Is Good Always Good or Can Good Ever Be Bad?

Working on a post asking a simple question: Is Good Always Good or Can Good Ever Be Bad?

Any thoughts before I post?

Grateful to be in His Grip!

><<“

Advertisements

2 responses to this post.

  1. When working with a mathematical proof, if the results of your calculations result in “2 = 3” or “True = False” then it really means that something went wrong with at least one of your earlier assumptions.

    Applying the same principle to this question, good is good, and evil is evil. Likewise, God is good, and the devil is evil (it’s a definition that is built into the language.) In the case of a proposed God that is not good, the initial assumptions should be tested and re-examined. We should be very careful about being willing to redefine “good.”

    Reply

  2. Hi Bob,
    My own view is that, because even Christ could have sinned against the Father by calling down 12 legions of angels for rescue, in which case it would have broken the Scripture (as Christ explained that possibility), that therefore the concepts of good and evil could, theoretically, be redefined, at least in the mind of One of All of the Persons of Elohim. That is, since Christ Himself had the choice whether or not to preserve the definitions of good and evil as agreed upon by the Three Persons of Elohim (namely, to proceed with the plan, before the foundation of the world, that the Lamb be slain for sinners), then implicitly this means all the Persons, theoretically speaking, could likewise abandon their former principles. As Christians we do not believe this will happen. Were it to have happened, I think the most likely moment was in Gethsemane, just prior to the crucifixion.

    Part of what is needed to understand concepts of morality is that the Persons of the Godhead have always had the potential to dissent from one another even in eternity past. This is because selfLESSness and SelfISHness are only possibilities when there is more than one person. A singular being by himself, alone in the ‘universe’, would be incapable of being either selfless or selfish, since either of these requires an another.

    Growing up in churches, most of us have heard the idea that God cannot sin. The problem here is that the standard lexicons have allowed Calvinistic ideas to influence the definition of the Greek word “dunamai,” generally translated “to be able to,” and usually Englished as “can.” The problem with this view is that Gr. dunamai can also mean “may” or “wills to.” That is, it behaves as our English word “can” in INFORMAL English. Calvinists just assume that dunamai behaves as “can” in FORMAL English. Hence R.C. Sproul’s comment “What teacher has not corrected the student between the difference of “can” and “may”.” This ignores the usage of dunamai in such instances as when the Athenians asked if they MAY (dunamai) know Paul’s new religion. Obviously, they were not asking Paul is they had the intellectual capacity, i.e., were able to, comprehend what he was about to relate. Once we understand the number of possibilities for dunamai, a whole range of verses about God’s potential of choice and morality may be understood differently. For example, when Christ said “The Son can do nothing except that which the Father shows him,” we realize Christ was actually saying “The Son WILLS TO do nothing except that which the Father shows him.” Otherwise, the verse would mean Christ had no free will to disobey his Father, which would contradict Christ’s rhetorical question to Peter about whether he could not call for 12 legions of angels for rescue, at the expense of Scripture. Similarly, other verses that would seem to say that God cannot sin should be understood to mean that He WILLS TO not sin.

    We may praise God that we serve a God who wills not to sin, and to remain faithful to His ideals of selflessness, while remaining on the throne. Thus the Father GAVE UP the Son, the Son CAME NOT ON HIS OWN, and the Spirit would speak NOT OF HIMSELF. I have found that this principle of selflessness tends to resonate with unbelievers, once it is explained properly. They are tired of hearing about a God who demands abject obedience in order to glorify Himself. In fact, once the Scriptures are properly understood, it will be seen that the Son did not come to glorify Himself, but the Father. And that the Father wanted to glorify the Son.

    Thanks for letting me share.

    Daniel Gracely

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: