The apostle Paul probably said it best when he said, "For the good I will to do, I do not do, but the evil I will not do, that do I." (Rom. 7:19) So much for doing good because its good.
In book two of the Institutes of the Christian Religion Calvin wrote:
Quote
12. Man Cannot Ascribe to Himself Even One Single Good Work Apart From God's Grace
In support of this view, some make an ignorant and false application of the Apostle's words: "I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me," (1 Cor. 15: 10.) The meaning they give them is, that as Paul might have seemed to speak somewhat presumptuously in preferring himself to all the other apostles, he corrects the expression so far by referring the praise to the grace of God, but he, at the same time, calls himself a co-operator with grace. It is strange that this should have proved a stumbling-block to so many writers, otherwise respectable. The Apostle says not that the grace of God laboured with him so as to make him a co-partner in the labour. He rather transfers the whole merit of the labour to grace alone, by thus modifying his first expression, "It was not I," says he, "that laboured, but the grace of God that was present with me." Those who have adopted the erroneous interpretation have been misled by an ambiguity in the expression, or rather by a preposterous translation, in which the force of the Greek article is overlooked. For to take the words literally, the Apostle does not say that grace was a fellow-worker with him, but that the grace which was with him was sole worker. And this is taught not obscurely, though briefly, by Augustine when he says, "Good will in man precedes many gifts from God, but not all gifts, seeing that the will which precedes is itself among the number." He adds the reason, "for it is written, 'the God of my mercy shall prevent me,' (Ps. 59: 10,) and 'Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me,' (Ps. 23: 6;) it prevents him that is unwilling, and makes him willing; it follows him that is willing, that he may not will in vain." To this Bernard assents, introducing the Church as praying thus, "Draw me, who am in some measure unwilling, and make me willing; draw me, who am sluggishly lagging, and make me run," (Serm. 2 in Cantic.)
As far as pleasing God goes John Piper writes: God delights in obedience. God has pleasure in obedience because disobedience shows misplacement of pleasure. All the pleasures of God are leading irrevocably to the establishment of a kingdom where disobedience and unbelief will be no more. God will reign in righteousness and justice and peace, and all of life will be the obedience of faith and joy. God's pleasure in his Son is leading to the kingdom of obedience because God wills to conform all its inhabitiants to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29).
"The worth and excellency of a soul is to be measured by the object of its love." Henry Scougal
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
This falls under the general question of “why should we do good?” The utilitarianists think that we should do good because it makes the most amount of people happy. A Pragmatist will do good only because it achieves a desired result.
To contemplate the option, “should we do good because it is good” – we must ask “what makes a thing good”? As Plato asks in Euthyphro concerning the definition of “pious”: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” So we ask is something good because it pleases God, or is God pleased with it because it is good? Are the works of god good only through the formal reason that he made them, or did he make them because they were good? It is in reflecting upon the works that we are able to discover the one who wrought. They must therefore bear in themselves his character. If the works of god were good only through the formal reason that he made them, then he would not have to regard them afterwards and pronounce them good. (God saw that it was good.) Leibniz noted (a philosopher who I think was kind of a mystic but did believe in God even though he got a lot of things very wrong) “Why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary”?
However, back to the original question: Should we do good because it is good? Or Should we do good because it pleases God?
I would answer with Option 2. Because 1) God command us to do good. Depart from evil, and do good; Trust in the LORD, and do good; 2) As Christians we CAN have a reason to do good, other than that it is good. In other words, the first option is just plain not very satisfying. Why should we do good because it is good? I cannot tell. Why should we do good because it pleases God? Because the alternative of not doing good would bring the wrath of God upon us. It just seems more compelling.
Or you could combine them and say that we should do good because it is good to please God. The utilitarian view will never seem to find absolutes in moral values no matter how hard they try; the relativists will try to destroy even the meaning right and wrong. On and on. But WE have an unchanging God, and therefore our moral values are unchanging- the definition of “good” does not “evolve” along with human development. (i.e. we once thought it was “good” not to accept the homosexual lifestyle as a “good” lifestyle – but our values have “evolved” so that the world calls evil good and good evil. The world says woe to them that are not tolerant, - not knowing that their putting darkness for light, and light for darkness; will call god’s judgment upon them.)
