I have defined it this way: Good is that which is done by God for God. Fairly simple. And I've had no problem with demonstrating that "good" must be done for God to be classified as "good" by God's definition. We are commanded, for instance, "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). That pretty much includes everything, right? And I was pretty confident about the "by God" part based on Philippians 2:13 and things like "Whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him" (Col 3:17). But today I came across this verse that sealed it for me.
Whoever serves, [let him serve] as one who serves by the strength that God supplies -- in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To Him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (1 Peter 4:11).The Philippians verse above assures us that the only way we are able to do what God wants is that God is working in us to enable and empower us. This verse says that we serve "by the strength that God supplies". Thus, "good" would be defined as that which is done by God (either directly or through His people) for God. And in all situations doing this "good" would result in glory to God.
Consider, then, how things we do may look the same but may or may not be good. If we serve by our own strength, for instance, it may look the same as those who serve by God's strength, but one of these two would not be good. If we give on our own rather than by God's work in us, it would not be classified as "good" by God even though it looked externally identical to giving by God's power. If we worship under our own power rather than in the Spirit ... well, you can see where I'm going. Something to think about.
6 comments:
I agree that needing to define good in the context of the verse is very important. But I've always chalked it up to a person living in the flesh compared to a person living in the Spirit. Nothing done in the flesh is good because in and of ourselves we cannot do good, in respect to God. Only the good that God does through us is truly good. There should be another word for the 2 different "good"s. Godly good and fleshly good are on opposite ends of the spectrum in comparison, but that's not to say fleshly good shouldn't happen.
Well, the truth is there is more than one "good". A "good" steak, a "good" dog, and a "good" man are not the same things. "Good" has always been a relative term -- relative to the standard to which it is being compared. Unfortunately, we have to be compared to God's standard ...
Well, maybe now we should define what it means to do things in our strength as opposed to doing things in the Spirit's.
Okay, Ryan ... I'm waiting.
Well, Stan, I'm not sure I've really got an answer. I may be able to give an example of it, but I'm not sure I would really know how to define it.
I will give what I would believe to be an example, though, and am completely open to critique.
If I am explaining the gospel to someone, doing it in my strength could take on the appearance of trying to convince and outwit someone into the kingdom, getting caught up in using my intellect to convince someone that what they can only see as foolish that it's not. Sounds like me relying on my own strength and not doing it in the Spirit.
Open to criticism...
I would guess that defining "doing things in the Spirit" would be difficult. That's why I ended with "Something to think about." I think we can, if we are paying attention, tell if we're doing it or we're relying on the Spirit to do it. As in your example, expecting my carefully crafted arguments to work instead of God's Spirit to work would be a mistake ... but I'm not sure those outside of the one doing it would know the motivation and source of the one doing it. So that's between you and God.
Post a Comment