Topic 2: Calvinist premise: God is held to a different standard than we are.
Therefore, He can permit and cause sin without sinning. Does this hold true?
_____________________________________________________
Issues Brought Up
Now, by the end of the last post, you can see that I support the idea that the relationship between God and man and the relationship between an animal owner and his animals. Pike says that we can extend this further, and develop the concept that there is a difference in the relationship between God and man and between man and other men. Well – so far, so good. I actually agree! God's relationship IS different than our relationship with each other! However, Pike goes on to say that because God's relationship to us is different than our relationship to us, what may be wrong for us may be right for Him. At first glance, this may make sense – after all, it would be wrong for us to judge the world, but it's right for Him to do that. However, the form of calvinism that Pike holds to claims that there is a lot that is wrong for us that is right for God: It would be wrong for us to cause sin, but it's right for Him to cause sin. It would be wrong for us not to love people, but its righteous if God doesn't love people, etc. I disagree with this view.
In the last blog, I touched on the two categories of position/role and moral character/intent. I will bring these two concepts up again in this discussion.
_____________________________________________________
God has a different position/role than we do
-
but He holds us to the same moral standard that He holds Himself to.
Now, I agree with Pike that God does relate to man differently than man relates to man. Additionally, I agree that God can restrict men from doing things that He Himself does, and He can command men to do things that He Himself does not do. For example – He judges the world, and we repent. However, I do not see this this logically points to the idea that God does not conform to the same standard of moral perfection that He strives to mold us into – in fact, the Bible states specifically that He wants to conform us into His own moral image: the image of His Son.
The difference between what God is culpable for and what we would be culpable for only applies to position/role. For example – God takes the role of judge over the earth – we do not. However, while God does not take that role – as in, when He came to take the role of a mere man – He operated by the same moral principles that are always a part of his nature. We are never going to take His role, even in heaven, but we will be conformed to the moral standard of perfection, in the likeness of His Son, who took on our submissive role.
Our role is different from God's role. But God holds us to the same moral standard that He holds Himself to. The most fundamental part of God's nature is love. As we are told: God is love. Even the two most important commandments for us reflect this: Love the Lord your God, and Love your neighbor as yourself. You'll notice that what He is and what He calls us to be are not two distinct and separate moral standards. No. Rather, in learning to love and obey God (He who loves Christ will keep Christ's commandments that we should love), we become conformed to HIS image – which is love. You may notice a repeating theme here. So, even though our relationship to each other is not the same as God's relationship to us, we can count on the fact that He is always more holy, and not less. If He calls us to love, it's because He loves more. And if He calls us to demonstrate justice, it's because He reigns justly over the entire universe. We are to imitate Him. This is only possible because of the moral standard that He holds Himself to, and expects us to hold ourselves to, in an ever-increasing way.
_____________________________________________________
Okay well - What standard does God hold Himself to?
Now, obviously Pike still believes that God is perfectly holy and righteous when He causally-determines evil, and so he continues the discussion with a discussion of what moral standard God holds himself to.
Now I agree, of course, that there is no force outside of God that God is accountable to. God is the highest moral law in the universe. However, going one step further, me and Pike disagree again. I believe in Divine Essentialism, and not Voluntarism. Voluntarism is the position that maintains, basically, that God's will is above His nature. What God chooses is righteous. If God suddenly commanded us all to torture each other, it would be a sin to disobey! I do not hold to this point of view. I believe in Divine Essentialism – God is always true to His essence. His will and His nature are always perfectly in sync. It is impossible for God to choose to something that His nature finds abhorrent. And yes – God does record in the Scripture that He finds sin abhorrent. (see Amos 6:8) God is the great “I am.” He is unchangeable. There is no deceit in Him. There is no shadow of turning with Him.
God would be culpable for causing sin for two reasons:
Reason #1 - It would go against His Holy and Perfect character. He does not even look on sin (Hab 1:13-14). He disavows even thinking up specific sins (Jer. 32:35). There is no shadow of turning in Him. Why then, would He with one hand abhor sin, and with the other hand cause it?
