Bad per se
I have thought of what may be a simple way to demonstrate what I have maintained for years, that Christians of all people do not have a sense, or are prevented from having a sense, of right and wrong, of good and bad. My wife found on a Christian young persons’ forum a thread titled something like “Is to Be Rich a Sin?” I won’t talk about the immorality inherent in the question: its dishonesty — “Can I get away with this?” — or its cowardice — “What punishment must I fear?” Instead, I will offer this trivial thought-exercise:
If I had posted a thread in this forum titled “Is to Be Rich a Good?”, Christians would reply — at least imply — “Do you mean is to be rich biblical?” I would say no. “Then do you mean to ask if to be rich is not a sin?” Again I would say no. “But what is good or bad is a matter of sin.” There could be no further discourse unless my demand that good be judged as good were ignored.
Since there is no Christian concept of good and bad per se, thus they of all people cannot tell what is good or bad.
Exoristos
Porter Doran
Iannes
Epiktetos
Anonymous
But a reader can’t assent unless he is familiar with Fundamentalist forums (online or elsewhere) and knows himself that my thread would proceed something like what I say.
We do have a way of persuading ourselves that so long as we keep strictly within the bounds of the canvas, we may paint anywhere we please, even as it defaces His masterpiece.
Of course I cannot quite agree with your conclusion. ;)
But the canvas — the lines between which you are to color — is something called “biblical” and “sin”. Were I to take this away and give you a different canvas, would you be able to color anything at all?
(Note: “you” is plural.)
Meaning, if Scripture were stripped of such clear delineations as “he who steals must steal no longer,” “let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you,” “fornicators and adulterers God will judge,” etc., would we be able to reject evil and choose to live virtuous lives? I hope so, for Paul says, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law,” and “walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.” Indeed, while many of us may try to keep the Law (or some law) while letting our minds be set on the things of the flesh, we cannot please God that way (Romans 8:4-8).
However, if we walk by the Spirit, we cannot get entirely away from the Bible, for although He will “teach you all things,” He does so partly by bringing “to your remembrance all that I said to you.” Nor, if we read the Bible, can we easily forget about sin, for the inspired writers seem to have found it necessary to admonish even believers with such statements as
“the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21)”
(and yet I suppose the fact that they are “evident” suggest that they can be known apart from the written Law, as Paul also says in Romans 2:14-16)
You are not performing according to stereotype, John. :)
Thanks for all that!
Ah but, John — although you were unusually broad and masterly in your discussion of good and bad per Scripture, did you discuss good and bad per se? i.e., on their own merits?
On their own merits… I would have to say that good is much better than bad. ;)
It is interesting to consider the different usages of “good.” A good deed, a good friend, a good book, a good spade. Sometimes when we say something is good we may mostly just mean we like it. We may mean that it fulfills its intended purpose. Or we may mean it has a transcendent quality of good of which Scripture often speaks. This kind of goodness overlaps with “holy” and “righteous,” and may be manifested in compassion, love, humility, and obedience to God. How much this meaning has in common with the others, I am not sure.
The last kind of good we are all able to sense with our conscience, our soul. But although the good we sense is always the same good, the conscience we sense it with is subject to error, flawed because of our fallen nature and often damaged by our repeated willful rejections of its witness.
Bravo.
(And here I thought you were an engineer.)
Ah – sorry, I write slowly and did not check to see if anyone posted between my two sections!
Yes, I am an engineer – I am usually more concerned with the “good spade” kind of good. :)
(e.g., a good transistor in a logic device is likely to be a very bad one in an audio amplifier, ha)
This is interesting. I was thinking about this recently when I was talking with Dad about something, and we were discussing whether or not something was bad. I think I fell into confusing being bad with being a sin. It’s tough, because I know something can be bad without being a sin, and something can be good without being biblical.
I’m curious though Porter, how do you define good and bad, if you say there is no Christian concept of it?
But yes, on that particular forum I think you’ve hit the nail on the head of how the discussion would go. :)
Dakota, it is not (I think) terribly helpful to offer a dictionary definition of “good” — rather, what is helpful is to think whether a real action or event is good. For example, to answer “Is my becoming rich good?” I might ask, “Good for me or good for all?”, “Good for long or good for a time?”, “Good for my flesh or good for my soul?”, and many other thoughts that shouts of “biblical!” would have deafened in me.
But *all* I am maintaining is that, to decide what is good and bad — one must at the very least be able *to discuss* what is good and bad! When one is unable *to discuss* what is good and bad, how can one *ever* even *hope* to decide it?
Thanks Porter, that makes sense. (I can be dense sometimes. ;)) I agree; many times Christians are afraid to discuss things, as if the truth can falter under discussion!
And so it can falter, friend, so it can.
And so it should be constantly calibrated – by diligent study of that Word which reveals truth, by prayerful listening to the Spirit, and by obeying both. Consistently doing good wears a sort of familiar path in a good spot, and (sadly) vice versa.
But when I discuss with another whether something is good or bad, I cannot ask him to follow *my* conscience – he has one of his own, after all, which is meant to guide him, as mine is to guide me. He and I can, however, challenge each other to recalibrate our consciences by the revealed Word of the God who is good – and that’s why I find it so appropriate to appeal to Scripture in such a discussion.
Of course if there is no love, the above exercise can quickly devolve into a sad kind of dominance game – it is “fun” to try to force someone to admit that he ought to agree with you. I must admit that it is not generally good.
The truth? I don’t mean people’s concept of the truth, but the truth itself.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you!
But human-perceived truth is the truth humans have, Dakota. The Spirit has true truth.
Discussion can move human-perceived truth all sorts of directions. There is further to say about this.