesus in Matthew 23:3 " for they say, and do not" which is hypocrisy just as I said.

Yes, we know.......you are pretending we deny that. That makes your debate methods dishonest.

Another thing no one here denies... :sleeping_2:

We don't...but, this is that verbose fluff you lace almost all your posts in in order to confuse and distort.

Oh do you admit to all these things as true?? Let's see. You say you admit that the Law is "spiritual" and therefore God validates words and actions by the intent of the heart UNLIKE THE PHARISEES who regard good words and deeds as good regardless of the intent of the heart.

Let us put your professed beliefs to the test by the text Winman has been repeating over and over again where Jesus claims using the present tense that the heart condition of those giving good "things" is "BEING EVIL." You claim you are not phariseeical in your interpretation of sin but are you not interpreting this text exactly as do the Pharisees according to their EXTERNAL definition of sin??? Are you not claiming that a person "BEING EVIL" in their heart condition can "DO" good (when the text says no such thing but only claims they can give good "things")???? Sounds like a contradiction between what you claim to believe and how you interpret the scripture to me?


Now, if you really believe all that you claim, can anything "clean" come out of something you admit to be unclean (the heart)? Can a thistle bush bring forth figs? Can a thorn bush bring forth grapes (Mt. 7:17-19)? Is that possible? If so, where IN NATURE can you provide evidence that is possible as Jesus draws his analogies and parables from the common day life of those he is speaking to? If that is so, where in nature can you find evidence that a "evil" tree can "make" ITSELF "good"?

I await your evidence? You claim the law is spiritual, and thus judges the heart. You claim that sin originates with the heart motives as Jesus says in Matthew 15. You quote Jesus that those giving good "things" still "being evil" in regard to their heart. You admit that God looks at the heart motive to judge the outward actions and that outward actions (words, deeds) that appear good to men may not be "good" to God as he weighs the heart. Let's see if you are now consistent.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

So, that's your argument? That you cannot see how Matthew 12:33 argues that Jesus taught a man can determine what kind of tree he is, "either" a good tree that produces good fruit, "or else" a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit?

And you cannot see that Jesus used the word "make" to show man's ability to determine which kind of tree he is?

You are seriously going to offer this as your argument?

Good luck selling this one. :laugh:

Is there an honest bone in your whole body? Just asking? The reason that I ask that question is because most on this forum understand that when Jesus uses parabolic illustrations that he takes them from the every day life of the listeners - things they are familair with or see every day. This is so fundemental for proper understanding and interpreting parables that I don't have to remind most students who have a little proficiency in scriptures of this fact, but you seem to be completely unaware of this fundemental and necessary truth in order to competently interpret parables????? So are you simply ignorant of this fact or "is there an honest bone in your body?" and you are intentionally perverting fundemental truth?????

In nature you will never see or find a plant that can change its fundemental nature - impossible. You will never find figs (good works) growing on a thistle bush (evil nature). You will never find grapes (good works) growing on a thorn bush (evil nature) - Mt. 7:16-18. If you can demonstrate different we are all awaiting your evidence? If you cannot, then Jesus is denying the very thing you claim is true that something can change its own nature and produce good (Mt. 12:33).

Your interpretation makes Christ look foolish to his audiance as his audiance (unlike you) are fully aware that such is an absolute impossibility while you are making Christ demand it is possible. You believe something "clean" can come out of something "unclean" when God's word says "not one." You believe that persons described by Christ as "being evil" can "DO" good (when the text says no such thing but uses "good" as an adjective to describe "things" not the person giving those things).

So is there an honest bone in your body? We wait for evidence from nature to support your interpretation that figs can come from thistles and grapes can come from thorn bushes OR that thorn bushes can "make" themselves fig producing bushes and thistles can "make" themselves grape producing bushes as this is what is required to prove your intepretations to be correct! We wait for the evidence that such can be found in the daily life of the audiance he spoke or even today???? Is there an honest bone in your body?

