Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 3
The teacher insists Paul’s use of Psalm 14 is not a denial that humans can do any good, but an argument that “no one is sufficiently righteous to save himself”; how does that distinction challenge common evangelical instincts to equate “not saving” with “not real” or “not good at all”?
Another way to ask: How is “no one is good enough to save themselves” different from “no one does any real good at all”? How does that challenge the way many evangelicals talk?

Direct Answer Based on the transcript, the distinction forces us to admit that real (relative) good and obedience exist, yet none of it reaches “absolute righteousness” capable of saving—so “not saving” does not mean “nonexistent” or “worthless.”

Support from Transcript:

  • The speaker rejects the reading that Psalm 14 proves “utter inability of man to do good,” calling that an “unreasonable interpretation.”
  • He explains: “no human is righteous” is true in “absolute righteousness… in contrast with God Himself.”
  • Illustration: “no candle can give light before the sun”—the candle gives real light, but it vanishes beside the sun’s brightness.
  • Paul’s point in quoting Psalm 14: “no one is sufficiently righteous to save himself, whether Jew or Gentile.”
  • The transcript insists, “Paul is not teaching that fallen humans are unable to do anything good,” and harmonizes this with Romans 2 where God gives eternal life to those who “perseverance in good work.”
Discussion Follow-ups How would your preaching or discipleship change if you spoke of obedience as truly good but still not a basis for self-salvation? Where have you treated “not saving” as if it meant “not meaningful”?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10
Back Questions Next