Reason #2 - In the Bible, God specifically that anyone or anything that causes sin commits sin. For Him to cause sin, by His own standard, would mean that He would be committing sin. (See The Culpability of Causing Sin)
_____________________________________________________
God Was Not the Mastermind Behind this Sin
Earlier in this blog, I made the claim that “[God] disavows even thinking up specific sins (Jer. 32:35)” Here's the verse I was referring to:
Pike responds with this absolutely fascinating interpretation of this verse. (What will they think of next?)
I can just image the tonal inflection of the discussion between a calvinist and a non-calvinist reading the same verse...
Anyway, first of all, Pike said that I imply that God cannot think on sin – what I actually said was that God didn't think up (invent, mastermind) that sin. There is a difference there.
Going back to his interpretation of the verse, am I really expected believe that God causally-determined Israel to offer up sons and daughters to Molech, and then turned around to say, with an air of indignant innocence: “I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination...” A lawyer could say “Yes, yes – you see? He did not command it. It wasn't something they should, by His revealed will, have done. God never says that He didn't make it happen.” But I think that's missing the whole point. I think that God's commentary could be more likened to this: “You think this was my idea??? It wasn't. I didn't mastermind this! This is sickening – an abomination! Abhorrent to my soul!” At face value, that seems a lot more like what God is saying. I mean, just look at it for a moment, without bias if you can:
Quote: “I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination...”
Interpretation 1: “I didn't command this in my revealed will! I caused it, sure, but they shouldn't have done it! They are going to pay.”
Interpretation 2: “You think this was my idea??? It wasn't. I didn't mastermind this! This is sickening – an abomination! Abhorrent to my soul!”
Enough said.
____________________________________________________
Conclusion
Just to give a brief re-cap of the various main points that were put forward in this blog, here is a short outline:
Therefore, He can permit and cause sin without sinning. Does this hold true?
__________________________
Issues Brought Up
Now, by the end of the last post, you can see that I support the idea that the relationship between God and man and the relationship between an animal owner and his animals. Pike says that we can extend this further, and develop the concept that there is a difference in the relationship between God and man and between man and other men. Well – so far, so good. I actually agree! God's relationship IS different than our relationship with each other! However, Pike goes on to say that because God's relationship to us is different than our relationship to us, what may be wrong for us may be right for Him. At first glance, this may make sense – after all, it would be wrong for us to judge the world, but it's right for Him to do that. However, the form of calvinism that Pike holds to claims that there is a lot that is wrong for us that is right for God: It would be wrong for us to cause sin, but it's right for Him to cause sin. It would be wrong for us not to love people, but its righteous if God doesn't love people, etc. I disagree with this view.
In the last blog, I touched on the two categories of position/role and moral character/intent. I will bring these two concepts up again in this discussion.
__________________________
God has a different position/role than we do
-
but He holds us to the same moral standard that He holds Himself to.
Now, I agree with Pike that God does relate to man differently than man relates to man. Additionally, I agree that God can restrict men from doing things that He Himself does, and He can command men to do things that He Himself does not do. For example – He judges the world, and we repent. However, I do not see this this logically points to the idea that God does not conform to the same standard of moral perfection that He strives to mold us into – in fact, the Bible states specifically that He wants to conform us into His own moral image: the image of His Son.
The difference between what God is culpable for and what we would be culpable for only applies to position/role. For example – God takes the role of judge over the earth – we do not. However, while God does not take that role – as in, when He came to take the role of a mere man – He operated by the same moral principles that are always a part of his nature. We are never going to take His role, even in heaven, but we will be conformed to the moral standard of perfection, in the likeness of His Son, who took on our submissive role.
Our role is different from God's role. But God holds us to the same moral standard that He holds Himself to. The most fundamental part of God's nature is love. As we are told: God is love. Even the two most important commandments for us reflect this: Love the Lord your God, and Love your neighbor as yourself. You'll notice that what He is and what He calls us to be are not two distinct and separate moral standards. No. Rather, in learning to love and obey God (He who loves Christ will keep Christ's commandments that we should love), we become conformed to HIS image – which is love. You may notice a repeating theme here. So, even though our relationship to each other is not the same as God's relationship to us, we can count on the fact that He is always more holy, and not less. If He calls us to love, it's because He loves more. And if He calls us to demonstrate justice, it's because He reigns justly over the entire universe. We are to imitate Him. This is only possible because of the moral standard that He holds Himself to, and expects us to hold ourselves to, in an ever-increasing way.