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Notice that the "figs" and "grapes" are defined in verses 17-18 as "good fruit" and "thistles" and "thorns" defned as "corrupt...evil tree".

 

[The Biblicist]

What you may not realize is that even this quote validates my point. It shows that there are various approaches even from within the Calvinistic camp regarding regeneration over the years, thus belittling comments suggesting that others don't understand the Calvinistic perspective, as if it is some monolithic group, have no substantiation.

Since the early 1600's Calvinistic Baptists have been united in their published creed's that repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration. The three oldest and most widely used English creeds (1689 London Confession of Faith, The Philladelphia Confession of Faith; 1733The New Hampshire Confession of faith) all state this clearly. 89The Philadelphia Confession is primarily a restatement of the 1689 Confession with minor changes. I am a Baptist. I am not a Presbyterian or Lutheran or Reformed congregational; etc.

So there has been a consistency for the last 400 years of this position among Calvinist Engllish Baptists.

Now, you are simply a dishonest debater and that has been shown by your dishonest tactics already and here is another one to add to that list.

 

[The Biblicist]

In nature you will never see or find a plant that can change its fundemental nature - impossible. You will never find figs (good works) growing on a thistle bush (evil nature). You will never find grapes (good works) growing on a thorn bush (evil nature) - Mt. 7:16-18. If you can demonstrate different we are all awaiting your evidence? If you cannot, then Jesus is denying the very thing you claim is true that something can change its own nature and produce good (Mt. 12:33).

Your interpretation makes Christ look foolish to his audiance as his audiance (unlike you) are fully aware that such is an absolute impossibility while you are making Christ demand it is possible. You believe something "clean" can come out of something "unclean" when God's word says "not one." You believe that persons described by Christ as "being evil" can "DO" good (when the text says no such thing but uses "good" as an adjective to describe "things" not the person giving those things).

So is there an honest bone in your body? We wait for evidence from nature to support your interpretation that figs can come from thistles and grapes can come from thorn bushes OR that thorn bushes can "make" themselves fig producing bushes and thistles can "make" themselves grape producing bushes as this is what is required to prove your intepretations to be correct! We wait for the evidence that such can be found in the daily life of the audiance he spoke or even today???? Is there an honest bone in your body?

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Notice that the "figs" and "grapes" are defined in verses 17-18 as "good fruit" and "thistles" and "thorns" defned as "corrupt...evil tree".

Mt 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Here is a parallel text with the one that Winman has been repeating over and over again trying to prove that those "being evil" are capable of doing "good."

The rhetorical question by Christ implies they cannot speak "good" things but only have that appearance in the sight of men but as we shall see the nature of the heart dictates the nature of what is expressed in words and actions.

Notice, that Christ defines their nature as "vipers....being evil." The very same description "being evil" found in Winman's proof text. Here this refers to the condition of the heart as verses 34-35 proves this and "things" in verse 35 refer to external manifestations of the heart (words, deeds).

Second, that this description of their nature is in the form of a question "HOW can ye....being evil SPEAK GOOD THINGS"?

Third, notice his explanatory assertion that the source of speaking is from the heart - "for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." In other words, "vipers, how can ye being evil" in regard to YOUR HEART speak "good" things as it is the nature of the heart that determines the moral value of what comes out of the mouth. Then he says,

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

In other words, the nature of the words must be judged by the nature of the heart. In other words, what appears only to be "good" things coming from the mouth to men is not "good" in God's sight as God judges the moral value of the words by the heart not by the nature of the content of the words. God looks on the heart and in God's sight nothing good can come forth from an evil heart as an "evil man out of the EVIL treasure bringeth forth evil things."

Notice that these two verses are the conclusion of the following Matthew 12:33:

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.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things

Notice that "things" in this passage refers to EXTERNAL manifestations of the heart (words, actions). So also, in this passage "the tree" and the "heart" are one and the same. The words "being evil" refers to the condition of their heart which can only bring forth "evil" and cannot bring forth good because it requires a "good man" with a "good heart" to bring forth "good" things.

