Revisiting "Good"

At the end of December I posted on Absolutes. I spoke of three passages which expressed themselves in absolutes. The one that received the most attention (read "the most denial") was "There is none who does good, there is not even one" (Rom 3:12). You see, that's presented as an absolute. And, as I well recognize, it goes harshly against the grain. We all know "good people". Indeed, it's hard to believe that there is a single human being that doesn't do some good. So we balk at that. (I mean "we", because I see it, too.) Now, I'm one who wants my worldview to be informed by Scripture rather than attempting to interpret Scripture by my worldview, so I'm kind of stuck with it. Still, I have been revisiting it over the last few weeks. Here's what I've found.

First, the context of Paul's statement in Romans 3 is clear: "All are under sin" (Rom 3:9). I think, perhaps, that one of the objections was the idea that I was arguing that no human ever could do good. In context I think it's obvious that the "no one" in view in verse 12 is the same as the "all" in verse 9 -- Natural Man. Thus, when "justified by faith" (Rom 3:28) occurs and "set free from sin" (Rom 6:7) becomes the case, Regenerated Man via the working of the Spirit within him can indeed do genuine good. I think this is certainly in keeping with the text and context.

But we're still back at that horrible "There is none who does good, there is not even one" in reference to all non-believers. "I mean, seriously, are you sure you want to go there, Stan?" Well, maybe not, but I have to follow the text and that's what it says. So ... what does it mean? Well, as we examine the context of the text, we find a definition of "good" that should be enlightening. In verse 23 we have the very well known summary statement of Paul's epistle to Rome up to this point: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." We all know that. We're fine with that. Except as we're nodding our agreement, we're likely missing a very key point in the statement. Paul has a definition here of "sin": "fall short of the glory of God". Indeed, Paul started this diatribe about the condition of Natural Man way back in chapter 1 with this thought:

For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things (Rom 1:21-23).

Here's the basic problem with sinful Man. We fail to acknowledge God (for who He is), to honor Him, or to thank Him. Notice what it says: "They ... exchanged the glory of the immortal ..." for something less. That "glory" thing again.

You see, if it is indeed true that humans are put on this earth for the purpose of glorifying God and Natural Man has set aside God's glory in favor of the creature, then we have our answer regarding "There is none who does good." If "sin" is defined as "falling short of the glory of God", then "good" would be defined as "that which brings glory to God" and Natural Man doesn't do that. Sure, he may institute a homeless shelter and he may become a doctor to help people and he may do all sorts of things that are "good" on the horizontal plane. And I'm not saying they're not "good". I'm saying that God's version of "good" is in reference to God, and the "good" that "no one" does is that good -- glorifying God. Or, here, look at it another way. Paul writes, "For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). If unbelievers do not operate by faith in God, then whatever they do is ... sin.

By way of illustration, a son asks his father for $5 to go out with his friends that evening. The father tells his son that if he wants the money he'll have to mow the lawn. The son mows the lawn, gritting his teeth and bemoaning the injustice of it all. His son obeyed ... but did he "do good"? It was certainly better than a refusal to obey, but it was not, in the parameters of the father's perspective, "good" because it was out of anger, not love, and it brought no glory to the father.

We are, then, looking at a two-fold problem. One side of the problem is that we do not see things through the eyes of God. The "There is none who does good" condition is relative to God's view. God's simple demand is that He be glorified as He ought to be. Anything (1 Cor 10:31) done for any other reason, from God's perspective, is "not good" -- it is sin. The other side of this coin is that we fail miserably to recognize the deep problem of sin. We see it as "doing bad things", as "failing to do everything on the list", as "straying from time to time". God sees it as an affront to His glory, an assault on His throne, and pervasive condition that we hardly even recognize from day to day.

We have petty notions about God and His glory. We have petty notions about sin and its depths. And we are certainly closer in experience to sinners than to God. It's no wonder, really, that we'd be confused on this notion. But, confused we are, I think. I would think that Paul meant exactly what he said about none doing good when it is defined as doing it for God's glory. Thanks be to God that He can provide a change in the nature of the creature to alter that fact.