How can people do good?

[steve]

psimmond wrote:

Steve, is there a question mark at the end of this sentence because you're just throwing this out as a possibility? I've never heard that God breathed the Spirit of God into man.

First, the question mark was a typo. I didn't intend to end that sentence that way (too many rapid-fire questions in one paragraph!). Sorry for the confusion.

Second, the Bible does not say that God breathed the Holy Spirit into Adam, in so many words. He did breathe the "spirit of life" into his nostrils (Gen.2:7). Paul refers to the Holy Spirit by the term "the Spirit of life" in Christ Jesus (Rom.8:2), and when Jesus breathed on His disciples, saying "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22) I have always thought that this was intended as a parallel to God breathing the Spirit of Life into Adam. It could be taken differently.

[Paidion]

I base my claim on the Scriptures that I've previously listed that say no one is good but God (Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19), that without Jesus (Holy Spirit)) inspiration, we can do nothing (good) (John 15:5)

It's all in the way one regards these verses. For example"

Lu 18:19 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God."

One might assert that Jesus, in asking this question, was in fact denying that He is good, and that only God His Father is good. However, I doubt that He was doing that. So if we can misintrpret Jesus' question, we may also be misinterpreting his statement "No one is good but One, that is, God".
You yourself have admitted that even an unbeliever can be unconditionally good in his behaviour, and such a person is not God.
Your affirmation that one must be inspired by the Spirit in order to do unconditionally, loving good acts, is not based on the Scriptures to which you refer. Those scriptures do not say that. It seems to me that you have simply latched on to an idea, and are trying in every way you can to defend your idea—an idea which is not stated anywhere in Scripture.

Furthermore, John 15:5 does NOT state that without Holy Spirit inspiration, we can do nothing good. It states that without Christ we can do NOTHING. I once quoted this to a friend, and he said, "What does that mean? Look, I can light this cigarette without Him, can't I?" So obviously "nothing" does not mean "nothing". You think it means "no unconditionally, loving act". But there's nothing in the text to suggest that. Perhaps it means that we can do nothing to promote the Kingdom of God without Christ.

[kenblogton]

I base my claim on the Scriptures that I've previously listed that say no one is good but God (Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19), that without Jesus (Holy Spirit)) inspiration, we can do nothing (good) (John 15:5)

It's all in the way one regards these verses. For example"

Lu 18:19 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God."

One might assert that Jesus, in asking this question, was in fact denying that He is good, and that only God His Father is good. However, I doubt that He was doing that. So if we can misintrpret Jesus' question, we may also be misinterpreting his statement "No one is good but One, that is, God".
You yourself have admitted that even an unbeliever can be unconditionally good in his behaviour, and such a person is not God.
Your affirmation that one must be inspired by the Spirit in order to do unconditionally, loving good acts, is not based on the Scriptures to which you refer. Those scriptures do not say that. It seems to me that you have simply latched on to an idea, and are trying in every way you can to defend your idea—an idea which is not stated anywhere in Scripture.

Furthermore, John 15:5 does NOT state that without Holy Spirit inspiration, we can do nothing good. It states that without Christ we can do NOTHING. I once quoted this to a friend, and he said, "What does that mean? Look, I can light this cigarette without Him, can't I?" So obviously "nothing" does not mean "nothing". You think it means "no unconditionally, loving act". But there's nothing in the text to suggest that. Perhaps it means that we can do nothing to promote the Kingdom of God without Christ.

kenblogton replied: Jesus is our perfect life example. When you twist what He says to say He didn't mean what He said, you do Him and other believers a disservice. When Jesus says no one is good but God, His clear meaning is that divine inspiration is required for humans to exhibit true goodness. The only way we can do unconditionally loving good is through Holy Spirit inspiration. My commentary explains John 15:5 as follows "Jesus makes clear the identification of the branches and brings out the principle of the utter dependence of the disciples upon Him." Dependence upon Holy Spirit inspiration is how we depend upon Jesus since His resurrection.
At http://www.gotquestions.org/Pelagianism.html, it answers the "Question: "What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism?"

Answer: Pelagius was a monk who lived in the late 300s and early 400s A.D. Pelagius taught that human beings were born innocent, without the stain of original or inherited sin. He believed that God created every human soul directly and therefore every human soul was originally free from sin. Pelagius believed that Adam's sin did not affect future generations of humanity. This view became known as Pelagianism.

