Are You Perfect?

"Are you perfect?" It's a fair question when you think about it. Are you perfect? Am I perfect? When asked this question, if we're honest with one another the answer is emphatically "No!". Our reasoning may be very different. You might say, "I'm not perfect because I have made mistakes in my life." I might say that I am not perfect because I have "sin" in my life.

However, at the end of the day, we can both admit that you are not perfect. Nor am I. Yet, is it not possible that you are perfect and that the standard of "perfection" simply includes the so-called mistakes that you have made? If you've said a lie before, is it not possible that under your own circumstances, stating the lie was in fact the correct thing to do and that because of it you're still perfect? Couldn't you apply this logic to any and every so-called mistake that you have made?

I suppose you could but then if I also applied that same logic we'd quickly find that your definition of perfection and mine vary because we have made different choices under different circumstances which each of us would say was wrong but in which we were attempting to prove as o.k.

Thus, it doesn't take us long to come to the realization that we are not perfect. Yet, how can this be? If you as an imperfect being are capable of recognizing that which is perfect, how is that possible? How can someone imperfect understand the concept of "perfection"?

You might say, "Hey, that's simple. I see things all around me that are wrong and thus I recognize them as such. The wrong things point to what is right." While its true that wrong things remind us what is right, they do not "prove" what is right. Why? Because such a statement is a logical fallacy. Knowledge of a concept always precedes proof of its existence. You must know what a car is before you can prove that a Honda Accord is a car.

Here's the point: "Knowledge of something must precede a test for it". In other words, "Knowledge of a standard must precede knowlege of compliance to it". A concept precedes evidence. A hypothesis must precede a conclusion made about it. If I drew two lines on a piece of paper and asked you if they were equal, could you tell me? You could. Why? Because your understanding of that which is "equal" preceded the question I posed to you.

Therefore, you and I can have a knowledge of perfection without even being perfect. How did this occur? Rene Decartes, a French Philosopher from 1506-1650, argued that it must have been given to us by another - namely God.

Thus, when you were born you were given an understanding of a being that was perfect in all ways. You understood that a perfect being must be all-powerful, all-knowing, holy, righteous, pure, just, all-loving, and many, many other things. You understood this even though you had never seen nor met God.

Thus, when Paul says in Romans 1:19 that "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them" he is saying that you and I were born with the capacity to know what God is and who He is. God is whatever is perfect. God is infinite. He is not limited in anyway. He is whatever your definition of perfection includes.

Therefore, you have been given a tremendous gift: Knowledge of God. It is an innate quality that all men possess. The next question is, "What are you going to do with such knowledge?"

Are you going to seek to know God? Or will you attempt to deny the very knowledge that you now know is already within you?

Joshua