Ben Wyatt

As much as my train of thought may be riding on triangular wheels, it did have an extended stop at my last post for engine repairs. Reading it before you read this may help me to make sense.

We are faced with the problem that goodness, as good as it may be, can impede the process of sanctification, not to mention the understanding of fallen man neccessary to understand the Gospel. But first, perfection from a different angle.

As a teenager, I held a model of sin as any divergence from a perfect state. The interesting thing about this otherwise reasonable definition is that I rarely stipulated that said divergence was only sinful if feasibly avoided. This was purposeful. Let us now consider Christ from this definition.

The definition above implies that perfection involves no divergence on any level from a perfect state. (From here onward, the perfect state shall be replaced by the will of God). This means that on every level, God's ordained path for Christ was met, from the smallest heartbeat at each moment, to the least significant step at precision of the quantum level, to the slightest subconscious thought. Especially thinking about atomic precision, Christ and his perfection were absurdly improbable from a mathematical point of view (the best point of view there is).

Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. This verse has new meaning in this light. Now, Jesus is asking if this man truly understands that he engaging in conversation with the most improbable collection of cells in the history of the universe, and that every single breath he lets out is ordained by God.

This illustrates the elusive nature of perfection. The question remains of pursuing the goodness that best leads to sanctification. Here, German philosopher Immanuel Kant can be of service. Kant defines two imperatives, the categorical, and the hypothetical. I will simplify these concept, partially because I'm not familiar with them 100%, but partially because they have little to offer the conversation beyond my narow definitions.

The first, and most famous of the two is the categorical imperative. It (or at least its second formulation) states that all rational action must set before itself not only a principle, but also an end. In English, it is the structured intent of an action that determines its morality, and the end result means nothing. In application, one is obligated to tell a known murderer the location of his prey if asked, because it is not moral to lie, but the result that the person may die has no bearing on the morality.

Romans 14:23 But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.

So good may not be from God if not from faith. So, without the right mind produced by faith, without God, it is impossible to do as God wills.

The second of the two is the hypotheical imperative, which states that all rational actions must not neccessarily be justified in themselves, but as means to an end. Under this imperative, one is obligated to lie to the murderer, so that the prey may be saved.

1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some.

Interestingly, the two are defined as opposites, with the categorical focused on ignoring the situation in favor of the absolute law, and the hypothetical only focused on the end of the scenario. This doesn't stop us from using both standards simultaneously in order to examine morality. The categorical (Romans 14) compells us to act in faith and after hearing God's will. The hypothetical (1 Corinthians 9) compells us to act in pusuit of God's kingdom. The exclusion of EITHER God's will OR His kingdom can quite simply be regarded as sin. All that work for something so simple ... maybe I should sleep ...