Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
Theological Questions
>
Morals
date
newest »
newest »
Interesting question, but Jesus did sum the Mosaic Law in Matthew 22:37 and 22:39 ... "love the Lord with all thine heart, soul, and mind" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". Micah 6:8 also provides instruction on how we are to treat one another.In my opinion, morals are man's "problem child". They shift according to the times. God requires righteousness on our part, and that righteousness can only come by exercising true faith and obedience in God.
Yes indeed, an interesting question. I like this quote from Dallas Willard:"The good tree, Jesus said, “bears good fruit” (Matt. 7:17, NASB). If we tend to the tree, the fruit will take care of itself. The inner dimensions of life are what are referred to in the Great Commandment: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27, NASB). This commandment does not so much tell us what we must do, as what we must cultivate in the care of our souls."
Are good morals part of the good fruit? Do morals come from values, or values from morals? What do we do when morals or values are in tension with each other?
I don't know the answers, but I was exploring issues around values, especially when they are in tension, in this article: "Hierarchy of Values — A Way to Understand Ourselves and Those Who Disagree with Us?"
https://medium.com/pelos-press/hierar...
Hi Tyrone and David, and thank you for sharing your views. My interest really focuses on whether or not there is any agreement on a list of rules - much like the Ten Commandments, but detailed - that can be taught e.g. to a five year old who has little grasp of fancy-schmancy philosophical discussions. Personally, I don't see it.Tyrone wrote: "...Jesus did sum the Mosaic Law..."
Unfortunately, a couple verses - or even a whole book - cannot possibly cover all cases: think of modern penal codes, which contain hundreds if not thousands of articles, and still require case-by-case (re-)interpretation by courts on a regular basis. Then the question becomes, how are individuals supposed to deduct from a mere "summary" the whole variety of concrete rules of behavior applicable in their lives? The danger in appealing to each person's common sense is clear. In practice, it seems to me, people defer to authority and convention. Which again shifts the burden to such moral authorities and conventions: why is it that they, and not others, represent God's will when advising on moral conduct?
Tyrone wrote: "In my opinion, morals are man's "problem child". They shift according to the times."
If morals shift according to the times, then immorality (I'm thinking, for instance, sexual immorality) encompasses a different set of behaviors today from what it did in Jesus' times. What society might have found offensive back then might be totally acceptable today, and vice versa. Hardly an objective, universal principle. The "hierarchy of values" described by David is not at odds with this kind of relativism.
Tyrone wrote: "God requires righteousness on our part, and that righteousness can only come by exercising true faith and obedience in God."
One is not simply "obedient", obedience needs to have a target. Obedience is defined as "compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority". I mentioned the issue with natural authorities above. If one posits a supernatural authority, how are we to recognize the natural entities which mediate it, so that it becomes apparent to us? Without a consistent way of discerning between contrasting authorities, obedience would succumb to gullibility and lose its orientating function.
·naysayer· wrote: "I've been wondering whether there is an explicit, ultimate Christian deontology, a definitive list of do's and don'ts for everyone to follow. Admittedly, it can be rather confusing for the average ..."First, I must assume you are "Born again" and that you realize the full understanding of what it means to be "Born again." I say this from the beginning because I have seen too many who go to church, worship, yet do not have a concept of the most important issue, that the first need is to become "Born again."
The Book of Acts tells us that God is not the God of confusion. Every situation we are confronted with in life is dealt with somewhere in God's Word.
To deal with a 5 yr. old concerning the morals of this life is best done by example - "Bring up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he, will not depart from it." Certainly the morals of life change in society's world, but God's Word does not change. They have their laws that they make up as they go along. We have our laws written in our hearts. Jesus said, "I have not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it." The law is fulfilled in us who have made Jesus our Lord, but the law still remains for those outside and they can try as they may, yet can never keep the whole law so they are guilty of the whole law and still retain their sin.
T.R. wrote: "We have our laws written in our hearts...The law is fulfilled in us who have made Jesus our Lord"Hi T.R. If I understand you correctly, faith is a sufficient condition for moral behavior (one of the options that I envisioned in my first post)...
T.R. wrote: "...the law still remains for those outside and they can try as they may, yet can never keep the whole law so they are guilty of the whole law and still retain their sin."
...while the unfaithful - no matter how hard they try to respect their own "codes" - will inveriably fail. They cannot be "righteous". Conversely, the faithful can disregard and break the moral codes, as that's of no consequence.
T.R. wrote: "...I must assume you are "Born again" and that you realize the full understanding of what it means to be "Born again.""
I would not say so. I have no first-hand experience of it, though I am somewhat familiar with the Wikipedia definition of being "Born again":
"spiritual rebirth", or a regeneration of the human spirit from the Holy Spirit, contrasted with physical birth
T.R. wrote: "...the first need is to become "Born again.""
So it all hinges on being "Born again". But how does one go about becoming so? Is it a set of practices (such as oaths, baptism, self-sacrifice, etc.) that will lead to it? Or does one just wait around for divine grace to strike? Is the mere intention of taking up that journey enough to qualify? Or is there a predefined achievement that marks the finish line? In any case, the "recipe" for becoming "Born again" becomes itself the deontology.
T.R. wrote: "Bring up a child in the way that he should go..."
