How can people do good?

[kenblogton]

kenblogton said: The Pharisees were legalistically righteous, just as Paul was when he was a Pharisee. The only righteousness that is worthy is that which is pleasing to God, and it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

With regard to righteousness, what does inspired by the Holy Spirit mean? Both Noah in the OT and Joseph in the NT were called righteous by name. And throughout the OT we are told about a class of people called "the righteous." Since the Holy Spirit did not indwell people until Pentecost, how do you explain this?

kenblogton wrote: The accepted Christian belief is that the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer did not occur until after Jesus death and resurrection. Numbers 27:18 makes this claim ambiguous “So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him.” Generally, the Holy Spirit came on individuals at specific times for specific purposes in the Old Testament, such as Saul in 1 Samuel 10 and left him in 1 Samuel 16:14 and Samson in Judges 13-16.

Note: I'm not suggesting that all who were referred to as righteous in the OT were justified and reconciled to God as a result of their righteousness, because of course they weren't. I'm simply saying they were righteous when they did what was right.

kenblogton wrote: In Matthew 7:11, Jesus states "If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children" This tells us anyone can do something which is objectively good or righteous. That type of good is not Holy Spirit-inspired good, the kind required for true goodness.
kenblogton

[psimmond]

We are on page 7 trying to answer the question "How can people do good?"

Why can't we just say, "God created humans in his image and gave them the ability to freely choose and sometimes they choose to do good"?

I know there are certain Christian denominations who says unregenerate humans can do no good but the Bible doesn't present a strong case for this and reality doesn't bear this out.

[steve]

One of the participants here asked me offline if I would weigh-in on this topic. I started reading the thread at its beginning, around March 20th, and soon lost interest because it was unclear what kenblogton’s question actually intended to bring out, and every response that anyone provided was answered by brief, seemingly rhetorical, questions by ken, which left me wondering (but not overly curious to discover) what his point was.

Initially, I thought he was making the Calvinistic point that total depravity guarantees that unregenerate men will never be able to do truly good acts. However, it eventually came out that ken thinks some unregenerate men might do some good acts, but, if they do, these must necessarily be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

This seems to mean that the Holy Spirit might inspire occasional good deeds through a person who is an unbeliever, and in whom the Spirit does not actually reside. I cannot dispute this, since, in the Old Testament, some unsaved individuals (e.g., Balaam, Saul) had moments of inspiration from the Spirit of God, leading them to prophesy. If the Holy Spirit might influence a non-Christian in this way, why not in another?

I think Paidion’s point is that good deeds may be performed by human choice, even by non-Christians. He has not stated such, but he may believe that this is due to the original image of God in mankind, which, though marred, has not been completely obliterated by sin. I agree with this possibility also.

We know that many seemingly selfless acts have been done by non-Christians. Shall we attribute the source of these acts to the residual divine image in humanity, or to the spontaneous, momentary inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I do not know, and do not think that scriptural teaching compels us to choose between these options.

If it is due to the divine image in man that men do these things, would it be inappropriate to identify this with the Holy Spirit’s influence? After all, man became a living being in God’s image when God breathed into his nostrils the Spirit of God? Can the divine image in man be completely dissociated with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the human conscience? I don’t know, but I would not be inclined to argue either way.

Thus, if ken’s thesis is that only the Holy Spirit can inspire good actions in man, and if Paidion’s thesis is that there is something innate in man that enables him to sometimes do good, then I am not sure that these two positions are mutually exclusive—and might even be different statements of the same phenomenon.

[Paidion]

If it is due to the divine image in man that men do these things, would it be inappropriate to identify this with the Holy Spirit’s influence? After all, man became a living being in God’s image when God breathed into his nostrils the Spirit of God? Can the divine image in man be completely dissociated with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the human conscience? I don’t know, but I would not be inclined to argue either way.

Yes, God breathed his spirit into the body that He created from earth, thus giving man the ability to choose. But people choose to do good to others sometimes even in a self-sacricing way, and people choose to do ill to others usually in a selfish way. Is it then rational to consider all of man's works, both good and bad, as resulting from the influence of the spirit of God at creation? Somehow, I don't think this would be satisfying to Ken. I think he means that God's spirit directly influences people to do good, and sometimes even those who do not know God, whereas I think that anyone can do good also as a result of the ability to choose (with which we are created). Nevertheless, I don't see this as an issue worth arguing about either.