The phrase "make the tree" in this passage does not refer to changing the nature of the tree as no tree can do that. Jesus is rebuking their hypocrisy. Be one thing or the other, but don’t pretend to goodness!" Their evil hearts were being concealed by words with "good" content because their works did not match their words. Stop being hypocrits by your "good" mouth when your heart is evil by the inconsistency between your words and works. Be consistent with your heart and stop speaking hypocritical words that imply to men that that you are "good" instead of "being evil" in heart. In regard to Christ, "make the tree" means be consistent with what you say about Christ. How can you claim Christ is empowered by the Devil when his words and works are in keeping with God's Word, so be consistent with yourselves and with Christ as you speak one thing and do another whereas Christ's word's match his works.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Mt 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Here is a parallel text with the one that Winman has been repeating over and over again trying to prove that those "being evil" are capable of doing "good."

The rhetorical question by Christ implies they cannot speak "good" things but only have that appearance in the sight of men but as we shall see the nature of the heart dictates the nature of what is expressed in words and actions.

Notice, that Christ defines their nature as "vipers....being evil." The very same description "being evil" found in Winman's proof text. Here this refers to the condition of the heart as verses 34-35 proves this and "things" in verse 35 refer to external manifestations of the heart (words, deeds).

Second, that this description of their nature is in the form of a question "HOW can ye....being evil SPEAK GOOD THINGS"?

Third, notice his explanatory assertion that the source of speaking is from the heart - "for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." In other words, "vipers, how can ye being evil" in regard to YOUR HEART speak "good" things as it is the nature of the heart that determines the moral value of what comes out of the mouth. Then he says,

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

In other words, the nature of the words must be judged by the nature of the heart. In other words, what appears only to be "good" things coming from the mouth to men is not "good" in God's sight as God judges the moral value of the words by the heart not by the nature of the content of the words. God looks on the heart and in God's sight nothing good can come forth from an evil heart as an "evil man out of the EVIL treasure bringeth forth evil things."

Notice that these two verses are the conclusion of the following Matthew 12:33:

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.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things

Notice that "things" in this passage refers to EXTERNAL manifestations of the heart (words, actions). So also, in this passage "the tree" and the "heart" are one and the same. The words "being evil" refers to the condition of their heart which can only bring forth "evil" and cannot bring forth good because it requires a "good man" with a "good heart" to bring forth "good" things.

The phrase "make the tree" in this passage does not refer to changing the nature of the tree as no tree can do that. Jesus is rebuking their hypocrisy. Be one thing or the other, but don’t pretend to goodness!" Their evil hearts were being concealed by words with "good" content because their works did not match their words. Stop being hypocrites by your "good" mouth when your heart is evil by the inconsistency between your words and works. Be consistent with your heart and stop speaking hypocritical words that imply to men that that you are "good" instead of "being evil" in heart. In regard to Christ, "make the tree" means be consistent with what you say about Christ. How can you claim Christ is empowered by the Devil when his words and works are in keeping with God's Word, so be consistent with yourselves and with Christ as you speak one thing and do another whereas Christ's word's match his works.

Perhaps brother this question will become a prologue to chaos between you & I, but by nature I am a rascal, one who can poke fun at people who are by-in-large stick in the mud, caustic, hyper-serious individuals & make them laugh at themselves..... or not, depending how I want to steer it, what result I want. That doesnt mean that Im mean, only that I have a sense of balance, can find humor in situations etc.

Brother, I find this your either Good --- Good good good; or your EVIL (a spon of the devil) ---Bad Bad Bad, to be nonsense & quite ridiculous & outa kilter with the balance of life.