This is not at all clear. It seems to give parents a great deal of leeway in indoctrinating their children according to their own views and goals. I reckon a young child cannot count as "Born again" so it cannot profit from the "plenary indulgence" of faith. At this point we as adults can either write off its excesses as juvenile exuberance and wait for its "rebirth", or we can try to "program" it to at least look like it acts like a moral person - a very secular type of obedience.
·naysayer· wrote: "T.R. wrote: "We have our laws written in our hearts...The law is fulfilled in us who have made Jesus our Lord"Hi T.R. If I understand you correctly, faith is a sufficient condition for moral beha..."
Hi Naysayer, First - no faith is not a sufficient condition for moral behavior. Faith in Hebrews 11:1 states that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Moral behavior is something you strive after through prayer, reading the Word and understanding the standards God set for us to follow.
Why I stress the importance of being "Born again" is several reasons. It is the only way you can get into heaven. It is the only way you can understand the Bible. It is the only way you can receive the Holy Spirit to guide you, to teach you and convict you of wrongdoing. He guides you in all truth. He is your hotline to the Father so to speak.
If you have yet to become "Born again" you are still of a fleshly nature. However, we can only be saved spiritually, not physically.
How do we become "Born again"? This is where faith comes in. We must confess with our mouth that Jesus is your Lord, (in other words tell people and then lead them to the Lord) and secondly, believe in our heart that God raised Jesus from the dead - Romans 10:9&10 - keep reading and it will tell you faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. In other words, the more you get the Word in your heart, the more your faith will grow. Also, by hearing the Word of God will increase the desire to become "Born again."
Your 5 yr. old is an example of the need to become born again. He may or may not be of the age of the knowledge of right or wrong. He has a sin-nature which we all acquire when we are born. The sin-nature only affects the physical not the spiritual. However, when he is old enough to reason right and wrong, and he sins - he then dies spiritually. That means he must also become "Born again".
I agree with T.R. that being "born again" is essential to salvation and pleasing God. Romans chapters 7 and 8 are a great description of the difference between living according to a moral law and living according to the Spirit of God. A person can only live according to the Spirit of God, if, as Jesus said, they are born again. Being born again is to enter into a new relationship with God, a Father - son relationship, where we become children of God, who are forgiven and accepted on the basis of Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than our own moral efforts. Does a child earn its right to be part of a family? No, it is born into a family, it's birth makes it part of that family. So it is with God's family. Our new birth is made possible by Jesus' death and resurrection.
In being born again, something has to die. I need to give up any attempt to be right with God through my own moral behaviour. My self-righteousness must die, then I am free to receive the perfect righteousness that only Christ can give, which is a free gift.
I clearly remember the day I was born again. I got to the point where I wanted to know if Christianity was true or not. My thinking went something like this, “I don’t know if God exists, but if he does, I would like a relationship with him, that’s got to be amazing! I’ll give this Christianity a go, and I’ll soon find out if it is true or not.”
So one day I sat in my car and read a booklet called “Journey Into Life”. It explained about how we are all like sheep who have gone astray, about how my sin separated me from God, about how much God loves me, and about how Jesus had died for me so that I might be forgiven and have a relationship with him. At the end of the booklet was a prayer to pray if you wanted to give your life to God. When I got to the prayer, even then, I did not know if God was real, but I did know that I wanted to know him if he was. So I prayed the prayer, and meant it.
I did not expect what happened next: there were no angels singing; or lights in the sky; but, in a way that I cannot explain, I knew that God had entered my life; I knew that I could talk to him, and I did. I started asking for his help in what I was doing.
That was over forty years ago, and I can say that the Lord has been with me through the highs and lows of life ever since. Do I have a relationship with God? Absolutely! I am constantly amazed at his love, his goodness, his compassion, his mercy; at his answers to prayers and care for every detail of my life; at his leading and the way that his plan for my life continues to unfold. And yet it feels like the journey is just beginning.
As Romans 8:14,15 (NIV) says:
14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’
"Abba", means Daddy! By being born again, the Spirit of God enables us to know God and call him Daddy.
Does being born again make me a more moral person than someone who is not born again? Certainly not! But I know that I am a more moral person than I would have been, had I not been born again. The biggest change is perhaps the motivation. Once we know that we are children of God, who do not need to, nor ever could, earn God's favour, then our motivation is no longer fear, but to please the one we love.
Sorry again for the long answer. These are very important and deep issues. Thanks for raising them.
David wrote: "I agree with T.R. that being "born again" is essential to salvation and pleasing God. Romans chapters 7 and 8 are a great description of the difference between living according to a moral law and l..."Thanks David - I loved the testimony perhaps because it was similar to mine although the circumstances were somewhat different the end result was the same and that too was over forty years ago.
As far as morals are concerned, "There is none righteous, no not one." "Our righteousness is as filthy rags." However, we are the righteousness of God only because of Christ' righteousness.
To bring up a child in the way that he should go, the Bible also tells us to bring him up in the nurture and adminition of the Lord. We cannot have moral living within ourselves - only through the righteousness of Christ that we receive through the Holy Spirit when we become "Born again."
There is no "list". The first "list" was the Mosaic Law, which Israel failed to keep and the Apostle Paul said man could not, as a whole, keep. Besides, keeping the Law still could not save us. Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is the goal. Compiling another list of morals is just a duplication of the same thing. The only difference would be it would be man's list of morals.The Holy Bible is the only objective standard of behavior ... righteousness ... man can rely upon and should be guided by because it is based on what God commands. That's why we must study the Bible; to understand how God expects us to live eternally. With this understanding, we teach our children so that they learn its lessons. And, righteousness is only attained by salvation through Jesus Christ.
·naysayer· wrote: "Unfortunately, a couple verses - or even a whole book - cannot possibly cover all cases: think of modern penal codes, which contain hundreds if not thousands of articles, and still require case-by-case (re-)interpretation by courts on a regular basis. Then the question becomes, how are individuals supposed to deduct from a mere "summary" the whole variety of concrete rules of behavior applicable in their lives? The danger in appealing to each person's common sense is clear. In practice, it seems to me, people defer to authority and convention. Which again shifts the burden to such moral authorities and conventions: why is it that they, and not others, represent God's will when advising on moral conduct?"I've been thinking about naysayer's comments above, and as Tyrone says, 'There is no "list"' At least from a Christian perspective.
One reason is because, as pointed out above, no list of rules can possibly hope to cope with all the complexities of life. This perhaps explains why the written Law was added to by the religious leaders in Jesus' time. Indeed Jesus was often accused of breaking the "rules" when he associated with "sinners", did good work / miracles on the sabbath, etc.
As to authority, as Tyrone has said, for the Christian, the Bible is the authority. But rather than look to the Bible for blanket rules, it is good to look for principles by which to live. As 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
But for a 5 year old, and indeed for all of us, I would offer these 2 questions to guide us in moral / good behaviour:
1) What would please God in this situation? This is how we show our love for God. The more we know the Bible, the more we will know what will please God.
2) What would I like others to do for me in this situation? And then do that for others.
These 2 questions can help us avoid moral relativism, whilst at the same time, fulfil the 2 commandments that sum up all of God's commandments, as Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40:
36 ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’
37 Jesus replied: ‘“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
St Augustine expressed it like this, "Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved." Only the Holy Spirit can generate such love within us.
Thanks for your answers, guys. In particular, I found David's story very informative. Please keep your long answers coming.Lets see if I'm getting it right. Faith by itself is not a moral free pass, but it allows you to receive moral guidance through a spiritual "hotline". Lacking this source, the unfaithful, despite all their secular norms, are blind to what's really expected of them.
T.R. wrote: "...when he is old enough to reason right and wrong, and he sins - he then dies spiritually. That means he must also become "Born again"."
So, as soon as one is able to distinguish right from wrong, one faces the choice between sinning, thereby rejecting the path of rebirth, and becoming "Born again", thus avoiding sin. Do you think "Born again" people are less liable to sin than the fellow "fleshly" person? Or just as liable?
T.R. wrote: "Moral behavior is something you strive after through prayer, reading the Word and understanding the standards God set for us to follow."
These sound like three very subjective endeavors without any guarantee of leading to an objective, universal code of conduct. It seems inevitable for as many different moralities to arise as there are believers. Lacking a universally agreed-upon detailed code of conduct, even as a "Born again" one is still liable to commit what can be considered immoral acts.
T.R. wrote: "How do we become "Born again"? This is where faith comes in. We must confess with our mouth that Jesus is your Lord, (in other words tell people and then lead them to the Lord) and secondly, believe in our heart that God raised Jesus from the dead - Romans 10:9&10 - keep reading and it will tell you faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. In other words, the more you get the Word in your heart, the more your faith will grow. Also, by hearing the Word of God will increase the desire to become "Born again.""
I'm still a bit confused on this, so allow me to drill down some more. It appears there's a whole range of faith "intensity", ranging from utter infidel to complete "Born again" believer. At what point does one transition from merely desiring to become "Born again" and actually becoming so? Is there an threshold across which "here you have it, here you don't"? An inner state or outward manifestation that signals the transition?
Tyrone wrote: "The first "list" was the Mosaic Law, which Israel failed to keep and the Apostle Paul said man could not, as a whole, keep. Besides, keeping the Law still could not save us. Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is the goal."
Now you're saying we "ought" to strive for salvation, this itself sounds like a moral law, but it's not so clear where it comes from. Could you point out any passage in scripture that explicitly suggests this goal? (Likewise, I don't recall any prophet explicitly saying you're supposed to abhor hell, it's just assumed to be the case for anyone who gets acquainted with the description of such a place.) Maybe you intend to say, instead, that this goal arises naturally in those who love God? According to this view, society would be divided into those who see this as a (the) goal, and those who do not. This latter group would be cut off from moral behavior. Or do you mean that it makes sense for everyone of us, for purely selfish reasons, to strive for salvation, because the alternative doesn't seem as pleasing (an appeal to our emotionality)?
David wrote: "“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
...
St Augustine expressed it like this, "Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved.""
A consequence of neighborly love would be to foster others' well-being. St. Augustine fervently supported the fight against heresy on the part of religious (and secular) authorities, by dire means. Apparently he did not see a contradiction.
Just like the heretics' story, the case of the 5 year old is emblematic. We're rarely content with conducting ourselves according to our faith (here I'm not restricting my observation to theism; it holds just as well for e.g. humanism). Instead, we often tend to impose - carrot and stick - our achieved "enlightenment" on others who aren't as far along on our path, or are simply on a different path. Having no insight into others' mental states, parents cannot tell whether their child is acting out of love of God or not. Instead, they rely on outward behavioral cues in order to dish out reward and punishment as they deem appropriate. This kind of moral teaching comes remarkably close to the "list" approach and seems to justify the idea that, as long as one cannot convince others of being guided by the spirit of God, he should fall back exactly on a "list" of rules.
