Anyone who has read much from me will certainly see this one coming. "There is none who does good, there is not even one" (Rom 3:12). Hyperbole? Some have said so, but if hyperbole was intended, "none who does good" would be sufficient. No, the writer added a second phrase as if to say, "I'm not using hyperbole here." "Not even one." It's intended to tell us that there isn't one. It's in the same sense as "all have sinned" just twelve verses later. It's intended as a universal negative, not mere hyperbole. And if we were to take this as it appears to be written, how would that alter our view? Well, we know that there are good people everywhere. Most of us would willingly admit that even atheists do good, right? I mean, come on! We would, in fact, be hard-pressed to admit that there is anyone who does not do good at some point or another. But Paul (quoting David in Psa 14) is raising his hand here. "Ahem," he seems to be saying, "you have that completely turned around. It is not that everyone does something good; it's that no one does anything good." The result? Apparently we need to revise both our perceptions of humans and, more to the point, of "good". Our standard, I would suggest, is way too loose. What we consider "good" God considers ... how does Isaiah put it? ... "filthy rags". That ought to shake your views.
I've talked a lot lately about the statement in 1 Cor 2:14. "Natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." It's hard to turn that to mean something else. It's hard to push it toward hyperbole. And it's impossible to soften it. Paul uses two terms -- "does not" and "cannot". It says that Natural Man lacks the willingness and even the capacity to accept or understand the things of the Spirit of God. Now, if you're like most of us, you're going to object. "No, no," you'll assure us all, "humans are fully capable of understanding the things of God." That, of course, is the common perception. The only problem with that position is ... it's opposite of what the Bible says. So, if we're going to have a biblical worldview, it seems that we have to reevaluate that viewpoint of ours. Because Paul is not ambiguous. He didn't stutter.
One that struck me the other day was this one. Prepare yourself. It's quite harsh. I mean, we already have "none who does good" in spite of our mistaken belief that most people do good and "cannot understand" even though we're pretty sure that almost all humans can understand. Now we have this one:
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love (1 John 4:7-8).Now, I'm walking carefully here and it is entirely possible that I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this statement of absolutes is quite broad. It seems to me to say that love is from God (at least, it seems to me it says that) and that those who love are born of God and know God. So I have to ask, what about ... let's go to the extreme ... an atheist mother? I mean, surely she loves her children, right? And I wouldn't want to suggest that she does not. But John seems to say something here that would contradict that. It seems to be black and white, "yes" or "no". If you love, you know God. If you don't know God, you cannot love. You can do something similar, something that appears to be love, something that we accept as love, but, like the "good" that people do that Paul says they do not or the "understanding" that people have that Paul says they do not, it appears that what we call "love" is not what God considers love.
Now, like I said, I'm open to being wrong here. I'm open to considering alternative perspectives on the "good", the "understanding", or the "love" being spoken of here. But if I take the Bible seriously and allow it to shape my worldview, I'm currently stuck with these absolutes. I'm open to suggestions, but it seems like a worldview that aligns with some of the absolutes of Scripture is not going to coincide with the worldview of most everyone else.
48 comments:
So, perhaps you can understand how some people might find it hard to nail you down on what you mean by "good," seeing as how you're saying it's hard to understand your absolute view on these three ideas.
You said...
Apparently we need to revise both our perceptions of humans and, more to the point, of "good". Our standard, I would suggest, is way too loose. What we consider "good" God considers ... how does Isaiah put it? ... "filthy rags".
So, you're trying to communicate something here. You recognize that by standard English usage, we all do indeed know that people do good all the time, that mothers love their children, even "pagans." So, you are stepping beyond standard English usage of the terms, "do good," and "love," so don't you think it would help to explain what you DO mean by those terms, if not the standard English? For communication's sake?
As an aside, where you said...
It's intended as a universal negative, not mere hyperbole.
How do you know that is the intention there? Says who? Do you mean that this is what it SEEMS like to you what it must mean?
It sounds quite obviously hyperbolic TO ME. In the same sense someone might say, "There ain't no one, no where who can EVER shoot the ball like Michael Jordan." That is the way hyperbole is generally used and the point of it, to over-emphasize something, right?
Stan:
You write that you think Paul is saying, "It is not that everyone does something good; it's that no one does anything good."
One can disagree with this position while still affirming that Paul is here making an absolute statement that applies universally -- with the divine Incarnation being an exception that we can all take for granted.
If I say that everyone makes mistakes doing arithmetic, that's a universal, absolute statement -- true even for careful, intelligent adults -- but it's a completely different statement than the claim that every attempt at arithmetic contains a mistake.
Does every person commit actions that fall short of God's perfect standards? Is every person guilty of sin, of actions that are evil rather than good? ABSOLUTELY, and that conclusion is clear from Paul's writings.
But does EVERY human action fall short? I don't think that Paul's writing justifies that conclusion.
Everyone does things that are evil? That's clear Pauline doctrine.
"No one does anything good"? That's not clear at all.
Both are universal statements, the former stating that all people universally fall short, the latter stating that people's every action universally falls short.
To affirm the former is NOT to deny the statement's universal application: it's only to disagree on how the statement is to be applied universally.
It seems to me that Christ didn't teach that "no one does anything good."
"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" - Mt 7:11, cf. Lk 11:13
We are, without God's redeeming work, utterly incapable of perfection, but Christ's a fortiori argument here implies that we're not utterly incapable of any good deed whatsoever. We're fallen and in desperate need of salvation, but we're not wholly incapable of the occasional good deed: God's image has been marred within us, but it hasn't been obliterated.
We see this same thing in Paul's writing, just a chapter before what you cite.
"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all." - Rom 2:14-16
Whether their conflicting thoughts "perhaps" excuse them is conjecture that's beside the point: here Paul's point is clear.
Gentiles, at least on occasion, "do instinctively what the law requires" and thereby demonstrate that God's law is written on their hearts.
Since Gentiles' thoughts are conflicting, presumably they do not and cannot CONSISTENTLY do what the law requires, which fits with my intepretation of 3:12, that Paul teaches that everyone does things that are evil.
I'm not sure how you would reconcile your alternative interpretation with this passage.
About your second example and I Cor 2:14, you write:
"It says that Natural Man lacks the willingness and even the capacity to accept or understand the things of the Spirit of God. Now, if you're like most of us, you're going to object. 'No, no,' you'll assure us all, 'humans are fully capable of understanding the things of God.'"
You seem to present a false dilemma, either that we completely lack the capacity to understand the things of God or that we are "fully capable" of understanding.
There is a middle ground, that we are equipped enough to know God's law to be held liable for breaking it, and possibly that we know enough to be able to accept the offer salvation prior to regeneration.
You have earlier written that, as Romans 1 teaches, we are NOT utterly ignorant of God's characteristics and will.
And, you have conceded that, "Yes, Romans 1 says all humans have the necessary knowledge of God."
What "absolute" claim do you think I Cor 2 makes that doesn't contradict what you agree is taught in Romans 1?
Dan T: "standard English usage".
Interesting. So, if I say "That's a good dog owned by a good man", I've said that the two are both the same thing, right? No. "Standard English usage" of "good" is relative. "Good" is a relative issue. To what is "good" being compared? That's why we have "good kids" receiving gifts at Christmas from Santa. Were they actually good? No! But they were likely better than that rotten neighbor's kids!
But the problem goes a step beyond that. You see, when Paul incorporated charis -- the Greek we translate as "grace" -- into the Bible, Paul shifted the meaning. The Greek calls for "favor", but Paul required "unmerited favor". The same is true with lots of words. One of them, in fact, is agape. Vines says it is "the characteristic word of Christianity, and since the Spirit of revelation has used it to express ideas previously unknown, inquiry into its use, whether in Greek literature or in the Septuagint, throws but little light upon its distinctive meaning in the NT." The biblical writers imbued the word with an additional sense of "unconditional love", of a different sort of love than the "standard Greek usage".
But we ... we're stuck with "standard English usage". We have translators that try to convert Greek and Hebrew ideas into English ideas -- English is an evolving language -- and then those English ideas become the "definition". So while everyone understood "man" and "woman" in context to be "husband" and "wife" (without the slightest hint of "same-sex marriage"), we've overlaid a new definition of "marriage" and the biblical language becomes meaningless. We've moved the standard of "good" from "What God defines as good" to "how we compare to each other" and ... it's all good. "Sin" was a condition (separation from God) and is now an act. And love ... oh, love ... we've happily defined that to "consenting adults". (Sorry. Private conversation I've been having with myself.)
But, by hearkening back to "standard English usage" and "that's what you think" you manage to beautifully and completely remove all meaning. So, it does not mean "no, not one". In fact, you affirm that "people do good all the time." Seriously, I doubt that you'd be willing to admit that there is anyone who never did good. Everyone does some good. So, while Paul (in your view) was engaging in hyperbole, it turns out that he was really, really bad at it because he seemed to suggest a really big problem of "doing good", but, as it turns out, "good" is everywhere!
Today's Reader: "So ... Paul, what's the problem here?"
Paul: "Sorry. My bad. I got carried away. Things aren't nearly as bleak as I made them out to be."
Today's Reader: "And, Paul, what about that silly 'cannot understand' thing?"
Paul: "Yeah, I guess I overstated that, too. Sure they can understand. It's abundantly clear. When I said 'cannot' I really meant 'may not' or 'could possibly not'. But, hey! John was way off, too."
John: "Yeah, that was a bit over the top. Clearly everyone loves regardless of God. I can't actually explain what I was thinking. But, look, I wrote that some 2000 years ago. You don't expect me to remember that, do you? Look, let's just throw it out and forget about it, okay?"
Bubba, I'm suggesting that "cannot understand" means something. The Bible makes distinctions between "knowledge", "understanding", and "wisdom". I'd say that humans can "know", but I'd say that Paul says they can't "understand".
Bubba,
On the "No one does good" thing, Paul makes two statements. One is "There is none righteous." That would (could) mean that no one arrives at perfection, that no one does everything right. Kind of like you were saying. But the other statement is the reverse. "No one does good." How is that unclear? Here's the syllogism.
Paul: "No one does good"
Us: "Everyone does something good."
Conclusion: Paul was wrong.
How can you conclude otherwise? If you are going to argue that everyone does something that rises to the level of "good" in the sense that Paul means it (I'm not talking about "making mistakes" or "doing something well"), then you must argue that Paul is mistaken here. The easiest argument, of course, would be the Dan T argument that it's not intended as a universal statement. The next easiest, based on your suggestions (your suggestions, not that you're making the argument), is that, well, Paul was simply wrong. The Bible doesn't claim to be inerrant and this is a clear example of Paul contradicting Jesus, so ... what's the question? He was wrong.
But what most amuses me is this suggestion that by taking it at face value I am suggesting an "alternative interpretation". "It says x so I think it means x." Oh, now, that's really strange. How do you come up with this stuff??? :)
I'm sorry Stan. If you answered my question, I didn't see it. Let me be more direct:
What definition for "Good" are you using, in consideration of Paul's "There is no one good, no not one."?
I'm using something along these lines...
Good: of a favorable character or tendency
mwebster
good: morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious
kind, beneficent, or friendly: to do a good deed
dictionary.com
What definition are you using for what Paul is saying there? I'm just trying to understand your position.
You address this a little here, when you say...
If you are going to argue that everyone does something that rises to the level of "good" in the sense that Paul means it (I'm not talking about "making mistakes" or "doing something well"), then you must argue that Paul is mistaken here.
But as I said, we need not assume Paul was mistaken. We could assume it was hyperbole, as it must be if you use the standard English understanding of the word, "good," it seems to me.
Which gets back to my question about your comment: "It's intended as a universal negative, not mere hyperbole."
How do you know how it is intended to be read? Or do you mean it's just what IT SEEMS TO YOU is intended?
I didn't offer a definition of "good" either in my post or in my response. My suggestion is that we need to reevaluate our definition because I don't think our common usage is lining up with God's intent. To be more precise, I think our standards are horribly wrong. I did offer Scripture to support it. According to God, our righteousness (that's the "good" that we do) amounts to a pile of used menstrual rags ("filthy rags"). As George Whitefield put it, "Before you can speak peace to your heart, you must be brought to see that God may damn you for the best prayer you ever put up ..."
When I said Paul was mistaken, I am saying that Paul was mistaken in his use of hyperbole.
Here, let me illustrate.
Dad: "So, son, how was the party last night."
Son: "Oh, great!"
Dad: "Who was there?"
Son: "Oh, everyone was there!"
Brother: "But ... there were only two people."
"Son", in this illustration, failed in his use of hyperbole. The phrase, "Everyone was there", would suggest a large crowd, when the fact was that it was a pitiful few. In the same way, the phrase, "No one does good; no, not one" is a failure of hyperbole if it actually means "almost everyone does some good."
That is, "it seems to me" (because personal opinions of what is written is all that really counts, right?) that Paul either meant what he said or made no sense at all. "Hyperbole" makes sense in some applications, but using an exaggeration of "no one does good" to mean "everyone does some good" makes no sense at all.
And this brings us down to the basic problem, doesn't it? I tend to read Scripture to define how I should think. When I collide with "It says ... but I think ...", I tend to change how I think. "You know," I might say in this case, "it seems to me that everyone does some good, so how does this make sense with what Paul says? Hmph! It doesn't. Well, perhaps, then, I am misunderstanding what 'good' is intended here." And that is the "different Bible" I read from yours. When Scripture collides with your perspectives, you question Scripture. I question my perspectives.
Bubba,
Does it bother you that you're in full agreement with Dan T on this question of "No one does good"?
Stan...
I didn't offer a definition of "good" either in my post or in my response. My suggestion is that we need to reevaluate our definition because I don't think our common usage is lining up with God's intent.
Well, then how would anyone know what you mean?
I mean, imagine the argument: "We must kill all "bad" people. Keeping in mind that by 'bad,' I don't mean the any of the standard definitions of the word. I mean something else. Some other definition that I can't provide..."
What would there be to say to that argument? I mean, the fella may as well be saying, "we must kill all bleeble people..." It's meaningless without a definition to the word.
So, if you have no definition for the word, "good," in this argument of yours, I guess I have nothing to say, since none of us have any idea what is being discussed.
Stan...
Does it bother you that you're in full agreement with Dan T on this question
Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day, right...?
Here, consider this argument. "Paul said that no one does good. That appears to be an absolute and it appears to go against what we all see, so maybe we should reconsider what we call 'good'." In other words, suggesting my readers think about something doesn't require that I tell them what to think.
But, hey, you already know what's being discussed -- Paul simply misused hyperbole and it's my problem, not yours, because you have no problem with "No one does good" for an exaggeration of "Lots of people do lots of good."
As to your problems with the (what seems to me) most obvious explanation of hyperbole:
Hyperbole: A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
from American Heritage Dictionary.
Paul in Romans in context says...
For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.
As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one.
Paul's point that he's making? That we're all sinners. We "are all under the power of sin."
And one way to make that point? To exaggerate it: "We humans are so bad, there is NO ONE who does good..." This makes the point that we are sinners via the literary conceit of hyperbole.
I don't see what possible problem there is in taking it for what seems like the most obvious answer, rather than getting into changing words to some new and unknown meaning.
So, returning to another earlier question: How do YOU KNOW (or think you know) that this isn't intended to be "mere hyperbole"?
I guess we're saying that you, Stan, don't see how it could be intended as hyperbole and I, Dan, don't see how it could be anything else, and we have a difference of opinion on the matter. Is that a fair summation?
The standard of "good" that Paul was referring to was the standard that God has placed on all Mankind. We must be perfect, sinless, at all times in all ways. Jesus gave a hint of what perfection looks like when he pointed out that the letter of the law "Don't commit adultery" went further to "Any man who lusts after a woman commits adultery". So, if the standard of "good" is perfection, then no one is good, no not one. In all of Mother Theresa's acts of humanity and benevolence, if a single one of them wasn't done with the intention of glorifying God, it was sin, bad, not good. God has set the standard, Paul was pointing out that no one meets the standard. How is this unclear? How is this hyperbole? Like you said Stan, we need to adjust our standard based on Scripture. Scripture demands perfection. We can't meet that standard. But there's some wonderful news, Christ has covered us with His perfection. Though we still mess up, God sees Christ's perfection in us, but only in those Christ has covered, namely the elect. So, I guess a truer, more easily understood translation would be, "There are none who act in perfection, no not one." But that's Paul's point. We are sinners, everyone, in need of a Savior. If anyone can attain perfection, then Christ died for nothing.
Even Jesus said, when approached by someone who called Him "good sir" (or words to that effect), "Why do you call me 'good'? There is none good but Him Who sent Me." (or words to that effect).
Yet, of course, we use the word on a different level. It's a comparative thing. A relative thing. Relative to God, we are indeed like filthy rags no matter how "good" we or our deeds are. I think it suggests the need we have for a Savior regardless of our earthly actions.
Dang! Gotta go!
David,
I hate to do it, but I need to differ with you a bit. Paul didn't say "no one is good." That would be the part covered under "there is none righteous" (which means that there is no one who is good). But the part in question says, "There is none who does good, there is not even one." That doesn't say, "No one meets the standard of perfection." That says, "No one does anything that God considers 'good'."
Stan:
"Does it bother you that you're in full agreement with Dan T on this question of 'No one does good'?"
In general, it wouldn't bother me -- broken clocks, etc. -- but in this case it's not true.
Dan's position is that the passage is hyperbole.
I affirm that the passage IS ture on face value: it does make an absolute statement that applies (Christ excepted) universally. I just disagree with you on HOW it applies universally. I believe the passage ONLY states that no one does good consistently, while you believe it states that no one does good EVER. I believe it tells us every PERSON falls short, and you believe that it means every ACTION falls short.
How you reconcile your position with what Paul wrote IN THE CHAPTER IMMEDIATELY PRIOR isn't clear, because it looks like you haven't tackled Romans 2:14-16.
That's beside the point: if you can't see the difference between Dan's position and my position, there's little point talking with you about much of anything here, by email or in any format.
About Romans 3:12, Paul does write "no one does good," but what does that mean in Greek?
It appears (click on 5723) that it's present tense, which suggests continuous action or habitual action.
No one continually does good? I agree, that's been my position, and it EASILY explains Romans 2 and how Gentiles demonstrate that the law is written on their hearts WHEN (but only when) they do by nature what's contained in the law.
Dan, you keep thinking, "There! I've solved the problem of hyperbole. Makes perfect sense! Now, let's see if Stan can give us any reason to think that his hare-brained idea is true!" And you haven't solved the problem.
Here, let me try this one. To make a point my neighbor makes the claim, "Every house on our block is painted green; completely green." (I structured that in the same way as the claim in question.) So, I go down the block and I see that one house is all green, a few houses have some green trim, and most are not green at all. What do I make of my neighbor's claim? "Good hyperbole! I get it! You wanted to emphasize that you don't like green houses! Clear as day!" No, I tell my neighbor, "What in the world were you trying to convey? Because your exaggeration didn't come anywhere near explaining what you intended."
For Paul's exaggeration, why wouldn't "There is none righteous, no, not one" be sufficient to express "we are all under sin"? Or, how about this? "All have sinned." Clear enough. And going beyond that, what was David trying to express with his hyperbole when he wrote what Paul quoted? Seems to me that the biblical writers needed to get some training in writing before they wrote this stuff because they have failed miserably in expressing what they intended.
(And that's the biggest reason in claiming it's not hyperbole.)
(That and Isaiah's claim that the best we do is "filthy rags" and Jesus's claim "There is none good" and all that sort of stuff. You know, biblical stuff.)
Bubba...
I believe the passage ONLY states that no one does good consistently, while you believe it states that no one does good EVER.
Actually, this is my position, too. Humanity DOES do good acts at times. Because I believe that, this is why I believe Paul was using hyperbole to get the point across that we are sinners who do not do good consistently.
Now, Bubba, I was only teasing. But since you pressed the point, I have to figure out what you are saying. Dan T. says it's hyperbole, an exaggeration for effect. You say it's not that there is none who does good; no, not one, but that there is none who does good all the time ... which makes the claim sound like hyperbole.
I've looked at the text in Greek and don't find anything that requires "does good continually". I've looked at the text in multiple versions and don't find anything that requires "does good continually". I've read multiple commentaries and none of them suggest "does good continually". (One, Vincent's Word Studies, suggests that "good" in this text only means "profitable" based on the previous statement, "They have become unprofitable." That is, nothing rises to the level of "usefulness". But even Vincent says that it means "wholesomeness" or "moral excellence".) Most leave it at face value.
And I don't see how Rom 2:14-16 contradicts. Clearly, as I've stated in the post and multiple times elsewhere, people do things we consider "good". I mean, I'd never want to suggest that the atheist who remains faithful to his wife is not doing "good". So it appears to me that Paul is speaking of a different measure of "good".
But, let me ask you ... since Isaiah says that our righteousness is as filthy rags, how do you correlate that to Rom 2:14-16 (or the other passages you are quite sure contradict it)?
Stan, have you never been tempted to say, "Man, I am the worst writer (father, deacon, friend, whatever) in all of history!" I know I have.
And was my point that I am actually the worst writer/person in all of history? Or was it that I'm a truly awful person, even? Or was it merely said to stress the reality that I'm imperfect and NOT the writer/person that I'd like to be.
To your example...
To make a point my neighbor makes the claim, "Every house on our block is painted green; completely green."
Why did the neighbor say that? To make the point that there are many green houses on the block perhaps? That would be my take on it. And, if I also knew that not every house on the block was green, I would be further convinced that it was an attempt at hyperbole. That is what hyperbole is.
I'm sorry but I don't see the problem with accepting this as hyperbole that makes the actual point, "We are ALL sinners - yes, even the Jews" which is the point being made in context.
Is the sum total of your reasoning for being convinced that it's NOT hyperbole simply because it doesn't SEEM like hyperbole to you?
On Bubba's "continually sinning" point, I don't know here, but I do know (or have heard, anyway) that this "continually" verb thing is not an uncommon trait in the Greek language. "Go ye therefore into all the world," I've been told, is better translated, "As you are going into the world," a continually happening thing, not a one time command.
For what it's worth.
Dan T: "Is the sum total of your reasoning for being convinced that it's NOT hyperbole simply because it doesn't SEEM like hyperbole to you?"
The "sum total" of my reasoning is that it just doesn't feel like hyperbole to me. It feels like it's literal.
Come on, Dan! I've explained that the hyperbole doesn't work. I've explained that the text doesn't work. I've explained that other Scriptures support that it is literal, not exaggeration. I've explained and explained and explained. That you cannot grasp that doesn't make it not so. Ignoring my statements doesn't help. (And claiming "I'm the worst writer in history" would be a lie, not hyperbole.)
You cannot claim that everyone does good and make sense out of "there is none who does good". Plain and simple. The only option is that Paul overstated (not exaggerated -- misstated) his position ... or he stated it correctly.
Stan...
I've explained that the hyperbole doesn't work. I've explained that the text doesn't work.
My point, brother Stan, is that it "doesn't work" FOR YOU.
I think it makes perfect sense as hyperbole. That it emphasizes just fine Paul's (what seems to me) ACTUAL point that we are all sinners and that the Jews he was speaking to/about can't claim that they're not part of that crowd, too.
You've explained YOUR HUNCH about it. I'm not convinced that your hunch makes solid sense. YOUR HUNCH seems unreasonable to me.
My point is not to say "I'm right and you're wrong," but only to remind us that we are speaking of text that we are working on, all of us, together. None of us has "THE ANSWER FROM GOD(TM)" on the perfect "right" answer on this or any other text.
So, perhaps we'd all do well to keep that in mind and not claim "THIS IS WHAT IT INDISPUTABLY SAYS" and stick to "it seems to me..."
No, I've explained from the text that it doesn't work. I've explained that the language calls for it. I've explained that the rest of Scripture calls for it. And you've said, "Hyperbole works for me."
Since we have no common tools, drop it. Since understanding Scripture is a personal thing, drop it. Since there is no common basis, drop it.
I've thought of another angle on this, if you're game.
Setting aside the undefined "good" for a minute, let's look at "love."
You appear to be questioning whether an unsaved mother or father can truly love even their own children...
If you love, you know God. If you don't know God, you cannot love. You can do something similar, something that appears to be love, something that we accept as love, but...
But we also know that the Bible (Jesus) says, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends..."
And, beyond that, we know that unsaved mothers, fathers, indeed, people of all stripes, have, in fact, laid down their lives for friends, for loved ones, even for complete strangers. Thus, these unsaved folk would, according to Jesus, be demonstrating "greater love."
Would that not put to chase your theory that the "absolute" found in 1 John is not so absolute as you seem to think it is?
I just think there's a problem with reading a passage (any passage) seeing what it SEEMS to mean to us (even what it "obviously must" mean) and then setting aside all reason and evidence to believe in our hunch about how that passage MUST be taken. We're fallible. We're entirely capable of not fully understanding a passage or taking it wrong.
I'm suggesting that if OUR FLAWED HUMAN reading of a biblical passage seems to contradict evidence we can see with our own eyes, that perhaps OUR FLAWED reasoning is wrong.
This seems like an entirely biblical and rational approach we should take to our exegesis.
Thanks for that helpful alternative, Dan. So, let's see if I understand you correctly. The statement in 1 John 4 is either absolute ... and all those people (essentially all people) ... really do love God and know God since they love at all, or it appears to be absolute but simply is not. In this case, it's very simple. Humans are flawed and cannot comprehend simple biblical phrases as written. Stop trying. Yeah, thanks, Dan. All clear now.
No, Dan, that was not what you claimed. I didn't suggest you did. It's the only rational conclusion from what you suggested. The only rational conclusion is to not engage in exegesis because we are flawed humans and can't even understand the simplest of things (you know, like the meaning of a straightforward phrase "a man who lies with a man as with a woman"). Since the most elementary understanding and most clear readings of these texts are clearly impossibly wrong, we ought to stop trying. Or ... perhaps ... we should leave the proper exegesis to Dan. ;)
Okay, so, dealing with what I said, then, and dealing with the implications of what Jesus said:
Do you think Jesus was being accurate when he said that those who lay down their life for others have demonstrated great love?
If an unsaved mother lays down her life for her beloved child, has she demonstrated great love?
I think obviously, yes. What do you think?
Okay, you think obviously yes. Fine. So ... why are you making the argument? I told you my options: 1) Admit to a failed Bible that contradicts itself, or 2) admit that humans are so fallible that the Bible can never be understood since it's simplest statements are too hard to figure out. Which shall I choose?
Or, could it be that the love spoken of in 1 John and the love spoken of by Jesus are different ... you know, like the "good" I spoke of before?
