Home » Posts tagged 'morality'
Tag Archives: morality
The Moral Nature of God (Part 3)
Divine Origination of Morality
Having established the moral nature of God guiding and constraining the heavens and the earth, I want to return to certain moral dilemmas posed by agnostics or atheists. God defines the moral existence of living things. They fit into His hierarchy of value. God oversees and determines the worth and right or orthodox treatment or administration of people, not vice versa.
God originates, discharges, or initiates morality. He, therefore, defines it too. Men do not sit in judgment upon God about morals. They have morals, because God created them in His image.
To consider a basic truth: all men die. They can protest that, but morally they deserve it. In the history of the world, men went from eternal life before the Fall, to eight hundred to nine hundred sixty-nine years before the Flood, and now men physically die in seventy to one hundred years more or less. Life on the way to death comes with many varied complications. Sin affected and continues to affect all of this, which relates everything to morality.
The Capacity of God in Moral Judgment
On His throne in His eternal throne room in His special presence and everywhere in His omnipresence, God upholds and watches over everything and everyone. He judges all things in every place at all times. Nothing escapes His judgment. He not only knows the present, but the entire past and future, including the secrets of men’s hearts. Always what He judges or determines is true.
If God requires Israel to kill every member of a tribe of people in the Old Testament, like the Amalekites or those in Jericho or Ai, that judgment is right. God doesn’t need to justify what He does or requires others to do, but He can justify it and often does. He bases this on superior knowledge and moral virtue.
Hitler and the Nazis of World War 2 Germany committed genocide against the Jews. God loves the Jews. More than any other being, God loved, loves, and shall love. His love is immutable. Still, He allowed the Jewish genocide, even predicted these hard times for future Israel in biblical prophecies. God chastised Israel through the siege of Jerusalem that Jeremiah explains in Lamentations.
When God does something, it is moral. If He tells Saul to kill all the Amalekites, that is just, not allowing them to live. Obedience to God is better than the alternative always. This is not wholesale invitation or promotion of genocide though.
The Unworthiness of Man to Judge God
After Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:1-7, God cursed man, woman, and earth. The other creation of God participates in that curse. Some might ask, why? And then they also might reject or repudiate God’s judgment in these matters.
Whether something is right or wrong, that is not up to people. They would have to start with a naturalistic explanation for why they’re in charge and able to make this determination. However, matter and motion can’t make judgments. If life is a mere accident, no one can be at fault for anything wrong or honored for anything right. The morals in God’s moral heaven and earth proceed from His moral nature. He is both Lawmaker and Judge.
Man’s depravity stops him from a successful moral judgment of God. He cannot see clearly through his lying eyes to know what is right and what is good. A man does not have the capacity to make a right judgment about what God does, causes, or allows.
Deserved Moral Judgment on All Men
By sin came death upon all men and death passed upon all men for all men sinned (Romans 5:12-19). Everything short of death is only by the work of the mercy of God by the grace of God. Salvation is of God (Jonah 2:9). It is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9). God judges righteous judgment in the death of sinners. Animals also die as they do because of God’s moral purpose. The curse of sin touches all of His creation, reminding mankind of the detrimental effects of sin. His only escape is the salvation of the Lord.
God authors morality. True moral judgments come from God. He is the final infallible authority for what is right and good. All men defer to His will for His creation.
More to Come
The Moral Nature of God (Part 2)
Heaven and Earth Necessitate a Cause
God is holy. God is good. He is righteous. He is love and more. Moral attributes are the essence of God.
We know that the heavens and the earth have a beginning. Since they do, they must have a cause. The cause of the heavens and the earth — space, matter, time, and energy — must arise from an uncaused cause, or else an eternal regression of causes.
Infinite, Powerful, and Personal Creator
To cause the heavens and the earth necessarily requires an infinite and powerful creator. No natural cause could precede as the first cause of the natural world. It must, therefore, exist outside of the natural world.
The natural world also demands a personal creator or else the cause would be just another natural thing. Related to something that begins to exist, causation comprises agency. For something to come into existence at a particular moment, a personal agent chooses to bring it into being. Only a personal cause can make that decision.
Tracing Back the Moral Attributes in Man’s Nature
Mankind is part of what God caused and moral attributes in man’s nature trace back to God in their origination. People accept, recognize, or acknowledge the reality of morals. Men judge between good and evil. A worldwide recognition of moral law points to one that transcends human opinion.