·naysayer· wrote: "Thanks for your answers, guys. In particular, I found David's story very informative. Please keep your long answers coming."Your interest in long answers is very refreshing, in the age of soundbites!
I came across this quote from Dallas Willard:
"What Makes a Good Person
For Jesus, the good person is the person who is appropriately concerned about and committed to the well-being of others (Mark 12:31; John 13:34–35). The bad person is one who is intentionally destructive or indifferent to the well-being of others (Matt. 15:18–20; John 3:30; 7:7). The right act is the kind of act that is characteristic of the person who is committed to the well-being of others (Luke 10:25–37). Admittedly, the moral statements listed in the points above deserve and require more elaboration, but the objective here is to demonstrate how these moral truths capture the essence of Jesus’s teaching. Yet they cannot be based on themselves. It is very nice to have a moral theory, but how does it actually work in creating a good life?" (From The Divine Conspiracy Continued: Fulfilling God's Kingdom on Earth)
Dallas Willard was a Christian philosopher, and so much more qualified to talk about such things than me.
·naysayer· wrote: "We're rarely content with conducting ourselves according to our faith (here I'm not restricting my observation to theism; it holds just as well for e.g. humanism). Instead, we often tend to impose - carrot and stick - our achieved "enlightenment" on others who aren't as far along on our path, or are simply on a different path. Having no insight into others' mental states, parents cannot tell whether their child is acting out of love of God or not. Instead, they rely on outward behavioral cues in order to dish out reward and punishment as they deem appropriate. This kind of moral teaching comes remarkably close to the "list" approach and seems to justify the idea that, as long as one cannot convince others of being guided by the spirit of God, he should fall back exactly on a "list" of rules."
I agree that we humans have a tendency to impose our enlightenment on others. It is perhaps an illustration of what Jesus said in Luke 18:19 (NIV) "‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good – except God alone." St Augustine undoubtedly got things wrong, just as you and I do. If we look at the life of Jesus, he never tried to impose his view on others. Yes, he taught others, but he came "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). He left people to make up their own minds about what he taught. Some believed him and some didn't. These are important matters of life and death, but like Jesus we should always be gracious and as it says in 1 Peter 3:15, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
In thinking about all this, I find it helpful to differentiate between two important Biblical concepts: salvation; and sanctification. My understanding of the Bible's teaching on these is as follows:
Salvation is being set free from the ultimate consequence of sin, which is separation from God who is holy. Sin and sinners cannot exist in his presence, which is why sin separates us from God. Salvation is the free gift of God, bought for us on the cross. Therefore salvation cannot be earned, but only received (like any gift), by faith. We can be confident about our salvation because it does not depend on us, but on Christ and his perfect sacrifice for us, which is why 1 John 5:13 (NIV) is able to say, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." This is one of my favorite verses, and the underlining is mine. I am so grateful for, and love, the fact that we can be certain of our salvation; that God as our heavenly Father wants us to be secure in being a child of God. I understand that the research is very clear that child thrive in a secure loving environment.
Now as you point out, very often it is impossible for us to know the exact point of being born again, only God knows that. Nevertheless, the Bible teaches that there is a great difference between being saved and not being saved. It uses language like, "When you were dead in your sins..., God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins." (Colossians 2:13 NIV); "Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behaviour. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation." (Colossians 1:21,22 NIV); "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions – it is by grace you have been saved." (Ephesians 2:3-5 NIV)
So salvation means the difference between: death and life; alienation and reconciliation.
Salvation has to do with our destination, but sanctification has to to do with our journey. Sanctification is a process enabled by the Holy Spirit, that starts when we are born again. The goal of sanctification is to make us more and more like Jesus, so that, "we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3:18 NIV)
Unlike salvation, sanctification requires effort on our part, to the degree that Paul says, "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose." (Philippians 2:12,13 NIV)
Sanctification is the working out of our salvation, and it is a partnership with God in that we must work it out, but also God works in us to "will and to act". The best analogy I have for this partnership is from when our granddaughter was just learning to walk. She could not walk unless we held her hands, but neither could she walk unless she put one foot in front of the other. We are all toddlers with God.
So God is working in us to make us the kind of people who will want to make the same moral choices that Jesus would make, if he were living our lives today. But we are all works in progress, which is why I would never want to claim that a Christian is a more moral person than a non-Christian. However if any Christian is cooperating with God in the process of sanctification, then they will be a better person today than they were yesterday, by the grace of God.
I suppose that in the end this highlights that living out a moral life, a truly Christian life, is a matter of living in a dependent, loving relationship with a personal God, who invites us to see him as our heavenly Father.
·naysayer· wrote: "These sound like three very subjective endeavors without any guarantee of leading to an objective, universal code of conduct. It seems inevitable for as many different moralities to arise as there are believers. Lacking a universally agreed-upon detailed code of conduct, even as a "Born again" one is still liable to commit what can be considered immoral acts."What you have described is where most men are without becoming "Born-again."
Because of sin, man seeks to satisfy his spiritual hunger. He senses a void within his heart but is unable to reason what or why. Without God's Spirit to fill man's spirit with life, he impulsively seeks for anything with a spiritual tone attached. If it impresses him, he will usually follow it, sometimes without wise judgement. More often than not, religion is the way he chooses to fill the void. The bad news is--there are many paths available for him to venture--each claiming to be the right one. The Bible says, "There is a way that seems right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death."