This BB place has become insanely legalistic as of late. You see it in these debates that degrade into out in out vindictive (and sometimes violent) arguments. there is a Youtube from a comedy movie : see attached, That pokes fun of negative mentality, called 'LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs. See, I find that type of stuff funny, but there those out there who are sooooo somber that it serves to enrage them. Is that not evil (in the heart).....the inability to see humor & balance in life?

 

[The Biblicist]

Perhaps brother this question will become a prologue to chaos between you & I, but by nature I am a rascal, one who can poke fun at people who are by-in-large stick in the mud, caustic, hyper-serious individuals & make them laugh at themselves..... or not, depending how I want to steer it, what result I want. That doesnt mean that Im mean, only that I have a sense of balance, can find humor in situations etc.

Brother, I find this your either Good --- Good good good; or your EVIL (a spon of the devil) ---Bad Bad Bad, to be nonsense & quite ridiculous & outa kilter with the balance of life.

I am not concerned about somebody's subjective view of the "balance of life" but with the clear and explicit teaching of God's Word.

Relative good is recognized by God's Word as this is the perspective of life from the human point of view. Second, God judges evil in degrees as evil men are judged "according to the works" and there are degrees of punishment.

However, that does not change that Jesus explicitly denies that "good" as God defines "good" can come forth from a heart that is bad by nature thus "being evil" is impossible for "clean" to come out of "unlcean." Words and deeds come from the heart and God judges them not by their content but by the motive of the heart.

So, take a good look and the mirror and have a good laugh at yourself - because you are wrong and it is evident that you are wrong because the basis of your authority for your position - your own sujective view of "the balance of life" in direct contradiction of "thus saith the Lord" which repeatedly states that nothing "clean" (good) can come out of an "unclean" (evil nature) thing.

Finally, your subjective position forces you to embrace a superficial definition and understanding of the nature of sin regardless of how vehemently you might deny it. Good is not defined by mere content of words and actions but by INTENT as the words and actions may be nothing more than veneer to hide an evil heart and this is precisely the case in Mattehw 12:33-35. Sin is "coming short of the glory of God" by INTENT of the heart and that is why all fallen men are sinners BY NATURE because the law of sin rules the heart and thus all that comes forth is veneer only and always EXCEPT in the sight of men who cannot see the heart but just see the veneer.

In contrast, that is why a man must first be "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" and not even the redeemed man can produce "good" works but in addition we must first admit our own complete inability to do good by submitting to the Holy Spirit - be filled with the Holy Spirit - so that it is God who "works in us BOTH to WILL and TO DO His Good pleasure" and thus "good" is enabled to flow from the regenerated heart AND NEVER AT ANY OTHER TIME IN OUR LIVES. Hence, the only "good" that we will be rewarded for is that which the Holy Spirit WORKS OUT under His power alone. We live in both Romans 7 and Romans 8 and the only "good" works in God's sight are those produced in Romans 8 and NONE COME FROM Romans 7 - zero! - Did not Jesus say "without me ye can do NOTHING"????

 

[The Biblicist]

Mt 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.


The phrase "make the tree" in this passage does not refer to changing the nature of the tree as no tree can do that. Jesus is rebuking their hypocrisy. Be one thing or the other, but don’t pretend to goodness!" Their evil hearts were being concealed by words with "good" content because their works did not match their words. Stop being hypocrits by your "good" mouth when your heart is evil by the inconsistency between your words and works. Be consistent with your heart and stop speaking hypocritical words that imply to men that that you are "good" instead of "being evil" in heart. In regard to Christ, "make the tree" means be consistent with what you say about Christ. How can you claim Christ is empowered by the Devil when his words and works are in keeping with God's Word, so be consistent with yourselves and with Christ as you speak one thing and do another whereas Christ's word's match his works.

In Matthew 12 there is a FINAL JUDGEMENT being made by the Pharisees and Scribes concerning both the PERSON and WORK (words and deeds) of Jesus Christ. They have attributed the Devil as the source of power behind the PERSON and WORKS of Jesus Christ.

