cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
Lately, I've been considering the Divine Command Theory, and though I initially rejected it on the basis that God determines right/wrong because His nature dictates so, I am beginning to question whether or not one ought to view God not only as the law-giver but as the one who envisions and creates the very network of morality. I suppose the thing that really brought this thinking to my mind was an argument I read by Gordon H. Clark where he argues for hard determinism and human responsibility. In it, he offers an argument that I think would be well represented by this syllogism:
1. God never does anything that is unjust.
2. God holds men responsible.
3. Therefore, God justly holds men responsible.
The argument really hinges on the question of the Divine Command Theory. If everything that God does is just, then it is silly to ask whether His holding men responsible is just, because of course it is! He did it, didn't He?
Clark also offers this quote from Calvin to show that HE was a Divine Command Theorist, as well. Unfortunately, no citation is given, except to say that it is from the Institutes:
Anyway, I am curious about the thoughts of everyone else here regarding the divine command theory and (secondarily) Clark's argument for hard-determinism and responsibility...
Where does Ockham come into this? I don't know, I just thought I'd throw out his name, since he is supposedly the inventor of the Divine Command Theory...
1. God never does anything that is unjust.
2. God holds men responsible.
3. Therefore, God justly holds men responsible.
The argument really hinges on the question of the Divine Command Theory. If everything that God does is just, then it is silly to ask whether His holding men responsible is just, because of course it is! He did it, didn't He?
Clark also offers this quote from Calvin to show that HE was a Divine Command Theorist, as well. Unfortunately, no citation is given, except to say that it is from the Institutes:
"In the first place they inquire, by what right the Lord is angry with His creatures who had not provoked Him by any previous offence; for that to devote to destruction whom He pleases is more like the caprice of a tyrant than the lawful sentence of a judge; that men have reason, therefore, to expostulate with God, if they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by His sovereign will. If such thoughts ever enter the minds of pious men, they will be sufficiently enabled to break their violence by this one consideration, how exceedingly presumptuous it is only to inquire into the causes of the Divine will; which is in fact, and is justly entitled to be, the cause of every thing that exists. For if it has any cause, then there must be something antecedent, on which it depends; which it is impious to suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule of justice; so that what He wills must be considered just, for this very reason, because He wills it. When it is inquired, therefore, why the Lord did so, the answer must be, because He would. But if you go further, and ask why He so determined, you are in search of something greater and higher than the will of God, which can never be found."
Anyway, I am curious about the thoughts of everyone else here regarding the divine command theory and (secondarily) Clark's argument for hard-determinism and responsibility...
Where does Ockham come into this? I don't know, I just thought I'd throw out his name, since he is supposedly the inventor of the Divine Command Theory...