Do Christians Live by Morality or by the Life of Christ...A Word Revealed?

Morality can be defined as "conformity to ideals of right human conduct."

"Do you live by morality, or do you live by the indwelling Spirit of God and His revealed word to you?"

First I think we need to decide exactly what the moral "code" is. As Christians, are our morals solely based on the teachings of Christ of is it a mix of that and societal standards? Obviously, as you pointed out, societal standards have certainly changed. Things that were once considered sacred are no longer that. So, by deduction and for the sake of argument, lets assume our morals are based on His teachings. When you mentioned about Christ not healing, in some instances He was pointing out to them that you can not sit around feeling sorry for yourself. He is there for you and to be your rock to stand on but He wont do all the work for you. Is it also possible that those who wanted Him to heal were just asking for a parlor trick which he was certainly not up to doing. "Do not test the Lord your God". I feel that if we live for Him and by His teachings we are living by the set of morals or "code" written in scripture. This would include the ten commandments and NT teachings from Christ.

Look at it this way, If there were no God, then we would have no fear of punishment nor would there be much basis for law or what would be considered "morally wrong". So by that deduction morals can be said to be strongly based on the teachings of Christ. So if you have someone who has, like in your example, moved in with someone they love but wont marry them, they would be living immorally and against the teachings of the Bible. But do they still call themselves a Christian?

To be truly born in Christ takes a level of dedication and faithfulness to Christ. You have to give up so much of your past life and live only for Him. Long time friends may turn away and look down on you for it. And yes, society may even label you and outsider. Check out 1 Peter. But we as Christians know that it is all worth it.

So what morals do we live by? I would say we live by the moral code set forth by God from the beginning of time.

BA

Love does no harm to a neighbour. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law. This is the royal law. This is the new commandment. But whether our life and deeds are considered fruit or not depends not on the action but on the motive. The more important question here should be not so much how we live our lives, but why. In Luke 18:10-14, the pharisee was doing everything right. Except his motive was self serving and self exalting. We have a role to play and God has a role to play. Role reversal is not acceptable. He is the Savior. He is the giver of life, freely by grace. We do not save ourselves by our life and deeds. This is the motive that God opposes. This is the more important issue.
The old covenant issued a directive to the people to save themselves. The primary purpose of this was to show them by their failure that for man, this is impossible. People are still in the business of attempting the very same folly. Dont listen to them. This is not our role.

The morality of the world is ever changing but, the way God wants us to live the morality He wants from us stays the same and when need to follow Him and His ways not the worlds.

Axehead said:

Too often, Christians are being pressured by the world in some sort of fashion or another to prove how moral they are. The world these days are on their own "kick of morality" and are defining morality as they choose to define it. The powers and principalities of this world put pressures of all kinds (spiritual, socio-economic, animal rights, human rights, etc, etc) upon Christians to demonstrate how moral they are and that Christians should be. Of course, Christians fall far short of how really "moral" the world is. At the same time they accuse God of not being moral in some of his judgments in the OT regarding women and children and this justifies their own position of not wanting to serve such an "immoral God". They accuse God of being immoral while proving they are more moral than God.

So, what is morality any way? And is God really interested in being moral or being obedient to His living word? Man's definition of morality seems to change depending on the culture and the times. Therefore, morality of men is not an absolute, and it changes, depending on the whims of men. In Papua New Guinea, it is very immoral to leave your tribe, but very moral to have many wives. Today's young people don't think it is necessarily moral to get married, but it is very moral to move in with someone you love.

And you hear of Christians on all kinds of blogs espousing "morality" as if we can measure each other by our "moral" actions.

