Good in People

The mind of man is a wondrous mechanism capable of great things. It is the mind of man which is the cradle of every action every person takes. No one says a word, makes a move, or takes a single action that is not first conceived in his or her mind. If one’s behavior is bad or destructive, it is due to bad or destructive thinking. The root of all human behavior is the mind of man; it is an incredible controller, an amazing processor of information, more complex than today’s best supercomputer. The mind even has self correcting functionality called conscience which identifies errors and helps one navigate through life.  Good in people can be defined as that direction which the conscience, an internal compass, directs one. But even in “good” people with benevolent intentions, aberrant actions can result from faulty thinking, perceptive error, or just sloppy thinking.

The minds of men produce both heroes and villains. Every generation has people who accomplish great and wonderful works in their lives and every generation has people who act in service of evil. Every individual is capable of both great good and great evil. People are born with capacity to act and fortunately most develop a healthy conscience with a healthful concept of goodness towards themselves and others around them. However, everyone is human, short of perfection, and subject to limitations and weaknesses inherent in man’s nature including those in his mind.

Good in Culture

Literature tends to hype and exaggerate individual characters and characteristics. Many stories contain superheroes and supervillains; other works may be founded on less idealized and more subtle plots which include a basically good main character juxtaposed against a seemingly indifferent antagonist. These two extremes along with everything in between can be found in classic and modern works, whether fiction or non-fiction. Heroic behavior is good, villainous behaviors are bad. Literature ubiquitously assigns or assumes classifications of good or bad, often by degree to behaviors and often to individuals in summary judgement. When writers focus on internal conflicts of an individual’s mind the issue of good can become quite complex. The manner in which inner conflicts in the mind of man are considered, modeled, analyzed and described is very broad, and varied. In this context the treatment of good and evil can be extremely subtle, particularly from the perspective of relativism and humanist thinking so pervasive in today’s culture.

The concept of good as something which comes solely from within man himself is a wholly different paradigm than a view where the concept of good is established outside the minds of men.  Goodness established by something greater than man is defined and fixed. Goodness established by the mind of man alone is not well defined and often variable.  This is particularly so if one considers the mind of man to have developed as the result of random evolutionary happenstance.

Regardless of one’s perspective regarding man, goodness and badness in a person are not generally viewed as fixed traits like blood type or the color of one’s eyes. Most philosophies recognize that each person has freedom, choice and sovereignty over one’s actions, allowing one to decide how he or she will respond to situations in life. Every individual has “pre-programmed” proclivities, strengths, weaknesses, abilities, talents, and characteristics which are part of their DNA, both  literally and figuratively. Some characteristics are coded into our physical DNA, others are established early during the development of the brain in infancy, childhood and adolescence.  Other thinking patterns are developed, learned or refined throughout life. The mind is however a remarkably dynamic mechanism, possessing the capability to change itself. The mind can alter the manner it processes information and controls the body even to the point of modifying reflexive and autonomic human behaviors like breathing and heart rate. The human mind retains the ability to adapt and change throughout life, although sometimes only with extraordinary effort, or grace.

Secular and humanist philosophies, as well as spiritual based philosophies, acknowledge the role of man in choosing his course of action. The Latin word invictus may be translated as “undefeated” or “unconquered.”  Invictus is the title of a poem by the English poet William Ernest Henley (1849-1903). It is also the title of the recent movie on the life of Nelson Mandela starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon and directed by Clint Eastwood. Both of these works have as their title subject the mind and will of man prevailing over overwhelmingly difficult circumstances. William Henley’s short poem titled Invictus reads:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Absolute Good

“And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”” (Matthew 19:16–17, NASB95)

Absolute good exists. Scripture tell us that God is good, not God is not good. Man-centric thinking, that which considers only the perspective of man, does not consider or accept the existence of absolute morality. A man centered perspective discounts consideration of anything but limited relative thinking of goodness. Without God the baseline assumption is restricted so that good, if it exists, originates within man. This is not what scripture teaches. Good is not a fundamental component of man’s thinking whether in total or in part. Good is not a trait of man whether it is dominant or recessive. God’s word does not say that good innately exists in man. Good does not exist apart from the grace of God, only God is good. If one does not recognize that man was created, then one cannot see that man was created for good but man is not innately good. Man has the capacity for, and choice of, being with God, for God, and of God. He also has been given the freedom to not seek God, choose God, and not be of God. If he is with God then he will be good, this need not be because man becomes innately good but simply because he is with God and God is with him (see Acts 4:13).