It is this issue of FINAL JUDGEMENT which Jesus takes up in Matthew 12:32-37.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
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.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

However, Jesus who knows the hearts of all men can clearly see that it is the Pharisees whose words are not consistent with their works which reveals their heart is evil, and thus they are the ones truly under the power of Satan. Hence, there is an obvious inconsistency between their judgement of Christ and their own Person and works.

In verse 33 when Christ says "make the tree good" or "make the tree evil" he is not referring or implying that a tree can make itself good or evil or that they are able to make their own heart good or evil. Instead, he is calling upon them to be consistent in their judgements. "Make" in the sense of "make judgements" that consistently identify the moral character of the heart consistent with the works (words and deeds). Christ's words where consistent with his works which identified his heart as good. Their words were not consistent with the works which identified their heart as evil. Hence, Christ is calling upon them to MAKE TRUE JUDGEMENTS. In the judgment day God will MAKE TRUE JUDGEMENT concerning their Person and works (words and deeds) and will vindicate Christ from their false charges.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am not concerned about somebody's subjective view of the "balance of life" but with the clear and explicit teaching of God's Word.

Relative good is recognized by God's Word as this is the perspective of life from the human point of view. Second, God judges evil in degrees as evil men are judged "according to the works" and there are degrees of punishment.

However, that does not change that Jesus explicitly denies that "good" as God defines "good" can come forth from a heart that is bad by nature thus "being evil" is impossible for "clean" to come out of "unlcean." Words and deeds come from the heart and God judges them not by their content but by the motive of the heart.

So, take a good look and the mirror and have a good laugh at yourself - because you are wrong and it is evident that you are wrong because the basis of your authority for your position - your own sujective view of "the balance of life" in direct contradiction of "thus saith the Lord" which repeatedly states that nothing "clean" (good) can come out of an "unclean" (evil nature) thing.

Finally, your subjective position forces you to embrace a superficial definition and understanding of the nature of sin regardless of how vehemently you might deny it. Good is not defined by mere content of words and actions but by INTENT as the words and actions may be nothing more than veneer to hide an evil heart and this is precisely the case in Mattehw 12:33-35. Sin is "coming short of the glory of God" by INTENT of the heart and that is why all fallen men are sinners BY NATURE because the law of sin rules the heart and thus all that comes forth is veneer only and always EXCEPT in the sight of men who cannot see the heart but just see the veneer.

In contrast, that is why a man must first be "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" and not even the redeemed man can produce "good" works but in addition we must first admit our own complete inability to do good by submitting to the Holy Spirit - be filled with the Holy Spirit - so that it is God who "works in us BOTH to WILL and TO DO His Good pleasure" and thus "good" is enabled to flow from the regenerated heart AND NEVER AT ANY OTHER TIME IN OUR LIVES. Hence, the only "good" that we will be rewarded for is that which the Holy Spirit WORKS OUT under His power alone. We live in both Romans 7 and Romans 8 and the only "good" works in God's sight are those produced in Romans 8 and NONE COME FROM Romans 7 - zero!

Inever said I wasn't a sinner or that I do good works....only that I find legalists funny.

 

[The Biblicist]

Inever said I wasn't a sinner or that I do good works....only that I find legalists funny.

I guess what I should ask you then is what is your definition of "legalists"??? I define a "legalist" as one who believes in justification by the works of the law. It seems that some make up their own definitions that fits who ever opposes them or condemns their point of view!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I guess what I should ask you then is what is your definition of "legalists"??? I define a "legalist" as one who believes in justification by the works of the law. It seems that some make up their own definitions that fits who ever opposes them or condemns their point of view!

In this case, I will take the definition directly from WILKI:

term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law at the expense of the spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

In this case, I will take the definition directly from WILKI:

term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law at the expense of the spirit.