Interesting that, Jesus did not heal everyone! Was that moral? He could certainly do it. Why didn't He do it and why doesn't He do it now? Or maybe He was He living by a revealed word and not by His own will. He brought His will into harmony with His Father's will and therefore, you can blame the Father for being immoral. Many do! Jesus did not speak out about all the injustices of His day. He seemed disconnected about the plight of poor people for instance who did not have enough money. The woman with two mites he used as lesson rather than ask others to give to her. With His great following He could have influenced the masses to put pressure on politicians to give more to the poor. But, Jesus did not seem interested in jumping through the hoops of men's whims, did He?

Are we to jump through everyone's hoop of morality, especially other "Christians"?

"Morality is part of the condition of the fall. Now endowed with the power to define good and evil, to elaborate it, to know it and to pretend to obey it, man can no longer renounce this power which he has purchased so dearly. He must exercise it. He (fallen man) cannot live without morality." (Jacques Ellul - To Will and To Do. Pilgrim Press. 1969. pg. 71)

"Christianity has nothing commensurate with any morality. It is the essence itself of revelation that rules out all ethical systematizing and all similarity with a morality. The Christian life is not a life conformed to a morality, but one conformed to a word revealed, present, and living." (Jacques Ellul - To Will and To Do. Pilgrim Press. 1969. pg. 86)

Do you live by morality, or do you live by the indwelling Spirit of God and His revealed word to you?

Axehead

Click to expand...

<<Too often, Christians are being pressured by the world in some sort of fashion or another to prove how moral they are.>>

This is a part of the assault on Christianity being carried out by the liberal, progressive/socialist, pagan society in which we live.

Attacking people who fail in any manner to perfectly maintain the moral standards they hold is a standard tactic of the left. It has even been codified by Saul Alinski in his book; Rules for Radicals. Attacking Christians for any moral failing (real or fabricated) is found in rule #4.

Oh, and doing the same thing to liberal/progressive/socialists is not possible since they have no fixed moral rules. Their "morality" depends on the circumstances.


* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

I agree that the Bible does not mention 'morality' per say. It does deal with immorality, and in most circumstances combines it with 'sexual'.
The Greek is ἀσέλγεια (aselgeia) and connotes intemperance, licentiousness, lasciviousness, insolence, and outrageous behavior. As such, if we were to take the opposite of this word what would we have? To me a proper Christian lifestyle. In our world, morals are based on the community majority view whereas the Bible is not. I don't like the word either because of this, and prefer to depict my positive life skills as Christ like, not moral, and my negative habits as sin, and un Christ like.

Morality outside of God is arbitrary. This is why secular morality is not consistent, they have no reference point. What might be moral to one, may not be moral to another. Without God's revealed moral objective standard, all morals are subjective. (cf. the moral argument for the existence for God)

To shut the mouths of those critical of God's moral, justice is the answer. As God is good, He must exercise justice, else His goodness is invalid and void. Justice is the death of us all (Genesis 2:17), yet in His chesed He has not only spared us from His wrath through time until now, but has even given us a way to reconciliation, through the death of His Son, thus paying the penalty for sin. (Romans 9:22-23)

Love is the revealed nature of God and moral standard explained, exemplified, and commanded in His word.

Love is a determined act of the will to seek the highest good for others always. Love is the only obedience to God for its motive is pure of heart and its ought is a joyful want. With a bar so high, it is no wonder we need Yeshua and the Parakletos.

This is Christian living. Christ exemplified this in His life, and we are called to the same.

Matthew 22:37-39
John 13:34-35
1 John 3:23
1 John 4:7
Colossians 3:14
Luke 6:31
Luke 6:35
Romans 12:9
Romans 13:10
Ephesians 4:2
1 Peter 1:22
1 Peter 4:8
Proverbs 10:12
1 John 4:8
Galatians 5:13

And the list could go on...

So then are we judged when we do not attain or maintain the moral standard. YES! 1 Peter 4:17
Yet it is not the world's standard of morality we should concern ourselves with, rather God's.


Instead of behavioral modification, think spiritual formation or the formation of Christ in the individual. (Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 3:18)

True morality is messaured by what God expects and wants from us and not by the worlds standard.