I'm sorry if I missed the answer. Would you mind trying again...
Do you think Jesus was being accurate when he said that those who lay down their life for others have demonstrated great love?
Do you think this would be the case regardless of whether the person laying down their life was Christian or not?
Stan, yesterday was one of the rare days where I could comment frequently and at length.
VERY briefly, it doesn't seem to me that you're being consistent in how you evaluate your position and how you evaluate mine.
You write, about Romans 3, "I've looked at the text in Greek and don't find anything that requires 'does good continually.'"
(For what it's worth, I believe the verb's present tense implies continual action.)
But then, about Romans 2, you write about how "people do things we consider 'good,'" but NOTHING IN THE TEXT supports the idea that Paul was talking about how the Gentiles were doing ONLY what we "consider" good.
Instead, Paul writes about when Gentiles "do instinctively what the law requires."
They actually DO do good, just not consistently -- hence, the "when," and hence the conflicted thoughts.
I think it's easier to reconcile chapter 2 and chapter 3 by concluding that Paul teaches that Gentiles SOMETIMES do what the law requires but that no one ever CONSISTENTLY does good.
In terms of unwarranted presupposition, your approach to chapter 2 is MUCH worse than my approach to chapter 3, but you don't hold yourself to the same standards you use to critique others.
Let me try to figure out if I have got your answer and just didn't realize it.
I asked TWO questions...
1. Do you think Jesus was being accurate when he said that those who lay down their life for others have demonstrated great love?
2. If an unsaved mother lays down her life for her beloved child, has she demonstrated great love?
You said...
could it be that the love spoken of in 1 John and the love spoken of by Jesus are different ... you know, like the "good" I spoke of before?
So, it SEEMS like to me that you are saying,
1. YES, Jesus was being absolutely accurate when he said that those who lay down their life are showing great love.
And
2. BUT, MAYBE what John is speaking of in 1 John is a different sort of "great love" than Jesus was speaking of. Even though Jesus would say that the unsaved mother who laid down her life for a child was showing that there was "no greater love," John is not speaking of "no greater love," in the sense that we would typically think of it today, but... something ELSE that we don't know what he means?
Is that what you're getting at? That John is speaking of some OTHER type of love than the "no greater love" Jesus spoke of? If so, is John speaking of a "lesser love," (since Jesus said explicitly "no greater love?")
Yes, Dan, you missed the answer. Either Jesus is right and John is wrong or John is right and Jesus is wrong or the "love" is something that needs to be examined.
Or (and this is the most likely) I'm wrong again for taking the Bible at face value. My bad.
Okay, so if "There is none who does good on a continual basis" is the intent, then how does that differ from "there is none righteous"? (Please note, by the way, that it is an Old Testament quote. I don't think you'll find that the Hebrew tense that was quoted was present tense continuous.)
Apparently to you the primary definition of "good" (which must apply to Rom 3:12) is "obeying the law".
And since the only thing that Paul was saying was "to err is human", I don't see why it's any big deal at all.
Further, if Natural Man actually does genuine, God-defined "good" at some point, I'd have to suggest that this "good" requires recognition from God -- merit.
But, look, I have tried not to say "You're stupid" or "You're not being fair to Scripture" or to demean you in any way. I, on the other hand, am mutilating Scripture, and presenting "unwarranted presuppositions" much worse than anything you might offer. You're right. Maybe I should stop blogging ... sorry ... your phrase ... critiquing others.
(I always think it's a shame when believers can't have a congenial conversation about things if they don't agree. I've tried. It's not working. Take Dan, for instance. I keep telling him to drop it and he doesn't seem to understand.)
Brother Stan, when you say things like this...
Or (and this is the most likely) I'm wrong again for taking the Bible at face value. My bad.
It sounds like you're getting defensive and feeling attacked. I hope this is not the case.
For me, this is just a pleasant conversation with a fellow believer. Bible study. I enjoy the heck out of this, to be honest. It helps me think things through for myself and helps me think through how I explain things.
I hope that is the spirit in which it is received on your end.
Indeed, I don't know how else to feel. Since the best we can get is "my opinion" and since the Bible doesn't demand inerrancy nor should it and since the only thing I have to offer is fallible human opinion and since there is no way to actually know what Scripture says, why am I bothering? Please, don't answer that. I won't be posting any more comments.
Stan:
"Okay, so if "There is none who does good on a continual basis" is the intent, then how does that differ from 'there is none righteous'? (Please note, by the way, that it is an Old Testament quote. I don't think you'll find that the Hebrew tense that was quoted was present tense continuous.)"
Since parallelism is a frequent feature of Scripture -- particularly the OT, particularly the Psalms -- I'm not sure why it's necessary to believe that the two statements are saying anything different.
Your conclusion -- "No one does anything that God considers 'good'." -- simply isn't warranted, especially in light of Romans 2.
Earlier you wrote:
On the "No one does good" thing, Paul makes two statements. One is "There is none righteous." That would (could) mean that no one arrives at perfection, that no one does everything right. Kind of like you were saying. But the other statement is the reverse. "No one does good." How is that unclear? Here's the syllogism.
Paul: "No one does good"
Us: "Everyone does something good."
Conclusion: Paul was wrong.
The syllogism really is this:
Paul in ch. 3: "No one does good"
Paul in ch. 2: "Gentiles sometimes do good when they 'do instinctively what the law requires.'
Conclusion: Paul is incoherent.
