Hmm. I wrote a long post on this. It looks like my computer went on the fritz before it got sent. That's the second time this has happened.

I'll see if I can write a shorter response. Let's consider the case of adultery. Satan is working to break up the home of unbelievers as much as believers. If an unbeliever chooses to place his home first, choosing fidelity over pleasure, then (s)he has resisted temptation. How did (s)he do so? By some innate goodness or special innate power? Or by the grace of Christ?

It wouldn't make any sense to suggest that believers can only resist temptation by the help of Christ, but unbelievers resist on their own, would it?

On this, then, we agree - There is no temptation too difficult to resist if we are abiding in Christ.

Can we also agree there is no excuse for sinning after we are tempted? If yes, why, then, do people sometimes sin after they are tempted? What must they do in order not to sin after they are tempted?

TE: It wouldn't make any sense to suggest that believers can only resist temptation by the help of Christ, but unbelievers resist on their own, would it?

MM: If unbelievers can resist temptation with the help of Christ - why bother accepting Him as their personal Savior? If unbelievers doing something right and good does not qualify as "righteousnesses [as] filthy rags" what does?

Because an unbeliever can overcome some temptation with the help of Christ does not mean they have a relationship with Christ, does it? Doesn't salvation involve knowing God? How could you know God without having a relationship with Christ?

People have free will. Sometimes people choose to do that which they are being tempted to do. In order to not do these things, they must choose not do these things. Steps to Christ, page 41, if I remember right, talks about this. "Ropes of Sand". You're probably familiar with the quote.

TE: It wouldn't make any sense to suggest that believers can only resist temptation by the help of Christ, but unbelievers resist on their own, would it?

MM: If unbelievers can resist temptation with the help of Christ - why bother accepting Him as their personal Savior? If unbelievers doing something right and good does not qualify as "righteousnesses [as] filthy rags" what does?

TE: [1] Because an unbeliever can overcome some temptation with the help of Christ does not mean they have a relationship with Christ, does it? [2] Doesn't salvation involve knowing God? [3] How could you know God without having a relationship with Christ?

MM: 1) No. 2) Yes. 3) You couldn't, at least not in a meaningful, saving way.

One more question -

If unbelievers doing something right and good does not qualify as "righteousnesses [as] filthy rags" what does?

Must unbelievers choose to sin when they are tempted? Or, is the choice to sin made by default? In other words, isn't sinning something they do automatically if they don't choose to resist the temptation? I realize believers must choose to sin. But what about unbelievers?

The context of the filthy rags statement is trying to do something good to earn God's favor, not whether or not one (possibly an unbeliever) can overcome a temptation, like adultery.



It depends on the temptation.



It depends on the sin.



I don't think "automatically" works here, as it implies something being done without making a choice. One makes a choice one way or the other.

I think we could say that, because of our fallen natures, that we cannot overcome any temptation without the help of Christ. This would be true of both believers and unbelievers.



They have to make a choice just as much as believers do.

I think believers often pay more attention though. For example, a believer, tempted to commit adultery, is likely to realize very strongly that committing adultery is wrong, whereas an unbeliever, especially in certain cultures, may not consider it as much of a wrong doing. Similarly some may not consider cheating on one's taxes to be much of a bad thing to do, rationalizing it is OK because the government is corrupt anyway, or something like that. A believer, being tempted, is more likely to view the thing they are being tempted to do as clearly wrong.

Isn't not choosing to resist a temptation a choice? If so, doesn't that imply sinning is what we do by default, automatically? Neutrality (neither sinning or not sinning) is not an option, is it? Temptation requires a response, either by not choosing to resist and sinning, or choosing to resist and not sinning. Is there a third option?

If filthy rags righteousness applies only to believers trying to earn God's favor, must we conclude unbelievers are righteous when they resist temptation with the help of Jesus, that their righteousness is pure and holy? Or, is it neutral, neither holy or unholy - just not filthy rags?

Isn't not choosing to resist a temptation a choice?

I would say choosing to not resist a temptation is a choice.

If so, doesn't that imply sinning is what we do by default, automatically? Neutrality (neither sinning or not sinning) is not an option, is it?

Sinning is certainly part and partial to our nature.


Temptation requires a response, either by not choosing to resist and sinning, or choosing to resist and not sinning. Is there a third option?

If filthy rags righteousness applies only to believers trying to earn God's favor,

I didn't say anything like this. I just pointed out that the text, in context, refers to trying to earn God's favor by the things one does. Also, since believers are by definition justified by faith and not by works, the text applies to *unbelievers* trying to earn God's favor.

must we conclude unbelievers are righteous when they resist temptation with the help of Jesus, that their righteousness is pure and holy?

The kingdom of God is within, Jesus taught. Because an unrighteous person performs a correct action does not mean the person is righteous. The pharisees were certainly proof of that.

Or, is it neutral, neither holy or unholy - just not filthy rags?

God is pleased when a person, believer or unbeliever, does the right thing. He hates divorce, for example, whether for believers or unbelievers.

Unbelievers have a fundamental problem, by the very definition of the word "unbeliever" in that they do not believe in Jesus Christ. God is not willing that any should perish. Jesus said that those who believe not are "condemned already," and that God gave His Son so that no one should perish, but have everlasting life, by believing in Him.

So while God is pleased when His principles are followed, by whomever, the fact that some principle of His is fallen does not mean the person has a relationship with Him, or knows Him. But these right choices could be an indication that the Holy Spirit is starting to get through, a hopeful sign.