ARTICLE: Who Says God Is Good? by Greg Koukl

[STR Ambassador]

Sometimes the simplest questions—questions that seem so basic we never expect them to be asked— can stop us in our tracks if we’re not equipped to engage them.

Who says God Is Good?
Greg Koukl

Sometimes the simplest questions—questions that seem so basic we never expect them to be asked— can stop us in our tracks if we’re not equipped to engage them.
For example, central to the Gospel is the notion of “goodness.” God is good; we’re not good. God’s goodness prompts Him to rescue us from our non-goodness, our sin. Seems clear enough.
To some people, though, it is not clear at all. Something so central to Christianity is hopeless vague to them: What is “good”?
“Well, that’s simple, “ one may be tempted to say. “‘Good’ is whatever God says it is.” That answer, though, only magnifies the problem. It may explain what we mean when we say certain actions are good, but it makes it impossible to ever say God is good. And if God isn’t good, then a Gospel based on God’s goodness loses its legs.
I want to explain to you why that standard Christian response is a wrong turn and show you how you can get back on course.
This problem goes back a long way, at least to the 4th century before Christ. Plato’s famous dilemma concerning the nature of goodness is still being raised today as a serious challenge to Christianity. Is an act right because God says it’s so, or does God say it’s so because it’s right? The question first surfaces in Plato’s dialog Euthyphro.

The Challenge
In Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro , Socrates is attempting to understand the essence of piety and holiness:

Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?
Euthyphro: Certainly.
Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?
Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.
Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?

The dilemma Euthyphro faced is this: Is a thing good simply because the gods say it is? Or do the gods say a thing is good because of some other quality it has? If so, what is that quality? The problem stumped Euthyphro.
In more recent times, Plato’s approach has been used as an assault on the coherence of Christianity. 20th century British philosopher and atheist, Bertrand Russell, formulated the problem this way in his polemic against the faith, Why I Am Not a Christian:

If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.

The Problem
Russell’s version is an attempt to show an internal flaw in the Christian’s notion of God and goodness. Is a thing right simply because God declares it so, or does God say it is good because He recognizes a moral code superior even to Him?
This problem presents a dilemma because one is forced to choose between two options, both ultimately hostile to Christian theism. The believer is caught between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, God reigns and His Law is supreme. As the ultimate Sovereign, He establishes the moral rules of the universe. His commands are absolute. We must obey.
Ethicist Scott Rae describes the view: “A ‘divine command’ theory of ethics is one in which the ultimate foundation for morality is the revealed will of God, or the commands of God found in Scripture.” This view is known as ethical voluntarism.
At first blush this seems correct, until we realize the liabilities. The content of morality would be arbitrary, dependent on God’s whim. Though God has declared murder, theft, and debauchery wrong, it could have been otherwise had God willed it so. Any “immoral” act could suddenly become “moral” by simple fiat.
Further, it reduces God’s goodness to His power. To say that God is good simply means that He is capable of enforcing His commands. As Russell put it, “For God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong.”
This is the position of Islam, but it is unacceptable to the Christian. Morality is not arbitrary. God is not free to call what is wrong right, and what is right wrong. The text is clear: “It is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). God cannot sin.
But the alternative seems no better. If the Christian asserts that morality is not arbitrary, he is caught on the second horn of the dilemma. If the standard itself is absolute such that not even God can violate it, doesn’t this make the Almighty Himself beholden to a higher law? The Sovereign becomes the subordinate.
In each case, Christianity loses. Either God is not good, or He’s not sovereign. That’s the dilemma.

Grounding
Plato’s challenge forces us to consider an important detail in any discussion on the nature of morality: grounding.
The word “ground” originally meant “the lowest part, base, or bottom of anything.”
In philosophy it refers to the foundation or logical basis of a claim. Euthyphro’s task was to identify the logical grounding of piety or virtue. What base does morality “stand on”?
Frank Beckwith and I chose a title for our book on relativism that paints a word picture: Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Our point: Relativists who make any claim to knowledge have no basis for their assertion. They are standing not on solid ground, but on thin air.
A law is only as legitimate as the authority upon which it rests. The U.S. government can’t pass laws governing Canadians. Our federal laws apply only to the people of this country. Individuals can’t make up laws that apply to their neighbors. They don’t have that authority.
The founders of our country argued that even governments are subject to a higher law. Certain truths are transcendent, they argued, grounded not in human institutions but in God Himself. This appeal to higher Law was their rational justification for the morality of the American Revolution.
The problem of grounding morality is a difficult one for atheists who claim one can have ethics without God. Certainly, an atheist can act in a manner some people consider “moral,” but it’s hard to know what the term ultimately refers to. It generally means to comply with an objective standard of good, a Law given by legitimate authority. However, without a transcendent Lawmaker (God), there can be no transcendent Law, and no corresponding obligation to be good.
Trappist monk Thomas Merton put the challenge this way:

In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?

As I wrote in Relativism, “a ‘moral’ atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn’t believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks. He believes the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause.” The atheist’s morality has no grounding.
Does the Christian fare any better, though? That is the challenge of Euthyphro’s dilemma.

The Solution
The general strategy used to defeat a dilemma is to show that it’s a false one. There are not two options, but three.
The Christian rejects the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God’s power. And he rejects the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.
The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.
Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? “No,” the Christian answers, “God would never do that.” It’s not a matter of command. It’s a matter of character.
So the Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely. Morality is not anterior to God—logically prior to Him—as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature. As Scott Rae puts it, “Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.” In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.

A Second Problem
The Christian’s job is not done, though, because Bertrand Russell’s observation suggests a second problem. Socrates’ challenge to Euthyphro has not been met. What is “good”? It doesn’t help to say that God is good unless we know what the term refers to.
If the word “good” means “in accord with the nature and character of God,” we have a problem. When the Bible says “God is good,” it simply means “God has the nature and character that God has.” If God and goodness are the very same thing, then the statement “God is good” means nothing more than “God is God,” a useless tautology.
The answer to this problem hinges on the philosophical notion of identity, expressed symbolically as A = A. When one thing is identical to another (in the way I’m using the term), there are not two things, but one. For example, the president of Stand to Reason (Gregory Koukl) is identical to the author of this article. Everything that’s true of the one is true of the other. The author and the president are the same. They are not two, but one.
According to Christian teaching, God is not good in the same way that a bachelor is an unmarried male. When we say God is good, we are giving additional information, namely that God has a certain quality. God is not the very same thing as goodness (identical to it). It’s an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology.

Knowing Goodness
A proper understanding of Christian teaching on God removes one problem, yet we still face another: What is “good”? How can we know goodness if we don’t define it first?
The way Abraham responded when he first learned of God’s intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah gives us a clue to the answer:

Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly? (Genesis 18:25)

Here’s the question. How did Abraham know justice required that God not treat the wicked and the righteous alike? As of yet, no commandments had been handed down.
Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God, but through moral intuition. He didn’t need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in.
Even the atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn’t need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes.
This is precisely why the moral argument for God’s existence is such a good one. The awareness of morality leads to God much as the awareness of falling apples leads to gravity. Our moral intuitions recognize the effect, but what is the adequate cause? If God does not exist, then moral terms are actually incoherent and our moral intuitions are nonsense.

Christians need not fear Plato on this score. When Euthyphro’s dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His holy character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God’s immutable nature.
Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God’s laws express His character and—if our moral intuitions are intact—we immediately recognize those laws as good.
This doesn’t mean Christianity is true, only that it is not handicapped by Plato’s challenge to Euthyphro.


Stand to Reason - Training Christians Ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org

[whoknew]

'Here’s the question. How did Abraham know justice required that God not treat the wicked and the righteous alike? As of yet, no commandments had been handed down.
Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God, but through moral intuition. He didn’t need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in.
Even the atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn’t need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes.'

God then is good because Abraham says he is. You then define good by one man's subjective impression of good. If you want to claim there is a moral intuition built in us that tells us what is good, then an atheist can claim that good is simply our subjective impression of what's good and that it just happens to be a universal impression in humans, and morals of society are explainable with evolutionary psychology. Besides there not being a universal impression of good, if there was one, then that would ruin the moral argument for God, because we would no longer rely on him to know what's right for our wellbeing, just ourselves. It'd be better if you defined good as what brings about human love; human love depends on the circumstances we exist in, meaning bad is a part of good; love wouldn't exist without the way god has dealt with man, and thus god being good simply means God creates human love, which is a subjective impression also that would need defining.

[STR Ambassador]

It's true that atheists, as well as religious people, have moral intuitions - operating more or less accurately depending on how they've been cultivated. An atheist can appeal to his moral intuitions, but an atheist cannot ground those intuitions - given an explanation for why they are there and why they are moral in nature. Naturalism cannot ground morality. The Christian provides a worldview that grounds these intuitions and provides an explanations for why we have them and why they may be moral guides. Further, intuitions are general and don't give us too many specific guidelines that we need to live moral lives. Most of the details need to be filled in by the Person who provides these intuitions.

STR Ambassador

[whoknew]

The reason i replied to your definition of good was because I was unsatisfied with the answer that god is good just because abraham says he is; humans may have have common nature, but their ideas of morality differ widely.

let me suggest another definition of good; good is that which is rewarded, bad is that which is punished. it's that simple. from then on, the only reason god is all-good is because he can reward himself for everything he does, and he never punishes himself. this still leaves open the question of whether god rewards good because it merits reward, or if he just rewards it to set up a challenge for humans.

[brett_keane]

The bible is a fantasy novel depicting a tyrant reffered to as god.Check out my site that shows how sick the bible & christians are!!!!!!!!!!!

http://66.34.31.175/

[ajohnson]

Whoknew wrote "good is that which is rewarded, bad is that which is punished. it's that simple. from then on, the only reason god is all-good is because he can reward himself for everything he does, and he never punishes himself. this still leaves open the question of whether god rewards good because it merits reward, or if he just rewards it to set up a challenge for humans."

Does this only apply to God? or Does this apply to all in power? Parents, political leaders, teachers, etc.

Without an objective standard of good then he who hold the power defines what is good. That's the point of this article. Rightness and wrongness isn't external to the Creator, it's part of His internal, unchagable charactor. And God is the only thing unchagable in existance. You, I, the planets, stars, weather, etc., etc., etc., everything else is changing or at least changable.

In God's providence, He has given us knowledge of morality (refered to as moral intuition). Maybe not all of His morality, but enough for us to know right from wrong in most instances. That is until such time as we decide to follow our own selfish ways. With our fallen nature (fallen because we choose to do wrong) we overcome our moral intuition and steal or lie or rape or murder or ???. But most times we have a guilty conscience after we do wrongs. We regret our past behaviors because they were wrong. They went against our moral intuition.

I believe the only 'challenge' God has given humans is whether we see things His way or our way.

Regards

[whoknew]

does god change if he changes into a man and crucifies himself...? he obviously changes all the time.

ultimate good would only be defined by god, but societal and familial good is defined by different powers.

i do have regrets, but i can't say i chose to do the bad things i did. i wanted to do them and saw no reason to not do them. i may be fallen, but i didn't choose them, they chose me.

to me doing bad is only a sign of lack of knowledge; ignorance is the cause of all fault; the reason we are capable of sinning is that we don't know everything, but how is that our fault. we only see bad in hindsight; i do less bad than my ancestors because i learned from their mistakes. we are the same people who crucified jesus, we just know more now.

now then, i sure do like that last string of untestable assertions i made.

[ajohnson]

Sorry for the delay, I had to attend a couple of Christmas celebrations

whoknew:

does god change if he changes into a man and crucifies himself...? he obviously changes all the time.

The trinity is apprehedable but not comprehendable. No analogy can explain the trinity well enough so our finite minds can understand it fully. If you mean a change like a catapiller into a butterfly NO. The seecond person of the trinity did undergo anthropomorphism and anthropopathism, that is became the God/man. He didn't change his charactor. God the father (first person of the Trinity) allowed the second person of the Trinity (Jesus Christ) to be crucified for our sins.