Pelagianism contradicts many Scriptures and scriptural principles. First, the Bible tells us that we are sinful from the moment of conception (Psalm 51:5). Further, the Bible teaches that all human beings die as a result of sin (Ezekiel 18:20; Romans 6:23). While Pelagianism says that human beings are not born with a natural inclination towards sin, the Bible says the opposite (Romans 3:10-18). Romans 5:12 clearly states that Adam's sin is the reason sin infects the rest of humanity. Anyone who has raised children can attest to the fact that infants must be taught to behave; they do not have to be taught how to sin. Pelagianism, therefore, is clearly unscriptural and should be rejected.

Semi-Pelagianism essentially teaches that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God's grace on our own. Semi-Pelagianism is, in essence, partial depravity as opposed to total depravity. The same Scripture passages that refute Pelagianism will also refute Semi-Pelagianism. Romans 3:10-18 definitely does not describe humanity as only being partially tainted by sin. The Bible clearly teaches that without God “drawing” us, we are incapable of cooperating with God's grace. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). Like Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism is unbiblical and should be rejected."

Paidion, you seem to believe that humans can naturally do good. The early church rejected this view.
kenblogton

[psimmond]

kenblogton, you've sided with Augustinianism over Pelagianism when it comes to original sin and human righteousness. Maybe you and Augustine are right and maybe you aren't.

You shouldn't assume those who believe humans can choose to do good or evil must therefore believe, like Pelagius, that God's prevenient grace is not necessary for salvation.

You've got a few proof texts that seem to support your point, but you are ignoring everything in scripture that goes against your point. If you are convinced in your heart that you view is correct, then stand by it. But understand that other Christians, including myself, interpret your proof texts differently than you.

[kenblogton]

kenblogton, you've sided with Augustinianism over Pelagianism when it comes to original sin and human righteousness. Maybe you and Augustine are right and maybe you aren't.You shouldn't assume those who believe humans can choose to do good or evil must therefore believe, like Pelagius, that God's prevenient grace is not necessary for salvation.
You've got a few proof texts that seem to support your point, but you are ignoring everything in scripture that goes against your point. If you are convinced in your heart that you view is correct, then stand by it. But understand that other Christians, including myself, interpret your proof texts differently than you.

kenblogton replied: At http://www.theopedia.com/Pelagianism, it states "Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)."
The universal church decided that Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism were false. I believe those councils were inspired by the Holy Spirit to decide as they did, just as I believe the writers of Scripture were all inspired by that same Holy Spirit.
I believe to encourage belief in what the early church called heresy is anti-biblical. To correctly interpret Scripture, all (or at least a comprehensive representative sample) of the Scriptures on the topic must be taken into account.
Which Scriptures do you consider, while also taking into consideration the ones I've provided, which lead you to your conclusion?
kenblogton

[psimmond]

kenblogton, I'm familiar with Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism and I'm not disputing anything from http://www.theopedia.com/Pelagianism. I'm simply pointing out to you that a person can align with Pelagius in one area (man's ability to do good) without accepting everything he believed (man's ability to seek God without first being drawn by God.

Do you have anything more than a hunch that "those councils were inspired by the Holy Spirit to decide as they did"? Has every council throughout early church history been infallible as a result of inspiration or just the ones you agree with? It seems whenever you want to make your position look strong you just say this or that person was "inspired by the Holy Spirit."

[kenblogton]

1. kenblogton, I'm familiar with Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism and I'm not disputing anything from http://www.theopedia.com/Pelagianism. I'm simply pointing out to you that a person can align with Pelagius in one area (man's ability to do good) without accepting everything he believed (man's ability to seek God without first being drawn by God.

2. Do you have anything more than a hunch that "those councils were inspired by the Holy Spirit to decide as they did"? Has every council throughout early church history been infallible as a result of inspiration or just the ones you agree with? It seems whenever you want to make your position look strong you just say this or that person was "inspired by the Holy Spirit."

kenblogton reply: 1. If humans can naturally do unconditional loving good, why do humans even need the Holy Spirit?
2. Prior to the establishment of the canon of Scripture, I believe the Holy Spirit prevented the church from error. This is what you'd expect God to do for His church.
kenblogton

[psimmond]

kenblogton said: 1. If humans can naturally do unconditional loving good, why do humans even need the Holy Spirit?