"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Ps 14:1.
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh to the Father but by Me." John 14:6
"There is no other way, except by Jesus whereby we can be saved." Acts 4:12
"Confess Jesus with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead." Romans 10:9&10
To become (Born-again)-it takes less than 30 seconds--then you can see for yourself. You won't have to keep asking wavering questions. You will become a new creature in Christ - old things will pass away, and behold, all things shall become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17
Your spirit and God's Spirit must become reunited (Born-again). Sin separated us from God, but only Jesus reunites us back to God.
David wrote: "I find it helpful to differentiate between two important Biblical concepts: salvation; and sanctification."I'm grateful to you for this fundamental and eye-opening distinction. As salvation is an unconditional gift (sola gratia doctrine), it seems that sanctification (which "requires effort on our part") is not a prerequisite for salvation. It's extra credit.
David wrote: "God as our heavenly Father wants us to be secure in being a child of God. I understand that the research is very clear that child thrive in a secure loving environment."
I agree that, to the extent that it's desirable for people to thrive, and that the belief in salvation gives people a feeling of security and being loved (a highly subjective premise), this belief is well worth pursuing. Since these goals represent empirical, real-life (viz. psychological) benefits, it's also meaningful to ask what other strategies - perhaps more intellectually economical and feasible for an unbeliever - may lead to the same results.
David wrote: "Yes, he taught others, but he came "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). He left people to make up their own minds about what he taught. Some believed him and some didn't.
...
God is working in us to make us the kind of people who will want to make the same moral choices that Jesus would make, if he were living our lives today."
"Do what Jesus would" is indeed a much-quoted principle; a kind of categorical imperative in which "Jesuslikeness" supplants any static maxim; but it still fails to satisfy the requirements of a prescription that everyone can understand.
Even assuming full commitment to this principle, we would be hard-pressed to know (let alone put into practice) the Jesuslike moral choices in all situations that might come up, second after second. It's far from obvious how these choices would become immediately evident to us. Unfortunately, despite Hollywood's unrelenting efforts, it's hard to picture Jesus reacting to present-day situations. We'd have to extrapolate from the biblical accounts wildly.
Take for instance the principle of fostering others' well-being. Millennia of socioeconomic change habituated us to higher standards of well-being. These were even extended to encompass non-human life forms: nowadays even eating chicken or using disposable plastic bags can get you crucified (only metaphorically, for now). This increased sensitivity puts moral pressure on us: we want to avoid causing indignation (incompatible with others' well-being).
And the risk of incorrectly extrapolating from a handful of episodes looms large. Jesus did curse cities for being full of unbelievers, after all, and get angry (at the temple and at the tree). Jesus could very well be a consequentialist. Thanks to omniscience, he isn't plagued by the human limitations to knowledge and can easily engage in moral optimization. We don't have this luxury.
David wrote: "we are all works in progress, which is why I would never want to claim that a Christian is a more moral person than a non-Christian. However if any Christian is cooperating with God in the process of sanctification, then they will be a better person today than they were yesterday, by the grace of God."
This point didn't go unnoticed the first time around, I simply forgot to reply. I don't mean to take away from your personal journey, but I see a problem with this logic. Let's assume that believers and non-believers are, on average, equally moral to start with (without worrying about what "moral" means, in this context). Now, if the grace of God helps some believers (but no non-believer) "progress" to a more moral state, the moral imbalance in favor of believers will gradually grow, as non-believers stay stuck in their initial state. Alternatively, God might help everyone - regardless of their faith or lack thereof - become more moral, in order to keep the moral balance among all humans: in this case, having faith or not would have no impact. Or again, non-believers might be able to keep the pace with believers either through their own efforts or by "cooperating" with a competing entity: this would justify non-Christian pathways to morality. In conclusion, either of the following holds:
1) At some point in time (and here on earth, not in some afterlife), believers will prevail morally;
2) There are ways to become more moral people besides cooperation with God.
At this point it's necessary to define what it means to "prevail morally". Taking it as a roundabout way of saying "become more pleasing to God" won't do.
·naysayer· wrote: "At this point it's necessary to define what it means to "prevail morally". Taking it as a roundabout way of saying "become more pleasing to God" won't do."Thanks for your very interesting and thought provoking reply! I hope I can provide some food for thought in return.
It might help to confess that I struggle with the concept of morality unless it is rooted in revelation from God. In the same way that I think CS Lewis said that scientific thought was made possible because people expected nature to be governed by laws, because they believed in a law giver, so also I believe that human beings have a sense of morality, because there is a morality giver - God. God's self-revelation in the Bible, and Jesus Christ, is that God is good at all times and in everyway. We are able to sense and understand morality because we are made in God's image.
I know that atheists try to argue a basis for morality in the absence of a moral giver, but it feels to me like grasping at straws. How can a being who is the result of unguided random events, and their mind which is the product of such a process, possibly consider that their view of right and wrong is right, let alone be meaningful or significant? Under such a world view, why would being "good" to other such beings have any meaning or significance?
As I see it, the problem from the atheist's point of view, is that very rarely can they actually take their world view to its logical conclusion, let alone live consistently with it. Because they cannot accept the meaninglessness of their and others' existence, they have to find ways of explaining what we all feel is true, which is that we do matter and what we do regarding right and wrong matters. We all have this "knowledge", given to us through God's image within us, whether we believe in God or not. The apostle Paul expressed the result of life without God like this, "If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’" (1 Corinthians 15:32)
This is the basis upon which I question your comment, if I have understood it correctly, of saying that equating becoming more moral with pleasing God more, won't do. Since God is not only the giver, but also the standard of morality, I see no other basis upon which to judge an action's morality, other than by the degree to which it pleases God.
