Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 13
October 26, 1961
NUMBER 25, PAGE 6

"Having A Good Conscience"

L. A. Mott, Las Vegas, Nevada

In the preceding article of this series I attempted to prove that only the person who has the truth as his standard of conduct can be said to have a good conscience; that a good conscience only exists when one who knows the truth conducts himself in harmony with his knowledge; that, therefore, a person in sin does not, nor can he, have what the Scriptures call a good conscience. An objection which must surely have arisen in your minds is based upon three statements made by the apostle Paul. But I believe that this discrepancy between Paul's statements and the view set forth in my former article is more apparent than real. This installment in our study of the conscience will be an effort to show the harmony between the two.

Acts 23:1

"And. Paul, looking steadfastly on the council, said Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day." "I have lived" is thought by some to cover the period of Paul's life as a persecutor of the church. The conclusion is then drawn that one may have a good conscience even while in error. This I believe to be a wrong conclusion based upon a misapplication of Acts 23:1.

All of us understand that truth is harmonious in every detail. If two statements contradict, obviously, one of them, at least, is false. God's word — the Bible — purports to be the truth. (Jno. 17:17) Therefore, no two statements are in conflict. Naturally then, any religious position must provide for the harmony of all the inspired statements that bear upon the subject. One statement must never be interpreted in such a way as to cause a conflict with another plain statement.

You are urged to re-read the discussion of 1 Peter 3:16 in the former article. It is my firm conviction that this verse proves the position stated in the first sentence of this article, and that this position provides the only reasonable explanation of the verse. Acts 23:1 must not be understood in such a fashion as to militate against what is taught in I Pet. 3:16. Therefore, the view that Paul is claiming a good conscience even while in error is incorrect.

Paul, while persecuting the church, was found blameless, not in all respects, but only as touching the righteousness of the law. (Phil. 3:6) Similarly, what is said in Acts 23:1 is to be understood in a limited sense. The statement there is Paul's response to charges lodged against him by the Jews. (cf. Acts 22:30) Beginning at about Acts 21:17, Luke narrates a series of events leading up to the statement of 23:1. The statement has exclusive reference to the charges of 21:28, namely, that Paul had been teaching against the Jewish people, the law, and the temple. Paul's reply to this is: I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day. This has no reference to Paul's life as a persecutor. Why should he seek to justify his persecutions before the Jews? A defense of this part of his life would be completely out of harmony with the context of Acts chapters 21-24. He needed no defense of this part of his life. The Jews thought him perfectly justified in opposing the church. But whether his conscience was good in reference to the charges recently made was certainly in question.

The same things may be said of the statement in 24:16. Read it carefully in the light of its context.

2 Timothy 1:3

The only other statement which appears to pose a problem is 2 Tim. 1:3, "I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers in a pure conscience ...." But the difficulty disappears when we read more carefully. Note that the verb is in the present tense. Paul does not say, "I have served from my forefathers," but, "I serve" — present tense. He is speaking of his present Christian service in a pure conscience.

"From my forefathers" does not denote length of time, but source, or derivation. The God whom Paul is now serving, he first learned to know and to serve from his forefathers.

Paul's position at the writing of 2nd Timothy reflects light on this verse. He is in prison, having been arrested, no doubt, for worshipping according to a religion illegal at that time in the Roman empire. But this God served by Paul is not a new, illegal god, but one who has been legally served in the empire in time past by Paul's forefathers. Alas, it was from them that Paul learned of this God. Why should Paul now be imprisoned for serving the same God they were allowed to serve?

Thus, when these verses are rightly considered; their force as an objection is nullified. The position stands.