Sorry about the length of this post. Also, I had very little time for editing so forgive any misspelled words or other weird typos.
You, as stated don't need my approval but I am asking for approval and it really doesn't matter what i think, it does however matter to me what you think.
I was in a particularly snarky mood yesterday. My whole post was more or less like this and I went and rewrote most of it and over looked this first sentence. I'd have probably just deleted it entirely and left it alone.
He was to me talking about me. Why is Paul not talking about you?
You said that he was talking about "unregenerate man", which in no way describes neither Paul, you nor me! He definitely was talking about himself (and by extension all those who would believe his gospel, including you and me).
Exactly, but Paul is revealing the very truth of sin though hard to understand because it cuts deep to bring us to Christ.
Okay, but taking that passage to mean that we human being are "totally depraved" is just a contrivance and in direct conflict with a great deal of other scripture.
God's words are not secular and in this world only his words can define what he means or people can believe whatever they want and it is normal but that's not what we should be looking for.
Holy cow are you on dangerous ground here with this! You've got to turn away from this thinking. I mean, seriously, that sentence could have come straight out of the mouth of any cult leader you care to name and more than that, it just isn't necessary to think this way.
It is not necessary to think like a lawyer when reading the bible. In fact, you WILL misunderstand it if you try to do so. It's much more effective to just simply read it and take it to mean what it seems to mean. If you're in doubt about what something means then read it to an average third grader and ask him to tell you what it means. He will almost certainly get it right. There are passages that are more difficult than other and Romans 7:17-21 isn't the easiest passage in the whole bible so maybe you'd want to find a home-schooled third grader to read it to but the point is that the bible is not written in some sort of secret code where you have to be privy to a special insider lexicon of the English language to order to understand. It is written to regular people in regular language and most precepts in the bible are repeated and retaught in various ways so that we thick headed humans can get it. Even those who are grossly wrong on a great deal of details usually get the really important bits right enough to gain their salvation precisely because God has made it so plain that it's hard to miss.
Further, it has been my experience over decades of theological discussion and debate that people who want to have a special "biblical" definition for an otherwise perfectly mundane, easily understood, normal English word, do so because of their doctrine, not because there is any grammatical or contextual reason for it. Their special definitions are tactical in nature, used to preserve the integrity of their doctrine by making one or more problem texts say something that doesn't contradict their doctrine.
Having said all of that, there are exceptions. Most come in the form of poor translation into English but not all of them. But the exception proves the rule. Our default should be to take a word or passage to mean what it seems to mean and only do otherwise when there is real, demonstrable and substantively linguistic reasons to do otherwise.
I can't just leave at that because so many can be and have been deceived by definition.
If you feel compelled to alter the use of a word then just remember that it is your responsibility to communicate what you are saying in a way that your audience will understand you. People can't read your mind and they are going to assume the normal meaning of a word unless you specifically communicate otherwise. This is why it is best practice to use a modifier when modifying mundane words. Use "perfectly good" or "God good" or something other than just the naked "good" if what you mean is "perfect" because "good" and "perfect" are not normally synonyms.
I fear that the truth is this, there are no degrees of righteousness.
Well, fear not because there absolutely are!
In addition to the first several chapters of Revelation where Jesus is talking to and about the relative righteousness of various churches, there are also passages from Paul like I Corinthians 3:9-15.
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
How do you get so hung up on one word and miss the whole rest of the passage? What sense does any of that make if there aren't any righteous people in the world? How can God make the sun rise on the evil and the good if there is no one who is good?
That very same chapter of the bible begins with the Beatitudes. How can the poor in spirit be blessed if there aren't any who are poor in the spirit? How can those who hunger and thirst for righteousness be filled if there are no such persons?
How is the Father perfect? The father is perfect in all things and perfectly good which means we are not perfectly good nor can we be by definition unless we are God.
But that isn't the point! Jesus is not telling His audience to do something that He knows that is impossible! It's a figure of speech, Cntrysner!
Jesus also told His followers that they if they didn't hate their parents and their family that there was no place for them in the Kingdom. Do you think that Jesus was actually telling people that if they didn't ignore the 6th commandment that they'd be expelled from the Kingdom? No! Of course not! It was a figure of speech, the meaning of which is made clear by the context.
There is no good in the flesh, no not one, concerning man and this is what the scriptures revealed to me and I accept that revelation and by that truth I was left with no option but to choose Christ and by my choice I became a slave to righteousness in Christ. By that I mean I had to die to myself to be able to be a servant of the righteous One.
Okay fine but you didn't answer the question. When you say "there is none good" do you mean "perfectly good" as the bible does, or are you suggesting that there no way that anyone can do anything good whatsoever - period?
The latter just cannot be the case, biblically speaking. There's just way too many people who do good things throughout the bible, some believer others not. Not sufficiently good to earn salvation or to sit next to God by any means but, good nonetheless. Adam's first born is just one glaringly obvious and undeniable example...
Matthew 23:35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
At this time I don't see my confusion and it is not my redefinition.
Of course you see it!
Our entire discussion has been spurred almost entirely by your use of the word "good" as though it were synonymous with the word "perfect".
I'm not even saying that the two words can't be synonymous in some cases but you seem to want to say that "good" always means "perfect" anywhere one finds it in the bible and that just isn't so.
Paul is saying in Romans that only being a servant to God's will in Christ and being bestowed Spiritual circumcision can he do what is good.
No, that's your doctrinal interpretation, not what the text says.
There are unbelievers who do good. There were thousands of Jews who lived under the law and had exactly no concept whatsoever of "spiritual circumcision" who did good all the time and there those who lived before the law was even given that Jesus Himself tells us who were righteous.
Yeah, I figured that out on my own. I spent most of the day yesterday thinking that it really didn't make sense for me to have even asked.
I'm trying to come from God's Word and headed to be able to deliver it with my insufficient ability.
Well, my question resulted from my having gotten the idea that you were perhaps suggesting that there are those Christians who have been spiritually circumcised to a degree that permits them to live their lives without sinning. That's a Nazarene Church teaching but, like I said, I figured out that you couldn't have been heading there anyway so it's a moot question.
I am learning from you Clete and count you as a friend. Iron sharpens iron.
Hey! Right back at ya!
God bless you!
Clete