The Bible says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Hebrews 11:6) Consequently any act considered "good" from a human point of view is of no moral value from God's perspective if it is done without faith, because without faith it is impossible to please him. On what basis would anyone be able to argue with God? "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25)
This view of morality renders a comparison between the morality of Christians and non-Christians rather difficult. We can look at it from a human point of view, but that can only be with a relativistic human standard, which to me is misleading.
Now as to the issue of the practicalities of living out a life of increasing sanctification...
·naysayer· wrote: "we would be hard-pressed to know (let alone put into practice) the Jesuslike moral choices in all situations that might come up, second after second. It's far from obvious how these choices would become immediately evident to us. Unfortunately, despite Hollywood's unrelenting efforts, it's hard to picture Jesus reacting to present-day situations. We'd have to extrapolate from the biblical accounts wildly."
I agree with the difficulties you raise, and they should always make us slow to claim that our view of what Jesus would think or do in a situation is the only correct extrapolation. However, God has a solution to this problem - the Holy Spirit. In John 14:16-18, just before his arrest, Jesus said:
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you for ever – the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."
Jesus knew that his followers would not be able to live out a life of increasing sanctification on their own. He knew that we would need help, and wanted to avoid the need to, as you say, "extrapolate", just from his life and teaching. His solution was to come to be with us, and live within us, in the form of the "Spirit of truth" - the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our helper. We do not need to extrapolate what Jesus would do in our modern context, from 2000 years ago, because he is still present within each believer though the person of the Holy Spirit.
How does this work in practice? Well, first of all let me say that from my experience this can vary from person to person. For some of my friends, their experience of the Holy Spirit is often through a sense of God speaking to them. I have heard many testimonies to this effect and have seen the results in their lives. For me, I have to say that the sense of God speaking directly to me is rather rare. It tends to take the form of thoughts that come in to my head. Sometimes only with hindsight can I see that they were from God, For example this week, as I was praying for someone, a particular situation came to mind that I hadn't heard about or had it come to mind for months. So I prayed about it. Later that same day the person involved contacted me, and out of the blue they raised this very same situation! Was it just a coincidence - perhaps, but I took it to be a case of the Holy Spirit prompting me to pray. The more this kind of thing happens to you, the less you believe in coincidences.
I also take great comfort in Philippians 2:13 which says, "for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose." I take this to mean that much of the Holy Spirit's work is invisible to us, but nevertheless he is working to make us want to do what Jesus would do, and increasingly so as we travel the path of sanctification.
My most common experience of the Holy Spirit speaking to me is through my writing about what the Bible says. I try not to come to scripture with pre-conceived ideas. In my teaching and writing, I simply want to expand and explain what God has said to us. Time and time again, my experience is that God has revealed things to me, and brought thoughts to my mind that did not come from me (as far as I can tell). I have come to trust this to be the Holy Spirit shining his light upon the written word that he inspired. The foundation of the life of increasing sanctification is knowing what God has said in the Bible, allowing the Holy Spirit to enable us to understand what it means and make that word come alive for us.
There is a saying that I like, "Trust God and use your head". I think it strikes a good balance in life. Trusting God must come first as the foundational principle of faith. What is faith if it is not trusting in God. But we must also use our head, along with all the other faculties that God has given to us. He has given these to us for us to use. This guards against harmful extremes like blind faith. The Holy Spirit uses our head and our heart to lead us and show us what Jesus would have us do in our modern situations.
This is hard for unbelievers to understand. The apostle Paul puts it like this in 1 Corinthians 2:12-14:
"What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."
At long last I get around to an apt reply to your exposé. If I understand your views correctly so far, they can be summarized like this: morality can only be rooted in God; a believer's moral behavior is that which pleases God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit on a continuing basis; thus it's useless to try to separate out morality into a strictly human purview; and a moral discourse between believers and unbelievers would be meaningless.
It makes sense and I understand how it may apply to an individual believer. However, it remains difficult to understand intersubjectively which behaviors are being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Luther considered that moral law (Mosaic Law, etc.) cannot simply be done away with in light of the New Covenant, even though it was established that man cannot possibly keep it, as Tyrone pointed out upthread. His formula was adopted pretty much unchanged by other reformers:
"[T]he Law was given to men for three reasons ..."
1. that "thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]"
2. that "men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins"
3. that "after they are regenerate ... they might ... have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life"
[...]
In The Bondage of the Will he writes,
"[T]he commands exist to show, not our moral ability, but our inability. This includes God's command of all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, an impossible act of will apart from a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ .."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and...)
I find the first use particularly interesting. Lumping unbelievers together with said "wild, disobedient men" it becomes clear that moral law also applies to non-Christians. This requires moral law to be spelled out for them, in a way that does not rely on the Holy Spirit's influence. This point reconnects with my original issue, namely the vagueness of moral law as written down in the Bible. Regardless of the meaning of a moral system to unbelievers, who would inevitably perceive it as arbitrary or unfounded, it seems necessary to give them clear rules for them to try to follow, or at least to point out their sinful behavior.