Or maybe "No one does good" simply does not mean that no one EVER does good.
Stan, I'm not trying to demean you, either. But I'm not sure you're being entirely fair.
"And since the only thing that Paul was saying was 'to err is human', I don't see why it's any big deal at all."
Have I argued this? No.
Have I written anything that would necessarily lead to this conclusion? Again, no.
This is a strawman that has nothing to do with my position, and this isn't the first time that you've presented such a strawman.
(You've repeatedly misrepresented my position as being that man can come to God "on his own" simply because I believe faith precedes regeneration. I've adamantly rejected that position, but still you persist.)
Paul's point is that we all stand condemned: we do so whether we sin absolutely continuously or whether we merely sin very, very frequently. Disagreeing with your narrow interpretation that the verse means that no one EVER does good simply does not mean rejecting Paul's point of man's universal condemnation.
"Further, if Natural Man actually does genuine, God-defined 'good' at some point, I'd have to suggest that this 'good' requires recognition from God -- merit."
It certainly wouldn't merit salvation, because that good deed was already expected from man and does nothing to satisfy the penalty incurred by his numerous sins.
But where does it say that God doesn't recognize anything man does? Didn't Christ Himself note that even wicked men give good gifts to their children? Didn't Paul write that Gentiles DO sometimes meet the law's requirements?
Your view of man seems low to a degree that isn't justified by Scripture. I seem to remember your saying something about it being inappropriate to use paternal metaphors when discussing God -- even though Christ frequently did just that (e.g., the prodigal son) -- because we're more like mosquitoes to God.
We're UNWORTHY of God's love, but it doesn't mean that we're WORTHLESS.
Bubba: "'And since the only thing that Paul was saying was "to err is human", I don't see why it's any big deal at all.'
Have I argued this? No.
Have I written anything that would necessarily lead to this conclusion? Again, no."
The argument you made is that no one does good all the time. How is that different from "Everyone makes mistakes"?
But I guess you and Dan T have more in common than I realized. You are both woefully misrepresented by me.
So, given Natural Man, dead in sin by whatever measure you mean it, hostile to God however that resonates with you, blinded by the god of this world whatever that means to you, certainly not filled with the Spirit and certainly operating on his own Free Will, in what sense would you say that he does not come to God on his own? It cannot be the "wooing" and "urging" and "calling" of the Spirit because the Spirit does this to many (all?). And we've eliminated any fundamental change in the Natural Man (that I have termed "regeneration"), so that's not a possible answer. You insist that he doesn't come to God on his own. What then? What makes Natural Man A arrive at faith when Natural Man B does not?
"The argument you made is that no one does good all the time. How is that different from 'Everyone makes mistakes'?"
It's different because, when men fail to do good -- which is VERY frequent, just not continually -- what they do is no mere mistake or error: it's a sin, an egregious rebellion against God and violation of His law.
There's no justification for the leap from my actual position that the Bible is clear that men do not sin continually (see Rom 2) to the strawman that trivializes the sin they DO frequently commit.
You ask, "in what sense would you say that [Natural Man] does not come to God on his own?"
First, I disagree with the phrasing: man doesn't "come" to God at all but merely responds to God's calling him.
Second, his response isn't that he brings any works or righteousness or worthiness to the table: he merely accepts what God has done and will do.
You ask, "What makes Natural Man A arrive at faith when Natural Man B does not?"
One chooses to accept God's call and offer of salvation, and the other doesn't.
Yeah, I figured you'd balk at the terminology. Sorry. I'll stop.
Of course, that's difficult when there are so many "mines" in this field. "Mistake" does not equal "sin". "Come to God" does not equal "respond to God". And, still, "respond" does equal "accept". Can't keep up. But I'll try.
You do understand that you didn't answer the question, right? "What makes a person arrive at faith?" "One does and one doesn't" is not an answer. Another mine in the field, I suppose. So, given the whole list of stuff we're agreeing to -- the calling, the wooing, the urging of God (which I suppose we would agree He does to all) -- what makes the difference between the one who ... your terminology ... "accepts God's call" and the one who does not? The point is not terminology. The point is that you are claiming that it's something within the person. What is that something within the person that differentiates between the two?
Stan, let me preface all this by noting that I'm not sure how realistic the hypothetical is, that EVERYTHING else is equal when God offers salvation to two different people. I'll concede that the pull against repentance may be stronger for some as sin hardens their hearts, and it's clear that God's call is rarely as emphatic as the call to Paul on the road to Damascas.
I believe that the Fall made the response of faith more difficult than it need to be, but not impossible. There are reasons for a person to reject God's call -- mostly, pride, against submitting to God at all, or against submitting on God's terms (faith in his works, not reliance on one's own good works) -- but these aren't determinative.
But you ask, "What is that something within the person that differentiates between the two?"
My answer is unchanged: one chose to respond in repentance and faith, and the other didn't. THE CHOICE IS THE DIFFERENCE.
"What makes a person arrive at faith?"
Nothing: it's a free-will choice, and if anything "MAKES" a person reach a particular decision, that decision wasn't freely chosen.
Well, I suppose at this point we can just say "Thanks for the conversation" and be done. I've asked twice what makes the difference. You've "dodged" the question. No, no, you've "answered" it, but you've avoided the real question by picking up word specifics. (That terminology minefield, remember?)