God's charactor is unchagable. God didn't say 'this looks good so good is such and such'. God is only 'good' , it's His charactor so in a sense ultimate good isn't defined by God it's revealed by God. Whether through moral intuition as this article clames or reveiled to us through the canon of scripture.


i do have regrets, but i can't say i chose to do the bad things i did. i wanted to do them and saw no reason to not do them. i may be fallen, but i didn't choose them, they chose me. and to me doing bad is only a sign of lack of knowledge; ignorance is the cause of all fault;

I agree with you up to the point of 'I didn't know it was wrong'. Once I found out it was wrong to do so and so, and I contuinue to do that particular behavior, I then choose to do the bad things I did. I didn't know I had a choice. I was raised to believe most of our actions were learned behavior and therefore out of our control. This is just plain silly. The murderer knows it's wrong to murder, the thief knows it's wrong to steal. The adulterer knows it's wrong to ......... you get the point.

How 'bout this - You're driving down a road you've never driven on before, you go through an intersection and get pulled over by the police. He writes you a ticket for running a stop sign. You examine the intersection and sure enough the stop sign is there, just completely obscure by an over grown bush. You appear in court with witnesses and a picture of the intersection proving that the sign is in fact obscured and you didn't know there was a stop sign at that intersection. The Judge in his wisdom dismisses the charges.

One month later you are back in front of the same Judge with the same charges against you. The Judge says "didn't you know there was a stop sign at that intersection?" You say yes, but it's still obscure by the same bush. Are you guilty? Does the Judge dismiss the charges, again?

I don't think so - you're now aware that there is a stop sign at that intersection, even though it's still obscured, you know it's there and therefore guilty.

Our Judge is much better at handing out justice, He knows I know what sin is, and He also know I can't stop sining completely. That is completly with thoughts, words and deeds. That is the reson Jesus came here to earth, to be my sacrifice for the sining I can't stop doing.

I've gotten off topic, so I'll climb off my soapbox and wish you a Merry Christmas if I don't speak to you beforew then.

My apologies for any misspelled words. I'm very tired from a long day.

[whoknew]

I think Paul was perfect after his salvation, because he frequently admonished the churches to be perfect, and said there would be no sacrifice left if we go on sinning after receiving grace.
So I'm not sure about your belief that we can't stop sinning; I know I can't, at least not immediately, but maybe a true christian can.

If doing bad brings pleasure, people start to doubt whether it is bad, and people only have their small conscience telling them that maybe it is wrong, so it seems that the decks are stacked against us. This could signify who are the children of the devil, those who don't heed their conscience. Some murderers inherently don't even understand or appreciate the golden rule, so that murdering to them seems justified; some admit they shouldn't have done it, but that's after gaining further knowledge later in life. At first glance, whatever satisfies one's desires seems right; only intellectual growth can render control of these desires. Hate and greed is what fills in where there is no love, but who's to say why some people stop loving, and why they end up with only their most base desires left?

[STR Ambassador]

Whoknew,

Your inference that Paul was perfect after his salvation is just that, an inference, and not very persuasive given our own experiences after salvation. It's much more plausible that Paul was giving admonishments and exhortations to the church to strive for perfection that he well knew was impossible because striving for a high standard encourages us to achieve greater things.

Though our consciences are insufficient for detailed morality, that isn't all we have to guide us. The Bible is full of specific guidelines to fill in the details where our consciences fail us.

STR Ambassador

[tgb_1974]

Isaiah 45:1
Thus says the LORD to Cyrus His anointed, Whom I have taken by the right hand,
To subdue nations before him
And to loose the loins of kings;
To open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:


Isaiah 45:2
"I will go before you and make the rough places smooth;
I will shatter the doors of bronze and cut through their iron bars.


Isaiah 45:3
"I will give you the treasures of darkness
And hidden wealth of secret places,
So that you may know that it is I,
The LORD, the God of Israel, who calls you by your name.


Isaiah 45:4
"For the sake of Jacob My servant,
And Israel My chosen one,
I have also called you by your name;
I have given you a title of honor
Though you have not known Me.