If all that exists is matter, space, and time, like naturalism says, then there is no foundation for objective moral values. The one and only God, Who alone created the heavens and the earth, is a moral being. No standard for morality exists outside of a transcendent God, separate from His creation.
Objective Moral Values
When witnessing a crime such as robbery, the act is not deemed wrong solely based on personal feelings or societal consensus. Robbery is recognized as objectively wrong because it violates a moral standard that exists independently of individual perspectives. Theologian John Frame compares two potential sources for absolute moral authority: impersonal and personal.
According to Frame, if moral authority were to stem from an impersonal source, such as a universal law or fate, it raises questions about obligation. For example, if fate dictates certain outcomes, individuals may feel no inherent obligation to adhere to this impersonal law. In contrast, if moral authority is derived from a personal source — specifically God — then there exists a clear obligation to obey divine commands because God is viewed as a supremely wise and authoritative figure.
Moral Authority from God
Without God, morality would devolve into mere subjective preferences or cultural relativism. This leads to the conclusion that true moral obligations require a grounding in the character and will of a personal God who embodies these absolute standards.
Since moral standards start with God, men should look to God for theirs. This is God’s world. Everything operates according to the confines and scruples of His nature.
Moral authority proceeds from the personal God. This means a clear obligation to obey His words, sayings, and commandments. His will is the basis for which to judge and by which He judges everything.
The Moral Nature of God
In recent weeks, I have meditated and continue to meditate upon the moral nature of God. As a reader, especially some of you, you might say, “You, the moral nature of God?!?! You’re not moral!” I agree. When you meditate on the moral nature of God, it doesn’t result in thinking you’re moral. Just the opposite. I fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
When I think of God’s moral nature, it goes further than seeing how abominable I am compared to Him. I also think of His grace and love, which are moral attributes of God. I fall short of His grace and love, but because of His grace and love, as a fallen human I rejoice.
Cause for Meditation on the Moral Nature of God
What caused me to increase my amount of thinking about God’s moral nature? Agnostics and atheists use moral arguments against the likelihood of the existence of God. It relates to two challenges to the existence of God. First, an all-powerful and all-good God would not allow for the suffering of men and animals and especially the latter. Second, the God of the Bible called for the genocide of the Amalekite children, as well as those of Jericho and the city of Ai. They have other arguments, but the main ones center on the morality of God.
In our discipleship of the lost, we spend several weeks studying God from the Bible. In that study, we consider the moral attributes of God. The term “moral” is not in the Bible.
Moral in the English Language
English is a new language compared to ancient languages, but the earliest usage of “moral” occurs in the writings of Geoffrey Chaucer in the fourteenth century. It comes from the Latin, moralis, first used by Cicero to translate the ancient Greek, ethicos. The first two definitions are these:
1. Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour, especially for teaching right behaviour.
2. Conforming to a standard of right behaviour; sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment.
English men began using the phrase, “moral attributes,” of God first in the 17th century. In his huge work in 1682, The Existence and Attributes of God, Stephen Charnock does not use “moral attributes” to speak of God, although a few times he uses the word “moral.” John Locke uses the exact words, “moral attributes of God,” once in 1697 in his book, Remarks upon an Essay concerning Humane Understanding.
Thomas Stackhouse
Thomas Stackhouse in 1729 wrote the book, A Complete Body of Divinity, and in his Section XI, he titled it, “Of the Moral Attributes of God: And First, Of His Holiness.” On the first page of that section, he wrote something that I have thought about for several days before reading it. I had never thought about his moral nature like I began thinking, but what he wrote summarized especially one aspect on my mind:
But how transcendent forever the moral Perfection of the Divine Nature (his capitalization) may be, compared with those of Men, or any other intelligent Being; yet if the Reasons of Right, Good, and Fit, have the same Foundation in the Divine, that they have the human mind; the moral Attributes of God must be of the same Nature with what we perceive in Men, how much soever they may differ in the Degrees of Perfection: Otherwise we cou’d form no distinct Notions of them, nor cou’d they be proposed as fit Objects of our imitation.