But also the third use, applicable exclusively to believers, is cause for concern:
[Some] theologians believe the third use leads to or encourages a form of legalism and is possibly an implicit denial of sola fide. Conversely, Reformed Christians have sometimes seen this two-use scheme of some modern Lutherans as leading to a form of antinomianism.
(ibid.)
In other words, if one rejects the legalistic interpretation on the basis of justification by faith alone, one runs the risk of adopting an antinomian stance, which Luther was the first to condemn. Antinomianism entailed the rejection of moral law (Old Covenant) in favor of the Gospel (covenant of grace). It maintained that the law had no role in repentance and therefore should not be preached to Christians anymore. This resulted among its adherents in the sanctioning of behavior that went against moral law, such as libertinism.
In practice, at least in the Western world, religious law informs secular laws and customs. Intersubjective agreement on religious law therefore appears indispensable as a first step toward not only a harmonious secular system, but also its missionary role as envisioned by Luther.
David wrote: "As I see it, the problem from the atheist's point of view, is that very rarely can they actually take their world view to its logical conclusion, let alone live consistently with it. Because they cannot accept the meaninglessness of their and others' existence, they have to find ways of explaining what we all feel is true, which is that we do matter and what we do regarding right and wrong matters."
I wouldn't generalize wholesale. While some unbelievers' rationalistic conclusion is indeed despair, others in turn can certainly live with incomplete explanations, in particular to the extent that they don't perceive the holes in their worldview as having any practical life implications. It is only when interacting with the rest of humankind that they have to face others' (e.g. moral) contentions, at which point they can reasonably claim explanations from them for such things as, "what's right and wrong to you? and why? and why should it apply to me as well?"
Thanks naysayer for the book recommendations. I like Francis Schaeffer, but I haven't read anything of his for a long-time.·naysayer· wrote: "If I understand your views correctly so far, they can be summarized like this: morality can only be rooted in God; a believer's moral behavior is that which pleases God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit on a continuing basis; thus it's useless to try to separate out morality into a strictly human purview; and a moral discourse between believers and unbelievers would be meaningless."
Thanks for summarising my views, that is very helpful. I think I have misled you on the last point. I don't think that a discussion of morals between believers and unbelievers is meaningless, even though the two world views have a very different foundation to their moral views. This is for a number of reasons:
1) If there is indeed an objective moral reality, as I believe there is since it is anchored in God, then there is value in discussing morals because it can result in good for our neighbor and the world. Following the maker's instructions results in better outcomes, even if you do not believe in a maker. This is perhaps part of what it means to be salt and light in the world.
2) We have all been created in God's image and as such we are all moral beings. Therefore irrespective of our belief or unbelief, we all have a sense of morality which can be true and helpful. As C S Lewis has pointed out, it is remarkable how uniform across cultures our human view of good and bad is, evidence he suggests for our creation as moral beings. Of course sin can and does distort this God given sense of morality.
3) As you point out, the moral principles in scripture have indeed formed the basis for much of the modern Western legal system, evidence that moral dialogue can indeed result in good for all men, something that pleases God.
4) Discussions on morality can help us all understand sin. We are all on such a journey and we can help each other, even though ultimately it is only the Holy Spirit who can convict us of sin, righteousness and judgement (John 16:8).
I would also never want to argue that the moral principles in scripture are not important. I believe that either extreme regarding these is harmful.
·naysayer· wrote: "This requires moral law to be spelled out for them, in a way that does not rely on the Holy Spirit's influence. This point reconnects with my original issue, namely the vagueness of moral law as written down in the Bible."
How interesting that after all our words we have come back to your original question. :)
Your recent comments stimulate the following thoughts in me:
1) Perhaps God has laid down moral principles for us in the Bible, rather than laws in minute detail, for good reason. Jesus seemed to take a dim view of the over legalisation and minute detail that the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law had added to God's word. They had made obeying their man made rules more important than the more fundamental principles in God's moral law like loving God and valuing mercy.
2) Perhaps in God's wisdom he has designed a system where we need to keep the moral principles (contained in the Bible) separate from and superior to the specific application in law for a given time and place. What if the moral discussions required to work out such detail produce a harvest of righteousness in us, because we have had to work it out for ourselves or as a society? My experience in facilitating teams in problem solving has taught me that people are much more committed to solutions that they have worked out for themselves, than those that have been given to them.
It is really not clear to me what "born again" means, but whatever it means--it must include Baptism, which is an initiation ritual, for without you are not a real Christian, according to Jesus. While it is true that God is our Father; that is not all He can be. He can also be Friend, among other things. As far as, laws are concerned, Lord Jesus taught the Ten Commandments, as coming from El Shaddai and yet he obviously did not accept the Laws of Moses, as coming from Jehovah; for he rejected stoning, which is one of the Laws of Moses. And he certainly did not accept Jehovah as God (John 8.44) Jules
G. wrote: "It is really not clear to me what "born again" means, but whatever it means--it must include Baptism, which is an initiation ritual, for without you are not a real Christian, according to Jesus..."Thanks for raising the issue of Baptism Jules. I think it can indeed help us understand what being born again means. This is how I see it:
1. Baptism is an outer expression of an inner transformation. Baptism symbolises the death and resurrection that being born again involves. As Paul says:
"1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:1-4 NIV)
2. Being born again involves dying to sin - considering my old life to be dead, because that old life was enslaved to sin and the wages of sin, which are death (separation from God). Baptism symbolises this dying of the old self as we enter the water. When we come out of the water, this symbolises the new life (new birth) that we are raised to in Christ. As you say, this new life has many facets to it in terms of our new relationship with God as our heavenly Father etc. But it also includes a new motivation for our life, which is why Paul was able to say:
"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Galatians 2:20,21 NIV)
3. Being born again does not just transform our purpose and motivation in life, but also our standing before God. A spiritual exchange takes place whereby Christ takes our sin which made us dead to God, and he gives us his righteousness which makes us alive in him:
"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV)
This is the new birth, this is what it means to be born again, and this is what baptism symbolises for us.