Justification and Sanctification

Daily — and often more frequently — I need to turn things over to God. This requirement is recurring because of natural tendencies, in some cases habitual tendencies, toward weakness which can quickly surface when man is away from goodness. It is much the same as when the lungs are denied access to oxygen; man was designed for relationship, and relationship with God. Apart from relationship a person suffers and doesn’t operate well. The Christian has a regenerate spirit and 2 Corinthians 5 tells us that he or she is a “new creature.” But the Christian pilgrim is not immediately separated or freed from their mortal mind and body. The will of this new “inner man” works in, with, and through his flesh. The will of man is part of his mind, his flesh. When a man chooses and wills to accept God he still has his old brain, mind, memories, emotions, habits and history. A saved saint’s behavior sometimes misfires and he or she falls back on old habits as the Apostle Paul describes in Romans 7:19. When this happens man’s will and decision to follow Christ are eclipsed by old tendencies of the flesh. Using the terms of the poet William Henley, the old captain can still master control. This may occur years or decades following the saint becoming a committed and even a mature Christian. Deciding, or willing, to change one’s will is one thing — effectively accomplishing such change is an entirely different matter. The transformation of the will is not something accomplished quickly or easily (see Mark 14:38, Romans 7:14-25).

Instantaneous changes can occur with or following conversion. All things are possible with God. But immediate completion of our perfection in Christ isn’t how He usually works. We are immediately and completely justified by Christ, this is finished work and we are fully and absolutely justified in Christ at the moment of our conversion. We are as justified at that moment as on the day of our baptism, the day of our death, and as justified as we will be 100,000 years from now. God can and sometimes does bestow on man instant and miraculous change in the mind and body; He can heal him and deliver him from maladies and bad habits. However, change continues to occur over the Christian pilgrim’s lifetime. Change and healing in a person are just as miraculous whether God works instantly or whether He works gradually. From God’s perspective time means nothing. When God changes a person or their circumstance instantly it is sometimes called deliverance. When God provides His children the privilege of experiencing change over time, often allowing participation in the process, this progression is sometimes referred to as the process of sanctification.

Good in Scripture

The concept of good in scripture is first mentioned in Genesis 1:4 and the last time in 3 John 12. The word “good” is used in the bible 702 times in 648 verses.  This is a concept important to God. It is a concept important to Jesus. It should be important to man. In Matthew 19:16-17 quoted above Jesus tells us that with regard to what is good, “there is only One who is good.” This is directly relevant to justification and sanctification in a way only God can be applicable. The exchange in Matthew 19 between this person and Jesus is quite telling. Jesus does not seem to directly answer the question posed. Yet He provides a response to the questioner and to all mankind which is truth and which all mankind needs to hear. Jesus doesn’t answer the question directly as the question is flawed and doesn’t warrant a direct response. Jesus’ response identifies at least 4 significant flaws in the person’s thinking.

First, the question refers to Jesus as “teacher.” The entire question was man-centric, asked by a person, of a teacher assumed to be a mere person, about what man needs to do so man may obtain eternal life. Apart from God there is no eternal life, only eternal death. The question demands proper context and consideration of the fact that the solution to man’s problem as presented here, mortality, comes from outside mortal man. Even if this person did not or could not recognize Jesus for who He truly is, neither the question nor the context should require an answer which comes solely from man. The answer to this question, the solution to the problem of man, can ultimately come only from God. It is ironic that in this case the questioner had it right — he was speaking to God — but he didn’t realize it. Second and very much related to the first flaw, the question presupposes that man is capable of unilaterally implementing the answer to the question. The question put to Jesus is “what shall I do that I may obtain …” a result for man, by man. Apart from God man is spiritually dead. No person can fix this on their own! One must properly recognize man’s capacity to implement any solution, particularly in the realm of the spiritual, for any “answer” to be meaningful. Third and most obvious Jesus takes issue with the questioner’s understanding of good. And finally fourth, the questioner speaks of obtaining eternal life, Jesus speaks of eternal life as something entered into.

Summary

The exchange recorded in Matthew 19 about obtaining eternal life is rich with knowledge, instruction, wisdom, insight and value. A few highlights and observations are listed below:

• Jesus is God. Jesus and the Father are One.
• No man-centric answer exists for the question about eternal life posed in Matthew 19:16.
• God enters into the saved Christian at conversion but eternal life does not enter into man. Man enters into eternal life.
• God, and His goodness, His Light, and His Spirit, enter into the life of the regenerate. But man also enters into fellowship with God and into eternal life, into His light and His Spirit.
• The goodness of God is not restricted to his children.  His goodness, His grace, can be felt anywhere He exists, that is to say everywhere. Good in the world, if properly attributed, can always be traced directly back to the Creator of all existence.
• The sense implied by the questioner in Matthew 19:16 is that eternal life is a thing “obtained” indicates a way of thought which, if followed, takes one away from proper understanding of God and His plan for man. A transaction of this sort provides no consideration of relationship between God and His children.
• The mind of the questioner in Matthew 19 is much the same, albeit not as brash, as Simon in Acts 8 who offered Peter and John money for the authority to bestow God’s Spirit.
• God is always to be first, man is never to be first.
• Man does not accept God so that he may obtain eternal life or the Holy Spirit. Man accepts God because God first loved him and it is the only appropriate response to the infinite eternal omniscient loving Creator.