Mon 21 Jul 2008
Are you "good"? Take a different kind of test
Posted by Darren under Apologetics , Bible , Christians , Faith , God , PhilosophyThere's a ministry run by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron called The Way of the Master which uses the following evangelism tactic. First, a person is confronted with a list of the ten commandments. They are then asked if they have broken any of them. When the person admits they have (since we all have) they are then told they are a sinner and are in need of God's forgiveness.
Although I do appreciate their ministry efforts, and I think the argument they present is valid and sound, I'm not sure that this method is cogent. Here's why: It's based on an unspoken assumption, namely that the Bible is true! Obviously, if a person believes what the Bible says, they are (or should be) already a Christian. If they don't believe the Bible, why should they believe that the ten commandments will impact their eternal destinies? They are, after all, found in the Bible, which they don't believe in.
However, I think a different type of "good test" might be still valid and sound, but also more cogent. Here's how it works:
A person who doesn't believe in the Bible can still behave morally. Now, whether or not a secular person has any grounding for his or her moral beliefs is a separate question; or as Greg Koukl puts it, "No one argues, though, that an atheist can behave in a way one might call moral. The real question is, "Why ought he?" But we can for now affirm that, from a pragmatic standpoint, any person can behave morally and also possess moral beliefs.
Now, a Christian gets his or her moral guidance from the Bible. (Or, at least, in theory they should do so!) Where does a secular person receive their moral guidance? There could be many influences, such as parents, society, etc. But ultimately it comes down to a personal decision. Everyone has their own personal morality; a set of moral standards that they feel is just, and moral.
Thinking of that moral standard (which a person defines themselves, remember), the question could be asked: Have you lived up to the moral standard that you have set up for yourself? Or put another way, have you ever done (or not done) some of the things that you would call someone else immoral for doing (or not doing)? Most honest people would answer "yes".
So, by even their own minimal standard, which they have defined for themselves, they are not moral. Consider then this question: Would God's standards be higher or lower than the standards I define for myself?
For example, think about a young child whose parents have set the child's curfew at 9:00pm. One day the parents are away and leave the child in the care of an inept babysitter who, rather than enforcing the normal curfew, tells the child they're free to set their own. Do you think the child will set their bedtime earlier or later than their usual curfew? I think we can say they would likely set their own curfew much later … if they go to bed that night at all! Similarly, I think it's safe to assume a standard of behavior we make up for ourselves would be lower than God's, and if we fail miserably at even our own minimal standard, how much more have we failed God's standard and are in need of His help and forgiveness?
So this is the predicament that people find themselves in … if they believe that a God of some sort exists, of course. If opinion polls are to be believed, this includes 90% or so of the population. If a person already believes that God exists, and/or there are good arguments that God exists (and I think there are several good arguments that God exists) then I think this is a decent argument for the idea that there is no such thing as a "good person".
10 Responses to “Are you "good"? Take a different kind of test”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
'Now, a Christian gets his or her moral guidance from the Bible.'
Really?
What is the age of consent in the Bible?
September 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
'Would God’s standards be higher or lower than the standards I define for myself?'
You mean that a god would never order children to be killed?
2 Samuel 12
Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."
After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.
Would a god ever take away sin and then strike down an innocent child, because somebody else had sinned?
September 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Luke 1
In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.
Is there reliable , historical evidence that there were people who had obeyed *all* the Lord's commandments and regulations *blamelessly*?
Or had they just obeyed a few of God's commandments and broken some of the others?
September 13th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Hi Steve, thanks for your comments!
"What is the age of consent in the Bible?"
I'm not sure which passage(s) you're alluding to, but whatever it is, it's undoubtedly higher than the relativist standard of naturalism without God. That is to say, the "age of consent" would be entirely relative to any particular person's wishes and/or society's whims. So essentially the age of consent would be whatever you want it to be.
I am not arguing that "atheists/agnostics don't believe in an age of consent", I'm sure most do, rather that I don't see how any consistent (objective) age of consent could be drawn from a naturalistic worldview.
"Would a god ever take away sin and then strike down an innocent child, because somebody else had sinned?"
If the child is indeed innocent as you note, then the child would (after being "struck down") go immediately to live eternally in bliss with God. If the child were not innocent (the passage after all doesn't specify) he would (rightly & justly) not. Regardless, given that God would have perfect wisdom in this situation that we would not, I'd trust His judgment.
"Is there reliable , historical evidence that there were people who had obeyed *all* the Lord’s commandments and regulations *blamelessly*?"
No there is not. (cf Romans 3:23) It seems to me a charitable reading of the passage doesn't intend to say that he was perfectly blameless; it is in the regular colloquial version of "all". This hypothesis is bourne out when we look at for example Luke 7:29 (which uses the same Greek word 'pas' translated as "all") … did *all* (as in every single last one without exception) do as described? It seems here a little hyperbole was being used.
Does this mean that "all" never literally means "all" in the text? By no means, it just must be interpreted in context to determine a reasonable meaning for it.
I do appreciate the questions though, it does help to think through these sort of issues carefully.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:05 pm
All children are innocent.
November 5th, 2011 at 8:23 am
articles…
[…]Why Faith » Are you "good"? Take a different kind of test[…]…
December 18th, 2013 at 7:22 am
I merely such as the useful details a person provide to your articles or blog posts. We'll take note of your web site as well as examine yet again right here consistently. I will be moderately particular I'll learn a large amount of fresh stuff appropriate in this article! Good luck for the!
December 19th, 2013 at 6:03 am
With everything which seems to be building throughout this subject material, your viewpoints are actually fairly stimulating. In any case I did appreciate examining it.
December 21st, 2013 at 12:26 am
I have been surfing on-line greater than three hours lately, but I never discovered any fascinating article like yours. It is lovely worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all site owners and bloggers made excellent content material as you did, the internet might be much more useful than ever before.
December 24th, 2013 at 12:55 pm
I've been gone for a while, but now I remember why I used to love this site. Thanks, I will try and check back more often. How frequently do you update your site?