David
Thank you David for extrapolating on my revelation. You introduced some scripture I did not know about; and for that too I thank you. Many people look upon our life on earth as a blessing. But what does the guru say ? "The whole material world is a curse, where birth, death, old age and disease follow you wherever we go. It is a place for forgetting about God. Those of us who are inclined toward the Divine Energy are trying to remember God and that's why we pray together. There's an old Chinese Adage that says: As a force, you are like only one stick, but when you put many sticks together, you have a great power. That's why we go to church; it makes us more powerful and inspires us to be sinless and to be true to ourselves. I would sign off with the immortal words of Tennessee Ernie Ford: Bless Your Pea Picking Heart !
There is prophecy in the OT that talks of a time where men would not need to learn what was right from another person (or priest). It would be a time when God would write his law on their heart. Whether theologically correct, many Christians believe this foretold of a time when the Holy Spirit would come and "guide us into all truth." It may follow then, that there is a lack of hard written law in the NT, because a person who is truly born again is also accompanied by the Spirit of God. Thus, daily, his law and direction for us is impressed on our heart. As Paul described it, we are "led by the Spirit." So, this is not situational ethics or everyone just doing as they feel in their human heart (that attitude leads to sin). This is listening to the Spirit of God, as he shows us what is right. When we follow Him, in this way, we follow his Law and do not sin. Outside this, Paul also talks about following our own conscience. If we believe something is wrong, even if God does not say it is wrong in his eyes, and yet we do it anyway, then God counts that as being the same as violating his law. It is still sin in his eyes. So each man has his own "law' as well as God's law. Both need to be kept in order for a man to be truly righteous. However, NO ONE can keep even this unwritten law. We violate our own conscience and we ignore God's Spirit's when he is leading us away from sin. Enter Jesus, stage left. Thus, we NEED Christ and his sacrifice so we are still justified when we fail. So, it is like this: We still have a law to obey in God's eyes, and we still fail, even with the personal help of the Holy Spirit (which no one had before the coming of Jesus). However, our insight and connection to God is much different than most or all in the OT. We have a great advantage being free from all sin, every day, and having the help of the Holy Spirit to navigate morality.
The Old Testament was full of laws some were moral laws and some were laws for then. The moral laws still stand today. Just look at the 10 Commandments, I personally wouldn't want to break them. However, Jesus Christ came to fulfil all the laws, yet the Pharisees wanted to stone him for what they saw as a law breaker. We are told that we live by grace not the law.
Dave wrote: "There is prophecy in the OT that talks of a time where men would not need to learn what was right from another person (or priest). It would be a time when God would write his law on their heart. Wh..."Thanks Dave, I agree. As Jesus said, "Without me you can do nothing." This is why we will cast our crowns before Him!
Robert wrote: "We are told that we live by grace not the law..."That is very true Robert. But at the same time, grace is not opposed to effort (action); grace is opposed to earning (motivation).
As the apostle Paul said, the grace shown him was not in vain, because he worked harder than the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:10)
I see the two sides of "Man's Will" (Calvinism & Arminian) having been politicized. That is, the opposing views tend to purposely polarize in order to push against anything that looks like the other side (like Democrats and Republicans might do). Is it man's will that stands in the way of salvation or is it sovereign choice? A wise scholar once said that this door to salvation has two sides. One our side it says, Whosoever will may come. One God's side, it says, Whom I have called I have chosen. We do not understand how these can be reconciled, and yet God does. So, when all the doctrinal smoke clears, perhaps it is more like this: There is a kind of partnering with God that is necessary for salvation to occur. Both parties come together, finally, because of Christ, and restore a lost love relationship.
Dave wrote: "I see the two sides of "Man's Will" (Calvinism & Arminian) having been politicized. That is, the opposing views tend to purposely polarize in order to push against anything that looks like the othe..."I see God's sovereignty and man's free will very similarly Dave. The Bible teaches both, and so we must hold both as true, even though we cannot understand it.
I think it is an error when people try to clarify what the Bible leaves as ambiguous, or even contradictory. We are better to learn to live with ambiguity, after all as you say, it is all about our relationship with the creator of all things, not about theological correctness. "Those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Dave wrote: "I see the two sides of "Man's Will" (Calvinism & Arminian) having been politicized. That is, the opposing views tend to purposely polarize in order to push against anything that looks like the othe..."Nicely stated.
Or is there no such list, and we are to view any biblical moral rules as mere general principles that each subject has to interpret for him/herself? A sort of categorical imperatives that require us to fill in the gaps at every instance? If this is the case, is at all possible to make the right decision with little of no faith? Or is faith a prerequisite for morally correct behavior? Or is faith all that matters, because sin is inevitable but is already conquered as soon as one truly believes? Doesn't this latter standpoint negate the need for ethics at all?