But we rejoice in that God hath showed us what is good. Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Then again, I submit option three as to why we do good: Premise One is that doing good is to fear God, and to keep God’s commandments. Premise Two Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
CovenantInBlood said: Should we do good because it is good?
Or . . .
Should we do good because it pleases God?
I would have to submit that it isn't an "either/or" choice, but BOTH. We are to do good because "good" is the very expression of what God is; i.e., He is holy and thus all that He commands that men do is holy (righteousness). Secondly, we are to do "good" as creatures created in the image of God. We are to be analogs of God, i.e., live out our lives before Him as He intended us to do, thereby reflecting Him in our own being, which is ultimately pleasing to Him. The ultimate and paradigmatic expression of these two principles is seen in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who was the effulgence of the glory of God and consequently obedient; perfectly keeping the law of God.
Just a few biblical texts which exemplify these two things would be, Psa 119, Jh 1:14; Matt 5:48; Phil 2:5-9; 1Pet 1:16; 2Pet 1:4.
We are to do good because "good" is the very expression of what God is; i.e., He is holy and thus all that He commands that men do is holy (righteousness).
Amen! There can be no "good" or "evil" without the existence of God.
I am currently reading Bahnsen's Always Ready, and he explains it like this:
Quote
Both the believer and the unbeliever will want to insist that certain things are evil, for instance cases of child abuse (like those already mentioned). And they will talk as though they take such moral judgments seriously, not simply as expressions of personal taste, preference or subjective opinion. They will insist that such things are truly -- objectively, intrinsically -- evil. Even unbelievers can be shaken from their easy and glib espousals of relativism in the face of moral atrocities like war, rape, and torture.
But the question, logically speaking, is how the unbeliever can make sense of taking evil seriously -- not simply as something inconvenient, or unpleasant, or contrary to his or her desires. What philosophy of value or morality can the unbeliever offer which will render it meaningful to condemn some atrocity as objectively evil? The moral indignation which is expressed by unbelievers when they encounter the wicked things which transpire in this world does not comport with the theories of ethics which unbelievers espouse, theories which prove to be arbitrary or subjective or merely utilitarian or relativistic in character. On the unbeliever's worldview, there is no good reason for saying that anything is evil in nature, but only by personal choice or feeling.
That is why I am encouraged when I see unbelievers getting very indignant with some evil action as a matter of principle. Such indignation requires recourse to the absolute, unchanging, and good character of God in order to make philosophical sense. The expression of moral indignation is but personal evidence that unbelievers know this God in their heart of hearts. They refuse to let judgments about evil be reduced to subjectivism.
When the believer challenges the unbeliever on this point, the unbeliever will likely turn around and try to argue that evil is, in the final analysis, based on human reasoning or choices - thus being relative to the individual or culture. And at that point the believer must press home the logical incoherence within the unbeliever's set of beliefs. On the one hand, he believes and speaks as though some activity (e.g., child abuse) is wrong in itself, but on the other hand he believes and speaks as though that activity is wrong only if the individual (or culture) chooses some value which is inconsistent with it (e.g., pleasure, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, freedom). When the unbeliever professes that people determine ethical values for themselves, the unbeliever implicitly holds that those who commit evil are not really doing anything evil, given the values which they have chosen for themselves. In this way, the unbeliever who is indignant over wickedness supplies the very premises which philosophically condone and permit such behavior, even though at the same time the unbeliever wishes to insist that such behavior is not permitted -- is "evil."
What we find, then, is that the unbeliever must secretly rely upon the Christian worldview in order to make sense of his argument from the existence of evil which is urged against the Christian worldview! Antitheism presupposes theism to make its case.