__________________________
Okay well - What standard does God hold Himself to?
Now, obviously Pike still believes that God is perfectly holy and righteous when He causally-determines evil, and so he continues the discussion with a discussion of what moral standard God holds himself to.
“Of course, we'd have to get even deeper here. Is God holy because holiness is a standard that God must follow; or is God holy because whatever He does is by definition holy? I maintain the second, as there is no morality apart from God, and thus there is no standard of behavior He has to follow external to Himself. Which means that it is true that if God determines x, it is impossible for God's determining of x to be a sin, even if He declares that x is itself a sin.”
Now I agree, of course, that there is no force outside of God that God is accountable to. God is the highest moral law in the universe. However, going one step further, me and Pike disagree again. I believe in Divine Essentialism, and not Voluntarism. Voluntarism is the position that maintains, basically, that God's will is above His nature. What God chooses is righteous. If God suddenly commanded us all to torture each other, it would be a sin to disobey! I do not hold to this point of view. I believe in Divine Essentialism – God is always true to His essence. His will and His nature are always perfectly in sync. It is impossible for God to choose to something that His nature finds abhorrent. And yes – God does record in the Scripture that He finds sin abhorrent. (see Amos 6:8) God is the great “I am.” He is unchangeable. There is no deceit in Him. There is no shadow of turning with Him.
God would be culpable for causing sin for two reasons:
Reason #1 - It would go against His Holy and Perfect character. He does not even look on sin (Hab 1:13-14). He disavows even thinking up specific sins (Jer. 32:35). There is no shadow of turning in Him. Why then, would He with one hand abhor sin, and with the other hand cause it?
Reason #2 - In the Bible, God specifically that anyone or anything that causes sin commits sin. For Him to cause sin, by His own standard, would mean that He would be committing sin. (See The Culpability of Causing Sin)
__________________________
God Was Not the Mastermind Behind this Sin
Earlier in this blog, I made the claim that “[God] disavows even thinking up specific sins (Jer. 32:35)” Here's the verse I was referring to:
Jeremiah 32:35
“They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”
Pike responds with this absolutely fascinating interpretation of this verse. (What will they think of next?)
“By the way, your quotation of Jeremiah 32:35 is incorrect, when you imply that God cannot think on sin. What "didn't enter God's mind" was that they ought to engage in this behavior. It's the moral imperative that God didn't consider.”
I can just image the tonal inflection of the discussion between a calvinist and a non-calvinist reading the same verse...
- Non-Calvinist: “...Nor did it enter into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin!”
- Calvinist: No, no, no. “Nor did it enter into my mind that they should do this abomination!”
Anyway, first of all, Pike said that I imply that God cannot think on sin – what I actually said was that God didn't think up (invent, mastermind) that sin. There is a difference there.
Going back to his interpretation of the verse, am I really expected believe that God causally-determined Israel to offer up sons and daughters to Molech, and then turned around to say, with an air of indignant innocence: “I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination...” A lawyer could say “Yes, yes – you see? He did not command it. It wasn't something they should, by His revealed will, have done. God never says that He didn't make it happen.” But I think that's missing the whole point. I think that God's commentary could be more likened to this: “You think this was my idea??? It wasn't. I didn't mastermind this! This is sickening – an abomination! Abhorrent to my soul!” At face value, that seems a lot more like what God is saying. I mean, just look at it for a moment, without bias if you can:
Quote: “I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination...”
Interpretation 1: “I didn't command this in my revealed will! I caused it, sure, but they shouldn't have done it! They are going to pay.”
Interpretation 2: “You think this was my idea??? It wasn't. I didn't mastermind this! This is sickening – an abomination! Abhorrent to my soul!”
Enough said.
__________________________
Conclusion
Just to give a brief re-cap of the various main points that were put forward in this blog, here is a short outline:
- God relates to man differently than man relates to man
- There are different moral obligations that go with different roles - We will never take God's position/role
- On the other hand, God's moral standard for us and for Himself are the same. His commands reflect His character.
- God's will is not above His nature. He Himself cannot do anything against His own divine essence.
- God would not cause, and then later disavow, evil that His soul abhors
No comments:
Post a Comment