Virtue Overrides Obedience

We need a definition for evil:

"Evil is a negative statement that superposes itself upon that which is entailed from a good work."

We can ascribe such a definition broadly in the sense that evil is the death of a loved one, or the spirit that diminishes the strength of the cross of Christ, or of the "thorns" that choke the word of God - the deceitfulness of riches etc;

We would not have a definition of creation as a poor work: For creation is a good work upon which evil has been superposed. We could state that God does everything "good" and evil takes things away as does a theif. We have no understanding of the mechanism for evil other than blaming the devil, but there appears to be many cases of natural causes to be explained.

We could also hesitate a definition for "good":

"A good work is a positive act done without consideration of the evil that follows"

Likewise we may ascribe virtue as:

"Virtue is found in a good work which would be done even if it is followed by nothing but evil."

From this point of view we would appear to allow God to do almost anything good and let evil destroy everything but the inception of that good, and God comes out of the equality with virtue. Is this right?

Then from where comes evil? We do not actually require an answer: what is required is that evil is separated from good and clearly can not be a virtue. If evil could be "universal" but only perceived clearly when following a good work done with virtue, we can clearly state that good and evil are not equal, but we may still draw a line between right and wrong: creation does not require we add to the amount of evil.

Is virtue "defined" in this sense that God may remain virtuous and evil is merely to be expected?

if good is found in a positive act, then it may only become privated if it is avoided due to the expectation of evil, and virtue by the definition above would ensure no privation on the "good" act itself by evil: virtue would ensure the courage to "do the right thing" all the more.

Virtue then is superior to obedience then in that it requires action on performing good, rather than "walking by on the other side". We see then that Jesus in healing on the sabbath, was indeed being lawful, as it is virtuous to do good rather than evil on the holy day.

Biblical teaching shows that evil is to be accepted and only those whom hate their evil acts and thirst after the righteousness shown by God are those whom He will choose from. One lifetime is not too much to ask of us, so that we would recognise what it means to serve God; as out of truly charitable virtue rather than of merely respect, brotherly love or family ties.

Should we allow more virtue to be ascribed to the God that permits evil to snatch away good? If it becomes commonplace to not thank God for things when they run along well, (and saying its just the wheels of creation turning) Does God not then show virtue in blessing us with the same good things in creation, as without reward of praise?

If then it is still good for good things to happen no matter the evil that follows, we at least should ascribe virtue to God for all cases that do go "to plan" that exist alongside the superposition of evil that would imply no plan at all; (and rob God of His due thanksgiving, or the virtue he should be ascribed in either case.)

Virtue then is found in choosing one of two exclusionary positive statements that would indicate a lack of character when considered together; We recover this in the following way: one positive statement issues the negative of the other when the virtue is a fact given, and the conjunction of these two alternatives privates the virtue as in contradiction.

We then must have some virtue that states it is positive to do a good act, and negative to superpose evil upon that which follows. Yet it would carry that virtue is not found in sustaining a good work against every evil that can assail against it. In stating that a good work can not stand on its own merit against evil, i.e. requiring the evil to be continually kept in check deprives the initially made "good" act of its virtue. Perhaps also even the good in the act itself. If an act, when become a fact is not good on its immediate merit but only in forcefully sustaining it, it can not be a good act, or performed with virtue. (it would be the case of conjunction)

Does that seem strange, or does it entail that God in sustaining a life that will not continue on its own, deprives Himself of virtue because the life created is not enough to continue on its own? We would appear to have hit the nail on the head, but it is very hard to phrase this properly. If God is likewise required to put every particle of creation in place at every moment and be in absolute deterministic control then we deprive creation of all of its virtue: and the work is become "not good".

Likewise we know that creation was made "very good" in the genesis account: so rather we should let it continue as far as the creator would let it do so; to continue in the manner it is created, we are not God's judges.

So as to the title of the page, we see that a positive commandment may be overridden by a virtue in the same sense that it is better to do good rather than evil. Jesus would teach us to do good to our enemies, and to pray for them. That by the definition above is "virtue" but the commandment is to kill all those whom break the commandments: whereas in the NT we are assured that unrepentant lawbreakers are excluded with severity from the kingdom of God. Just as there is human virtue - there are negative statements according to human virtue that are only perfected in the just judgements of God.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page