The problem of evil is thus a logical problem for the unbeliever, rather than the believer. As a Christian, I can make perfectly good sense out of my moral revulsion and condemnation of child abuse. The non-Christian cannot. This does not mean that I can explain why God does whatever He does in planning misery and wickedness in this world. It simply means that moral outrage is consistent with the Christian's worldview, his basic presuppositions about reality, knowledge, and ethics. The non-Christian's worldview (of whatever variety) eventually cannot account for such moral outrage. It cannot explain the objective and unchanging nature of moral notions like good or evil. Thus the problem of evil is precisely a philosophical problem for unbelief. Unbelievers would be required to appeal to the very thing against which they argue (a divine, transcendent sense of ethics) in order for their argument to be warranted.
This particular chapter happens to be online too <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
We should do good because we where given free will to chose we were then told that when we do good things this pleases God so we should do good for goods sake this way we chose to do good things under our own authority and this in return pleases God. Should you do good things of a selfless nature you empower the Holy Spirit and her gifts.
Care to try and back up your claims with Scripture?
What do you mean by "empowering the Holy Spirit"? And what do you mean "her"?
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
We should do good because we where given free will to chose we were then told that when we do good things this pleases God
Before salvation (which is by GRACE ALONE and not by free-willy) you are incapable of doing good toward God. Prior to salvation you are a dirty rotten depraved chief of sinners that displeases God in every aspect of your being. After salvation God empowers you to do good toward Him. The "goodness" that we display is part of keeping the covenant that God has willingly allowed us to enter into. We do it not only because it pleases God and brings glory to Him, but it is part and parcel of our new natures as well.
PS: ditto on what Marie said! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
Thanks for the loaded question Kyle <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
I'm sure that when Moses spent 40 years wandering the desert he had a lot of time to think about free will and the right to choose but then again he was in direct communication with the Almighty.
Resurgam said: Are you saying that God did not give man free will?
He's saying that man's will is in bondage to sin, and thusly incapable of choosing to please God because man in his fallen state has no desire whatsoever to please God. He desires only to do evil, and so he does only evil.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
May be, just maybe I know something you do not. The things I say come from the heart so you will not see me cite scripture. Man has killed man citing scripture after scripture. I know scripture in my heart so it is from the heart that I speak. I would not challenge you to prove what you say ... only ask you what you mean by the things you say if I lacked the understanding to compehend it. But I do Love it when people use scripture to promote positive messages.
Resurgam said: Are you saying that God did not give man free will?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> He's not saying any such thing. What the Bible teaches is that Adam in his pre-fallen state had freedom of choice according to his nature, which was inclined toward God and all righteousness. But after the Fall, Adam and all his posterity, suffered under the judgment of God and the punishment exacted upon them, i.e., Original Sin; judicial guilt and corruption of nature (spiritual death). Thus all men since the Fall have a nature which is wholly opposed to God and all that is good. The heart of man is desperately corrupt and loves only wickedness and thus fallen man is only capable of sin and choosing that which is consistent with their depravity. (cf. Gen 6:5; 8:21; Jer 4:21; 13:23; 17:9; Job 15:14, 15; Matt 7:17, 18; Rom 3:10-18; Eph 2:1-3; 4:17-19; et al)
May be, just maybe I know something you do not. The things I say come from the heart so you will not see me cite scripture. Man has killed man citing scripture after scripture. I know scripture in my heart so it is from the heart that I speak. I would not challenge you to prove what you say ... only ask you what you mean by the things you say if I lacked the understanding to compehend it. But I do Love it when people use scripture to promote positive messages.
Well, I am having a little trouble comprehending what you wrote above. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/stupidme.gif" alt="" />
Thus, could you explain what you mean a little more, please? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit has revealed some things to you (in your heart), which are not written in the Bible, of which He was the Author? And, has He revealed to you anything which you would say is contrary to what is found in the Bible? And lastly, how do you know if what you have in your heart is actually from God? If the Holy Spirit has revealed something to you, then of necessity, it is infallible, and cannot be disproved nor even disputed, right?
2 Timothy 3 13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Quote
Psalm 19 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. 10 They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; In keeping them there is great reward.
Isaiah 8:20- "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."
My faith is grounded in the words and promises of the Bible, which alone are able to make one wise unto salvation. Where did you get this secret "knowledge" from? Certainly not from God!
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