This is certainly not an exhaustive list but it should answer your question:
The Holy Spirit is a helper sent by God to live in everyone who receives the gift of salvation. God‘s Spirit acts as a seal guaranteeing that those who have the Spirit will reign with God forever in his kingdom. (Ephesians 1:13-14)
The Holy Spirit is also a teacher. Because he knows the thoughts of God, he will lead us to understand the truths that God has revealed to us in Scripture. (1 Corinthians 2:10-12)
The Holy Spirit also helps us communicate with God. When we are talking to God (praying) and having difficulty putting our thoughts and feelings into words, the Holy Spirit interprets our sighs and groans and intercedes for us. (Romans 8:26-27)
The Holy Spirit also acts as a guide, leading us in ways that we often are unaware of but sometimes see when we look back on events in our lives. This leading of the Holy Spirit, which influences our choices or prevents us from doing things that are not part of God‘s plan for our lives, is often referred to as God‘s providence. (Acts 16:6-7)
Finally, the Holy Spirit helps us bear the "fruit" that he brings into our lives. (Galatians 5:22-23)

kenblogton said: 2. Prior to the establishment of the canon of Scripture, I believe the Holy Spirit prevented the church from error. This is what you'd expect God to do for His church.

I understand this is your belief and what you think God would have or should have done. Again, you may be right and you may be wrong. I think you are opening a strange can of worms by saying every early church council decision was infallible if it preceded the establishment of the canon of scripture. And it seems quite arbitrary to say prior to an agreement about which letters should be included, God made sure all council rulings were infallible, but after this, council rulings could be right or wrong.

[kenblogton]

kenblogton said: 1. If humans can naturally do unconditional loving good, why do humans even need the Holy Spirit?

This is certainly not an exhaustive list but it should answer your question:
The Holy Spirit is a helper sent by God to live in everyone who receives the gift of salvation. God‘s Spirit acts as a seal guaranteeing that those who have the Spirit will reign with God forever in his kingdom. (Ephesians 1:13-14)
The Holy Spirit is also a teacher. Because he knows the thoughts of God, he will lead us to understand the truths that God has revealed to us in Scripture. (1 Corinthians 2:10-12)
The Holy Spirit also helps us communicate with God. When we are talking to God (praying) and having difficulty putting our thoughts and feelings into words, the Holy Spirit interprets our sighs and groans and intercedes for us. (Romans 8:26-27)
The Holy Spirit also acts as a guide, leading us in ways that we often are unaware of but sometimes see when we look back on events in our lives. This leading of the Holy Spirit, which influences our choices or prevents us from doing things that are not part of God‘s plan for our lives, is often referred to as God‘s providence. (Acts 16:6-7)
Finally, the Holy Spirit helps us bear the "fruit" that he brings into our lives. (Galatians 5:22-23)
kenblogton replied: Let me keep it simple. In Galatians 3:3, Paul tells believers "Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" Spurgeon preached on this point: see http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0178.htm
In your list of Holy Spirit helps, you've not answered my question (If we can naturally do good, why do we need the Holy Spirit), which is the essential: we need the Holy Spirit to do unconditional loving good, the only good that is pleasing to God - it is impossible to do unconditional loving good in our own strength!

kenblogton said: 2. Prior to the establishment of the canon of Scripture, I believe the Holy Spirit prevented the church from error. This is what you'd expect God to do for His church.

I understand this is your belief and what you think God would have or should have done. Again, you may be right and you may be wrong. I think you are opening a strange can of worms by saying every early church council decision was infallible if it preceded the establishment of the canon of scripture. And it seems quite arbitrary to say prior to an agreement about which letters should be included, God made sure all council rulings were infallible, but after this, council rulings could be right or wrong.

I say that every early church council was infallible. It was an early church council which established the canon of Scripture! Do you think you can pick and choose which early church councils to either accept or reject?
kenblogton

[TheEditor]

Hi Ken,

I'm late to this conversation, but I was curious; Are you a Catholic? I've never heard anyone say that the early Church councils were infallible, unless they had a Catholic background. Maybe I don't run in the right circles.

Regards, Brenden.