Your answer in post #127 regarding Cornelius is ridiculous!
I quoted:
Acts 10.1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.
Your answer: The book of Acts is a book of transition.
So until you can answer this point, you're just spinning your wheels. We can argue all day long about whether the good in man achieves Salvation or not. But the point is, unsaved people can freely choose to do good. And obviously, they are free to choose for Salvation as well, which is about as good as or better than any other form of good.
I haven't forgotten Romans 3. It's indelibly impressed upon my mind. Paul was making the point about Man's Sin Nature by pointing out God's view of mankind, generally, at a time when what they were on the inside came out in vulgar display. That doesn't mean that all men always walk in that sin--only that sin is inside all of us. Nor does it mean we can't deny sin its wish to display itself. We can indeed deny it, even as God told Cain he could achieve that.
The blood of Jesus has not "wiped out" the old sin nature. We still have a Sin Nature. We are to reckon ourselves "dead to sin" as far as its legal claim upon our lives. Our "death sentence" has been removed, and we can now ignore it, since we've chosen Christ as our life. The life of Christ is eternal, and has already overcome death for us, legally.
I'm just trying to put the language right so that there is no misunderstanding. Obviously, you don't recognize that I know the Bible.
I've already showed you that isn't true with Cornelius. But it's obviously true because you can simply look anywhere and see that all of mankind can do good deeds. Man was created to do good deeds. The Fall of Man did not end how we were created to do good. We can still do good after the Fall.
Man sinned by choosing to do the evil together with the good, to choose a false knowledge of the good over a true knowledge of the good. All men can choose the true good, whether they are conscious of where it comes from or not. Christ's revelation of "the good" is available to all men, whether they are saved or not. It's just that "the good" alone does not get people saved.
Formula Salvation messages cannot replace good theology. If you treat people like there is no good in them, you will likely not bring them to Christ. People don't do good because it's a "form of Christianity." They simply at times follow their conscience, perhaps for less than pure motives. But unquestionably, they do obey God at times. I give the example of King Abimelech (Gen 20).
When you talk about men "pleasing God" you are conflating pleasing God by accepting Christ with pleasing God simply by doing good works without a full commitment to Christ. Consider the Rich Young Ruler story (Mark 10). Jesus loved him for his commitment to the good, and yet the man still turned away!
Doing good isn't always about getting saved. And if it isn't about getting saved, that doesn't mean it still doesn't have some good in it. This is the problem with your theology about free will and the ubiquity of "doing good." Obviously, the most important "good" is accepting Christ for Salvation. But that was not my point.