[kenblogton]

Reply to Steve May 28 11:49am
Thus, if ken’s thesis is that only the Holy Spirit can inspire good actions in man, and if Paidion’s thesis is that there is something innate in man that enables him to sometimes do good, then I am not sure that these two positions are mutually exclusive—and might even be different statements of the same phenomenon.
As I understand them, our positions ARE mutually exclusive. Let me give an example to illustrate my point. Two people give $1,000,000 to combat a disease. From a human point of view, both are equally good.
Person One was inspired by God to do so, and gives the glory to God.
Person Two was inspired to do so by the thanks he would receive for doing good. That is good, but it is conditional, not unconditional, loving good
On the surface of it, both are equally good; beneath the surface, they are not. As Jeremiah 17:9 states, The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?""
kenblogton

[Paidion]

But Ken, those are not the only two possibilities. Person 2 may NOT have given the million in order to be praised for it so that he would feel good about himself. He may have given it because of a deep concern for the many people who are affected so adversely by the disease, and wants to see a cure discovered.

Let's consider another scenario:

Person 1 is a Christian, Corrie Ten Boom, who risked her life by hiding Jews so that they might escape being killed. Let's assume that she was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

Person 2 is a non-Christian, unconcerned about God or doing what He says. But this person thinks the persecution of Jews is a great wrong and an injustice. So he, too, risks his life by hiding Jews. He doesn't do it for any recognition he might receive, but only out of concern for persecuted Jews who may be wrongfully murdered.

In what way is Person 2's act conditional?

[kenblogton]

Reply to Paidion
But Ken, those are not the only two possibilities. Person 2 may NOT have given the million in order to be praised for it so that he would feel good about himself. He may have given it because of a deep concern for the many people who are affected so adversely by the disease, and wants to see a cure discovered.
You're missing the point of my examples. In my examples, one person did do it for the thanks anticipated, the other to bring glory to God; only the person who did it to bring glory to God exhibited unconditionally loving good. However, in human terms, both are equally good.
In real life, of course, we can never know a person's true motives - only God does.
kenblogton

[psimmond]

Steve wrote: After all, man became a living being in God’s image when God breathed into his nostrils the Spirit of God?

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.

kenblogton wrote: In my examples, one person did do it for the thanks anticipated, the other to bring glory to God; only the person who did it to bring glory to God exhibited unconditionally loving good. However, in human terms, both are equally good.

I don't think anyone on this forum would disagree with your point that right deeds performed with right motives are superior to right deeds done with wrong motives; however, as Paidion pointed out, a person who hid Jews because he recognized the injustice that was being perpetrated against them did the right thing for the right reason. Mothers who give their hungry babies milk are doing the right thing for the right reason.

[Paidion]

You're missing the point of my examples. In my examples, one person did do it for the thanks anticipated, the other to bring glory to God; only the person who did it to bring glory to God exhibited unconditionally loving good. However, in human terms, both are equally good.
In real life, of course, we can never know a person's true motives - only God does

I didn't miss the point of your examples. What I tried to do was show that a person such as a non-Christian, could hide Jews to save them with no self-serving motives whatever. Therefore such a person is an example of one who can do unconditionally loving good without being inspired by the Holy Spirit. His only inspiration is his personal desire to save the lives of Jews. This is a counter-example to your basic premise that it is impossible for a person to do unconditionally loving good unless inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[kenblogton]

Reply to Paidion
Paidion's example: Person 2 is a non-Christian, unconcerned about God or doing what He says. But this person thinks the persecution of Jews is a great wrong and an injustice. So he, too, risks his life by hiding Jews. He doesn't do it for any recognition he might receive, but only out of concern for persecuted Jews who may be wrongfully murdered.
How do you know Person 2 was not inspired by the Holy Spirit? The Old Testament is full of examples of people who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do things, some of them not even Jews, for instance the king in Esther 6:1-2.
Only God knows the source of any person's motivation; we humans can only speculate. 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), that even the evil can do good (Matthew 7:11, Luke 11:13), but not unconditionally loving good. Paul also, in Romans 7:7-25 and 8:9 and Galatians 5:16-18 tells us we need Holy Spirit inspiration to do good.
kenblogton