Accordiing to this theory (Plato's?) Christians must either adhere to what is right 1) because God commands it (therefore the problem of arbitrary commandments) or 2) God commands only what is right (therefore, there must be a standard that exists outside of God to which even He must adhere).

Obviously, this theory is not predicated on an accurate understanding of God and His holy character. Which is to say, those that assert this theory are merely knocking down a strawman.

Thoughts on how to deal with this issue with precision?

(BTW, this topic is going to be discussed in my military ethics class at school later this week.)

Thanks.

__________________
Daniel Franzen
Church Creek Presbyterian (PCA)
Charleston, SC

1. What arbitrary commands are you referring too? I can't think of any, and I don't think there can be.

2. God's person defines truth and what is right. Something is right simply because God says it is. He defines truth. To go beyond that is to make him less than God. It is man's duty and pleasure to discover what God has already defined.

__________________
Michael McNeil
PCA
Ellicott City, MD
www.spepchurch.com

The arbitrary commands that I am referring to are not mine. They are the non-Christian's. In other words, the dilemma is not actual, it is a perceived dilemma from the non-Christian's standpoint.

A starting place would be to ask the question whether we are to serve a Sovereign God or an Impersonal Right.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Being the all powerful, all wise, perfect creator renders the idea of anything God says as arbitrary a nonsensical notion. God has no whimsies or new ideas but only a perfectly wise, sovereign will. His will is an extension of his unchanging, perfect character. Sin is the disobeying of His never changing will and a dishonoring of His immutable character. Arbitration is impossible with an infinite Being. For something to be arbitrary it must be subject to change. God and His moral commands have never changed and will not change.

__________________
[B]Manley Beasley[/B]
Southern Baptist Convention
Fayetteville, Arkansas

[B]Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words[/B]

You got to go back to His attributes.

The problem with discussing these matters with unbelievers is that there understanding is flawed. They don't understand when that when someone called Christ, "Good Teacher", that Christ reply back to that person who could be "Good" except God himself. God's being defines that which is good, It is God who defines what is wise. Not men. This is why if one seeks truth, understanding God's word is paramount. For there is no truth apart from God's truth.

Euthyprho's dilemma;

it can be countered by saying that God commands according to his own nature.

there's more to it, obviously.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

I'm currently reading an essay by Plantinga on the topic of "Does God have a nature?", meaning, do the attributes of God describe him from an external standpoint as some standard he fulfills or is he identical with those attributes? I suppose the same sort of question is asked here: is God good because he conforms to some standard, or is he that standard?

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis

Obviously they are assuming "arbitrary" is bad. Challenge them as to why they choose #4 below and not #1 through #3.

Arbitrary:

__________________
Lance G. Marshall
Pastor
Georgetown, Indiana

Is there any Scriptural exegesis that can support this claim? And what results when God's positive commandments take precedence over His moral commandments, as in the case of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son?

Good question. I would say that God always has the right to take or give life. His will in the given situation is reflective of His never changing, sovereign right over His creation. It's not possible for God to be guilty of murder because He always has the rights over His creation's lives. To answer what you asked about exegesis I would say that any verses proclaiming His sovereignty are stating this. God always does what He (the perfectly wise, just and holy God) wants. Calvin said that the universe is the "theater of the glory of God" and so God's actions in the universe are the displaying of his nature.

*My point was that God's infinite and immutable nature make accusations of arbitration nonsensical. If God's own nature defines right, wrong, and justice, and is unchanging then assigning a term like "arbitrary" to Him seems blasphemous. Their (Non-christian's) use of the word arbitrary seems to indicate that they see God as a peer who happens to be a bigger and stronger bully not the perfectly wise and holy God.

So is it possible to ever question whether or not, what you hear or think is of God?

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Absolutely. We must hold it up to scripture which is something Abraham didn't have. Abraham's only special revelation was God speaking directly to him.

PS-I was editing what I said while you were publishing your statement.

I can appreciate that. My concern was with the setting up of a "will" in God that is an extension of His "nature." It allows the creature to respond to God, Why hast thou made me thus? In Arminian theology it leads to doctrinal formulations based on what God must do because He is loving and just. Reformed theology counters that God is free and that it is the counsel of His will which determines how He acts towards His creation. His "nature" is not something distinct from His "will," but it is His will as made known to His creatures in a variety of relations and actions.

I completely agree with you. I may not have worded it as clearly as I should.