That is not a bad definition in a general sense and so I will not take issue with that definition. However, to apply this definition to me, as it appears that you are doing, requires that you also apply it to Christ, because the post you objected to dealt merely with his words in Matthew 12:33-35 where he denies that anyone "being evil" (which he applies to the heart of a person) can "bring forth good" from such an heart. Job says the same thing. Paul says the same thing. Would you regard them as "legalists"?

Do you believe that sin is to "come short of the glory of God"? Do you believe that "sin" refers to words and actions that "come short of the glory of God"? Do you believe that words and actions that come short of the glory of God come from a heart thats state or condition is sinful in regard to its intent, and thus operates by motives that come short of the glory of God? Why does anyone need a "new" heart if "good" can come forth from the heart they have??? Why must one be "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" if good works can come from them in the fallen condition or state? Care to answer these questions with a Biblical based response?

The Bible not only explicitly states "there IS none good" but it also says explicitly "there is none that DOETH good"! Do you understand the difference between these two statments? Do you take exception to either of these Biblical assertions? Would you call the writers of these assertions "legalists"???

 

[The Biblicist]

That is not a bad definition in a general sense and so I will not take issue with that definition. However, to apply this definition to me, as it appears that you are doing, requires that you also apply it to Christ, because the post you objected to dealt merely with his words in Matthew 12:33-35 where he denies that anyone "being evil" (which he applies to the heart of a person) can "bring forth good" from such an heart. Job says the same thing. Paul says the same thing. Would you regard them as "legalists"?

Do you believe that sin is to "come short of the glory of God"? Do you believe that "sin" refers to words and actions that "come short of the glory of God"? Do you believe that words and actions that come short of the glory of God come from a heart thats state or condition is sinful in regard to its intent, and thus operates by motives that come short of the glory of God? Why does anyone need a "new" heart if "good" can come forth from the heart they have??? Why must one be "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" if good works can come from them in the fallen condition or state? Care to answer these questions with a Biblical based response?

The Bible not only explicitly states "there IS none good" but it also says explicitly "there is none that DOETH good"! Do you understand the difference between these two statments? Do you take exception to either of these Biblical assertions? Would you call the writers of these assertions "legalists"???

It is interesting that no Biblical response is offered to refute what I have stated. Instead, the discussion has been once again been reduced to name calling. If a Biblical based response could be given there would be no need to reduce the discussion to name calling by those who oppose my position. Should I take up this fashion of debate and just defend my position by subjective and non-biblical authorites and name calling? When anyone cannot provide a Biblical based response and is reduced to name calling and subjective non-biblical illustrations or authorties to defend their position - then that is a white flag of surrender and the debate is over. We have been talking about fallen men and their inability to do "good" in God's sight. However, even saved persons, Jesus says "without me ye can do NOTHING." If a saved person cannot do "good" in the sight of God how much more a lost person? If a saved person cannot will or do that which is God's will apart from God working you "both to WILL and to DO of God good pleasure" how much less possible that lost men can either will or do of God's good pleasure????

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is not a bad definition in a general sense and so I will not take issue with that definition. However, to apply this definition to me, as it appears that you are doing, requires that you also apply it to Christ, because the post you objected to dealt merely with his words in Matthew 12:33-35 where he denies that anyone "being evil" (which he applies to the heart of a person) can "bring forth good" from such an heart.

Let me stop you right there, and allow us both some time to consider this issue.

First & foremost, I am NOT applying any legalist definition to you (at all) & I'm not sure where you got that thought from. Had I thought so, I would have come right out & told you so. I am sorry if I mislead you in that regard.

(2) I did NOT object to your post. I merely asked you if my character was appropriate & you gave me an answer. Said & Done brother & thank you for your direct response.

I not going to read the rest of the post however since we appear to be missing each other......note though that I do respect your exegesis of scripture & we tend to agree far more than we disagree.

Blessings

 

[The Biblicist]

First & foremost, I am NOT applying any legalist definition to you (at all) & I'm not sure where you got that thought from.