Isaiah 45:5
"I am the LORD, and there is no other;
Besides Me there is no God.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me;


Isaiah 45:6
That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun
That there is no one besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other,


Isaiah 45:7
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

[Mr. Mulatto]

Ajohnson wrote, "With our fallen nature (fallen because we choose to do wrong)...". This might be the wrong forum to ask this in, but it has been something that I have been contemplating most of the weekend during a retreat. "We choose to do wrong", do we actually choose to do wrong? I understand that God has a sovereign will, a will that contains all happenings that occur in the world, and beyond. Wouldn't our actions be included in God's sovereign will? Which would indicate that it is not us acting in the wrong, but God willing our wrong actions? So, we have no choice?

I am one to agree that God has made us as individuals with the capacity to do wrong or right (God has made us perfectly good as Greg Koukl has stated in many articles), but I am having trouble truly grounding this notion with the questions of God's sovereign will and how our "free" choices fall into His plan.

[ajohnson]

Welcome to TWeb, Mr. Mulatto.

You've asked an interesting question. I'm sure there are others out here that will be able to answer it more clearly than I, but I'd like to give you my understanding in this aspect. Or at least the way I explained to people who have asked me this before.

Ajohnson wrote, "With our fallen nature (fallen because we choose to do wrong)...". This might be the wrong forum to ask this in, but it has been something that I have been contemplating most of the weekend during a retreat. "We choose to do wrong", do we actually choose to do wrong?

We must, otherwise why would God send people to Hell? If we couldn't choose to do bad - there would be no need for any type of punishment. God would end up being a very evil person if He created certain people to 'do His will' (Judas and Hitler for example) and His will is to steal and murder innocent people.

I understand that God has a sovereign will, a will that contains all happenings that occur in the world, and beyond. Wouldn't our actions be included in God's sovereign will? Which would indicate that it is not us acting in the wrong, but God willing our wrong actions? So, we have no choice?

Some theologists say God has up to 5 kinds of wills under the umbrella of His Soverign will. Greg has a great commentary that might give a better insight http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/prayeran.htm

I am one to agree that God has made us as individuals with the capacity to do wrong or right (God has made us perfectly good as Greg Koukl has stated in many articles), but I am having trouble truly grounding this notion with the questions of God's sovereign will and how our "free" choices fall into His plan.

I'm not a theologist, but I see basicly two types of will. God's Soverign will and His moral will. His soverign will comes into play because, well, nothing can happen outside His soverign will. That's what soverign means. But He also has a moral will. And this is where our free will comes into play.

We know God doesn't what anyone to murder another human (His moral will) and yet people do, in fact, murder other humans. Did God allow this murder to take place? It did fall under His soverign will, so in a sense - yes. But it was outside His moral will, so He didn't want it to happen but He allowed it to happen.

I know that when my moral will is in sync with God's moral will, my walk with Christ and my life in general, is filled with much joy.

I hoped this helped a little and if I'm off base I hope someone will correct me! Thanks

Regards,

Alan

[tgb_1974]

I would like to contrast the concept of "God's sovereign will" with the concept of "God as the provider of life".

These two concepts have overlaped and caused confusion. What does it mean for "God" to have a "sovereign will", as if god is an agent that possesses this capability, vs "God as provider of life" where god provides the physical universe and all things physical necessary to sustain individual lives, or provides the joy and happiness by "being in sync" with its Moral Will.

As provider of life, God, makes possible every breathing moment, but does not have the capacity to make decisions for us. As an agent possessing a "sovereign will" this God is defined as the incorporation of all human will. But there is no such thing as the incorporation of all human will. Unless at the flip of a switch we all lose our minds, or our minds are taken over by a master controller. I don't see that happening. But I do see a god that makes all human will possible, just not actual. Thus nobody can force an individual to have an actual morally significant experience known in Christianity as "forgiveness". The decision of the individual is supremely important in this moment. That is why Christians give free will ultimate value, they must secure this experience only by a freely willed act of the mind, a determination of the mind.