I think I may have brought this up in another thread on Euthyphro's dilemma, but the positing of this "dilemma" is a classical example of idolatry (I think that'd be the right concept), as the atheist attempts to bring God down to the level of creature. He assumes that God is like a man who can command whatever he wills -- which would indeed be arbitrary in a malicious sense -- forgetting that God is God and that it is perfectly acceptable for God to decree what is good.

__________________
Ben Maas. . . . .Facebook
In college, attending First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), Ada, OH, and
Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA), Belle Center, OH
When at home, attending Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC), Mansfield, OH

“Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life.”
-Jonathan Edwards-

In the case of Abraham God did not allow the complete fulfillment of his positive command.

I wonder: is there anywhere in Scripture where God's positive commands took precedence over his moral will and was carried through to the completed obedience of the positive command with a resultant violation of his moral will? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham,
BMus. (Trombone Performance), University of Toronto
Dip. CS, Regent College, Vancouver
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"I once sat in darkness, and waited for the moon to rise.
I once sat in darkness, and waited for the sun to shine.
I once sat in darkness, when all the light I'd waited for was gone.
Then Jesus came, and now the only true light, ever, shines in me."
– John Deacon -

I think by definition positive laws are "on top of" moral laws and cannot actually disagree with them.

I would have thougt so too, but Rev. Winzer is apparently attempting to postulate a situation in which such a contradiction is the result.

Abraham carried through so far as his part was concerned. He was stopped in process of carrying out the action required of him, and is considered to have offered his son by faith and to have demonstrated his faith by his works.

Your original post was
The problem is in this situation God intervened before the positive command could be fully carried out so he himself ensured that his positive command did not in actuality take precedence over his moral commandment. My question was: is there anywhere in Scripture where God does not so intervene and allows a positive command that is contradictory to his moral will to be fully carried out?
Just curious.

I would not say that God's positive command contradicted any moral command, at all. God was not commanding Abraham to murder Isaac, but to sacrifice him. Seeing as God has complete control over human life, and seeing as Abraham was essentially acting as an agent of God in the situation (just like Israel when punishing nations for their sins, by God's command), there is no contradiction here. It's not like God "bailed Himself out" or anything by revoking the command -- if God did actually tell Abraham to break the moral law, then He contradicted Himself at that point, and revoking it wouldn't change anything. He was merely testing Abraham, but He wasn't telling him to break the moral law. That would be an outright contradiction.

As noted, the fact that God intervened is of little relevance because commands pertain to human duties, and the command had an ethical bearing on the actions of Abraham.

The event of course points forward to that salvific transaction in which God did not spare His Son, and His Son willingly gave Himself for His people, the just for the unjust, notwithstanding on a human level the condemning of the innocent is an abomination to the Lord, and the human actors are said to have crucified and slain Him by wicked hands. In this transaction the human nature of Christ refused deliverance and gladly submitted to drink of the cup of suffering, even though the sixth commandment requires all lawful means to preserve our own life. He refused the use of such means and denied His own human will in order that He might accomplish the positive salvific will of the Father.

Is it really denying the sixth commandment to commit martyrdom? It almost sounds as if we can be put in situations where we're forced to sin -- either break God's positive command and do not sacrifice yourself, or break God's moral command and do not defend your life.

I would rather say that sacrifice is not proscribed by the sixth commandment. The alternative implies contradiction.

Brother, I hope you do not look on the death of the Christ of God as mere martyrdom. It was a judicial transaction -- the just for the unjust. In martyrdom we are faced with the dilemma, sin or suffer, and of course we are obliged to choose suffering over sin. But fundamental to the sacrifice of Christ is that He voluntarily laid down His life, when all the means were at His disposal to save Himself.

I'm not looking at it as mere martyrdom -- there is certainly much, much more to Christ's sacrifice than that, but I am nonetheless disputing the point that Christ had to choose between moral law and positive law.

False dichotomy. That is the starting point. I would explain that God is the definition of what is good, and that God can only command what is in concert with his own character, and therefore whatever he commands is by definition both good and in perfect accord with who God is. It is not possible to have a definition of good outside of God ... any standard that is not perfectly in accord with the character of God throughout the sphere in which it operates is a false and evil standard.

Any person that would posit such an argument has already made up their mind as to what they believe. I doubt they would be sincere in the inquiry, and if the answer above does not dissuade the folly, then call them to repentance rather than argue philosophy.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

"Not my will, but thine be done." Let's think about that for a moment. The Christ of God sought to do only that which was in perfect accord with the moral will of God. Yet even here He was obliged by the covenant of redemption to renounce that will in order to obey the higher, salvific will of the Father. There was clearly a choice which had to be made.