It appears that way from the following words you made in your first post:

Brother, I find this your either Good --- Good good good; or your EVIL (a spon of the devil) ---Bad Bad Bad, to be nonsense & quite ridiculous & outa kilter with the balance of life.

It appears that this is your commentary on the OP and my position? You also say that this might begin a rift between us??? Then when you say in the next post:

I never said I wasn't a sinner or that I do good works....only that I find legalists funny.

You make it personal by using the first person singular "I" and then defensive by applying it to yourself! Who are the "legalist" then? I mean how else could I take these statements???

Had I thought so, I would have come right out & told you so. I am sorry if I mislead you in that regard.

Ok, but you were not clear if that was not your point.

(2) I did NOT object to your post. I merely asked you if my character was appropriate

What do you mean "if my character was appropriate"? I am afraid you have lost me on that statement.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It appears that way from the following words you made in your first post:

Brother, I find this your either Good --- Good good good; or your EVIL (a spon of the devil) ---Bad Bad Bad, to be nonsense & quite ridiculous & outa kilter with the balance of life.

It appears that this is your commentary on the OP and my position? Then when you say in the next post:

I never said I wasn't a sinner or that I do good works....only that I find legalists funny.

You make it personal by using the first person singular "I" and then defensive by applying it to yourself! Who are the "legalist" then? I mean how else could I take these statements???



Ok, but you were not clear if that was not your point.



What do you mean "if my character was appropriate"? I am afraid you have lost me on that statement.

Forget about it Mark......I was heading in a different direction from you & we just went down different tracks. Ive lost interest anyway. Just leave it there.

 

[The Biblicist]

Forget about it Mark......I was heading in a different direction from you & we just went down different tracks. Ive lost interest anyway. Just leave it there.

Ok! I have enough to deal with anyway and don't need to have a problem where none exists.

 

[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{note: 'the term 'our broken humiliation' was in reference to OUR perspective of free response, but I admitted it was unclear and reworded it}

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?

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

Work with me bro...

I will work with HONESTY! However, you claimed that I had misread your posts and that you had not asked what I believed when in fact that was your very words "what do you beleive" and yet the words you kept on claiming to have said if I just "read on" or read post #91 would be found but can't be found just as I said. Now, you quote your words "as in our system" and then interpret it to mean "as supposed by our system." But even your interpretative additions fall far short of asking me to operate by your suppositional position. Come on, give me a break! Just be honest and admit you said no such thing and then start over by saying it right.

I will admit that at times I think people know more than they do regarding debate terms and practices as I debated professionally for years back in school. A 'supposition' is commonly referenced as one side requests the others to 'suppose' X is true for the sake of an argument (i.e. if my suppositions are true then...). I was simply asking you to suppose our system's claims regarding free will true for the sake of an argument so as to demonstrate that even when you accept the claims of my 'system' there is NO VALID reason to accept the notion of 'meritorious works' or 'earned salvation.'

But it isn't worth all this...so never mind...

Why keep telling untruths! YOU DID NOT ASK ME TO SUPPOSE ANYTHING -period and you know it! Your words in the initial post asked "what do you believe" and that is the post I responded as asked. YOu are showing yourself to be a very unprofessional debater as you are simply lying.

Here is the thread...follow it and you will see that my first question was intended to ask what YOU believe about OUR views regarding a free response (humility, etc). I reworded it when it wasn't clear. Then I provided a clear interpretation of what I was meaning and asked you to work with me.

And what do I get in reply? Accusations of dishonesty and lying...

I'm done discussing doctrine with you...This kind of behavior continues after many attempts and it just isn't worth it. I wish you all the best....

 

[psalms109:31]

Legalist obey the laws to receive something in return; Notability, for salvation things of that matter. We have been given a new nature and no longer practice sin. We are to turn away from wickedness and there's nothing legalIstic about it. We do it because we have a new nature and no longer practice sin. There is a big difference between a real change of life and legalism. We should not condemn people because they want to live their changed life in Jesus.

 

[The Biblicist]

deleted read the following post