Here's what I wanted to know. You've made it clear that faith precedes regeneration, that it is our choice that ... and now I bog down in that terminology minefield again ... is the deciding factor. Setting aside all that God does because we both agree that He does and removing any "new nature" that I say is necessary and you deny, we have two people with "wooing" (I'm trying to use acceptable terminology) from God and all, but one chooses for and one chooses against. Where does that come from? It's not that God has regenerated one and not the other (as I have claimed). This choice/faith/receiving/belief comes from within one and the other does not do it. What is different between the two? Why does one choose well and one poorly, one choose Christ and the other not? "The choice is the difference" is not the answer. If faith is from the Natural Man prior to regeneration what is the difference between the one who has and the one who hasn't? "Faith" is not an answer. "Choice" is not an answer. "Free will" is not an answer (unless you're arguing that "free will" makes its choices randomly).
Maybe your answer was in your latest comment. Some are more hardened than others. No one is called as Paul was on the Damascus road. Maybe one has less pride or arrogance or self-reliance. ("These aren't determinative," you said, so I'm not assuming that this is your answer.) I can't find an answer that doesn't make the one who chooses Christ better than the one who does not.
But, listen, it's a new year and we've flogged this horse to death and, frankly, I'm pretty sure you have no answer. Not to say there isn't one and not to say you're admitting defeat and not to say I'm right about all this. I'm just thinking that you'd say we cannot know what the difference is ... not that there is no difference. So let's just stop. Nothing I've said has even given you pause from your view and nothing you've said has answered the problems my view has with your view. Let's just let it go. I'm sure there will be opportunities in the future to take it up again. (Trust me; I know.)
I'd hate to dismiss a point out of hand without properly evaluating it. Bubba suggested that the verb tense in Rom 3:12 had the sense of continuous present tense ... that it suggested that "There is none good" all the time, a parallel of "there is none righteous" and "all have sinned". Well, if he was right -- if the verb tense supported it -- it wouldn't be the first time. So I asked a genuine Greek scholar, a professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Theology at Northwestern College in Minnesota and author, among other things, of a blog focused on Exegetical Inquiry Concerning the Greek New Testament. (I'd give you the name, but it's in Greek.)
Dr. Caneday suggested that "Somebody is 'over-reading' the verb tense." He went on to say, "There is nothing mysterious or secret about the verb tense in Rom. 3:12. The significance of what Paul says is not to be found in the present tense. Rather, the fact that Paul states the matter and then reiterates the matter--'not even one'--makes the point that you properly understood by reading the English translation."
Thank you, Dr. Caneday.
That is, the Greek verb and the Greek text both serve to support my observation that it is intended as stated and it is not intended as hyperbole. Not because it's my opinion; it's the text.
While you had his attention, I wonder if you asked him about Romans 2:14, its plain-text statement about when Gentiles "do instinctively what the law requires" and your interpretation that the passage ONLY means that "people do things we consider 'good'."
I stand by my position that my take on chapter 3 is much more plausible than your take on chapter 2.
Why would I ask about Romans 2? No one is disagreeing about what the words mean. But you are assuming "do instinctively what the law requires" = "good" by God's definition in Rom 3. To put it another way, you are assuming that your position on chapter 3 is more plausible by your personal inference rather than the text or the language used. You are interpreting the explicit (ch 3) by the implicit (ch 2).
Come on, Stan.
In the verse immediately prior (2:13), Paul writes that the doers of the law (not just the hearers) are justified before God.
(To be clear, his entire argument in Romans 1-3 is that no one is justified before God. But he explicitly connects justification with doing what the law requires.)
It's no great leap -- no "personal inference" -- to conclude that doing what the law requires is good, even by God's definition.
What's your position? That doing what the law requires is bad by God's definition? That it's morally neutral? That God is ambivalent about doing what His law requires?
There's no real question about whether doing what the law requires is truly good, the only question is why the passages you find obscure tend to be the ones that undermine your position.
Bubba: "In the verse immediately prior (2:13), Paul writes that the doers of the law (not just the hearers) are justified before God."
Okay, I admit it. I'm confused. So, you are saying that Paul is claiming that Gentiles who obey the law are justified before God, meaning that such a Gentile exists (existed)? Since you deny that in your next paragraph, I'm really lost.
No, I'm not saying "Obeying the law is bad." I'm saying, "Obeying the law doesn't rise to the level of good." I'm saying that Paul is speaking hypothetically in Rom 2, that it was potentially possible that a Gentile could obey the law. Here, look at it this way. One verse says that "There is none who does good." You contradict (by that I mean deny) that plain statement based on "when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law". There is an undeniable statement in Rom. 3:12 regarding doing good and there is no clear statement in Rom. 2:14 that "Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law" is "good" (at least not in the same sense as Rom. 3:12). You are, then, deciding that Rom. 2:14 is saying (without using the words) that Rom. 3:12 (which uses the word explicitly) is not saying what it seems to be saying. That is interpreting the explicit from the implicit.
I can read Rom. 3:12. It says "There is none who does good." Explicit. So now I look at other passages that seem to contradict. I can reinterpret the plain text of Rom 3:12 so that it is no longer explicit, or I can take the implicit and see that it doesn't mean what I thought it meant (implicit) ... based on the explicit. I'm not saying it's obscure. I'm saying that it does not say that Rom. 3:12 doesn't mean what it says. And, based on your statement ("no one is justified before God") with which I fully agree, I conclude that Paul is not saying that anyone keeps the law in Rom. 2:14. Explicit versus implicit.
Why is it that the plain text cannot mean what it says and I'm the odd one out believing it?
Post a Comment