Thomas Manton (Works, 14:353):

This isn't a choice between moral law and positive law, but a choice between what Jesus wanted to do and what the Father wanted Him to do.

If Jesus broke the moral law, then He sinned. I don't see how there's any way around that. I guess you could say that God doesn't have to follow the moral law, but this can't seriously apply to Jesus or what was He doing living His good life? If He were never obliged to live under the moral law at all times then He never actually fulfilled the covenant of works, His righteousness was never imputed to us, and we are therefore in a position of neutrality (rather than righteousness) before God.

Did Abraham sin by intending to kill his son?

CT

This is the very point under discussion. The fact of the matter is that Christ had a will which varied from the will of the Father so far as drinking the cup was concerned, and required Him to consecrate Himself to doing the Father's will. That cannot be disputed. And obviously, that variance was not sin, but perfectly compatible with sinless human nature.

Which of the following two options do you think more accurately represent Christ's statement:

A. "Not my will to uphold the moral law, but yours to uphold your decree [i.e., positive law], be done."

B. "Not my will to choose an alternative of less suffering, but yours to endure this suffering, be done."

I think B is clearly the correct answer. If there is ever a dispute between moral law and positive law, such that someone must choose one or the other, it is not this scenario.

Rather,

C. "Not my will to preserve my life according to sinless human desire, but thy will to give my life according to the conditions of the covenant of redemption for the salvation of those whom thou hast given me.

And when stated in this way, it is clear that the means necessary for saving His life were renounced in favour of taking the course of action necessary for eternally saving His people. IOW, He consecrated Himself to serve a higher law. And it is this higher, self-denying principle which makes the requirement to love a "new commandment."

Obviously, Jesus renounced fighting back against His enemies who were crucifying Him -- but it doesn't follow that He broke the sixth commandment in the process. If we are serving a better purpose, it is the right thing to not act in self-defense; that doesn't mean we broke an actual obligation to act in self-defense. It merely means that the sixth commandment was applied differently at that moment, taking into account the greater purpose which self-defense would negate.

If I decide that it would be better to assassinate a man who would certainly kill many others including myself, it doesn't follow that the sixth commandment was substituted for a higher law when I make that decision, or that I had to choose between two laws, but rather that it was applied differently.

Moreover, how does God make laws on different strata? Can a law given by God be contradicted by another law given by Him? Can a law given by God not be actually binding? Is the moral law simply not that important? What are the implications of saying that Jesus had to choose between two laws both given by the same omniscient God?

Morality is concerned with the principles of justice. If one does not act in self-defence, immorality is permitted to prevail. That is why there are courts of law -- to maintain reciprocal rights. The commandment is to love thy neighbour as thyself. Morality is concerned with personal rights. The actions of Christ went beyond self rights to teach that we are to love our neighbour in sacrifice of ourselves. By so doing He taught a new commandment. There is no denying the fact that the sixth commandment requires us to use all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, yet Christ refused to speak or act in self defence, even before the proper courts of law. He surrendered His moral rights in order to obey the salvific will of the Father.

Again, I'm not denying that self-defense in entailed in the sixth commandment. I absolutely agree with that, and you are correct in saying that it is a vital basis for justice.

I do dispute, however, with the proposition that self-defense is inexorably linked with the commandment, i.e., that self-defense trumps every situation in which the sixth commandment is pertinent. Certainly there are some applications of the sixth commandment wherein self-defense is denied for a greater purpose. This is not a denial of the sixth commandment itself, but rather a different application of it.

I have to go take a chemistry exam now.

Then we agree that Christ left undone what was required in the sixth commandment in order to fulfil the saving will of the Father. What was right was dictated by the fact that it was God's will; God didn't will it because it was something inherently right. Impersonal Right did not govern the actions of Christ but Sovereign Love.

I agree that God's dictation makes right, rather than the opposite, but not that Jesus actually did not fulfill the sixth commandment. As I said, the circumstances of Christ's crucifixion did not oblige Christ to act in self-defense. The sixth commandment did not cause some type of dialectic where Christ had to choose between moral law and positive law. There was a dialectic, for sure, but this was not between the sixth commandment and fulfilling the covenant of redemption. In some cases the sixth commandment does not entail self-defense, and this was one of those cases. Everything fits together perfectly.

I like how most of my posts in this thread are "I agree with this, but not this."

This comes back to your understanding of the sixth commandment rather than to the question at hand. The element of self-respect is entailed in all moral commandments relative to our neighbour, as the second great commandment makes evident.