Richard Fiddes
Stackhouse was saying that without God having moral attributes, we could form no distinct notions of them. We also would not propose them as fit objects of our imitation. I could add to that, no one could make a moral judgment on God without an ability of moral judgment that comes from God. Maybe Stackhouse thought of some of what he wrote, when he read an earlier work by Richard Fiddes in 1718, Theologia Speculativa: Or, the First Part of a Body of Divinity. In that book, he wrote:
Again, if the moral attributes of God be not founded in the same general reasons with those of men (and if they be so founded, the nature of them is still the same) then it would be impossible for us to form any distinct notions of the divine attributes, or rather any notions at all, but what would be very irregular and confus’d. For they being so farther of a moral consideration, that as we apprehend them as reasonable in themselves, if we do not know what common reasons to resolve them into, we at once destroy the morality of them, and all possible methods of reasoning upon them. What grounds, I say, can we have upon any principles of natural religion to attribute certain perfections to God, whereof we are not able to discover any natural reason; which yet is impossible for us to do, without knowing what they are, in some imperfect manner at least, in their own nature.
I shall only add, since I am arguing on occasion of what has been advanc’d by a learned person in one of the first stations of the church, that when God refers it, our selves being judges, whether his ways are not equal: if we are not to judge concerning the equality of them, according to our common notions what is just and right, the design of such an appeal be altogether impracticable. Neither could we be capable, as both reason and his positive commands requires we should, of imitating his perfections, did we not know, wherein his perfections consist; an unknown object of imitation evidently implying as great an inconsistency, as an unknown object of desire.
God Is Moral
I’ve been thinking, God is moral: that is why morality exists. This is in the writing of these above men too. God, the only God, created men with morality. They are moral creatures, since they are made in His image. They must think and behave morally.
God is moral. He did not begin morality. It didn’t start with Him. He is moral. God always is and with His moral nature, morality is too. Men got their morality from Him. At best they can reflect His nature, not judge His nature and whatever proceeds from it, like His actions. God acts in accordance with His nature always, so every act proceeds from His nature.
The Glory of God
No way can a man judge God or justify himself before God, like Bildad said in Job (Job 25:1-6). Just because a man cannot please God with his morality is not a pass for his immorality. God created him as a moral creature and God desires morality. God is the standard, which is why Paul wrote that all fall short of the glory of God. It is not that all fall short of a prescribed standard. No, they fall short of the glory of God, which is the perfections of God’s moral attributes. Like Paul says in Romans 5:6, they are ungodly. They violate His nature.
God comes first, then man’s perception of morality. Like Stackhouse and Fiddes say above, man doesn’t even have a notion of morality without God. He only reasons from morality, because God created him a moral creature. Even if he gets it wrong, he knows something is right or wrong. Man doesn’t know without God. Then he doesn’t know right or wrong without God. If not from God, then from what ether did this judgment come?
God is not wrong. He is always right, because He defines right. Whoever judges God as wrong did wrong in judging God.
God can’t be wrong. He just can’t. Wrong would mean something was wrong based upon something. God is the basis for all right. He is never wrong. If a man thinks He’s wrong, that man is wrong, not God.
The Problem of Animal and Child Suffering
A deer is caught under a fallen tree and starves to death confused and alone. The deer doesn’t understand a fall or a sin-cursed world.
God allowed a child to die. So why shouldn’t I allow a child to die? God did.
The point of the agnostic or atheist is that he’s justified in a rejection of God. He can’t accept the reality of God under these above and other circumstances. The skeptic rejects God on a moral argument.
More to Come
Choosing Faith or Religion Like Choosing A Wallpaper Pattern
During graduate school, for a short while I worked at a paint and wall covering store. Of varied responsibilities, I performed the job of organizing the wallpaper books. They filled the tops of two large tables and I kept them in some kind of order based on style. I could at least direct someone according to the taste of a customer.
Philosopher Ernest Gellner wrote that under relativism choosing a religion is akin to choosing a wallpaper pattern. In other words, considering faith or religion you can act on personal taste or feelings, like someone picking out a style of wallcovering. In general, truth then doesn’t apply to faith or religion, not like the physics of airplane travel or the engineering of a bridge.
You can live in a house without wallpaper on the walls. Wallpaper itself is a total convenience. Are faith or religion or moral laws such a convenience?
Men have become convinced by many various ungodly means that religious knowledge, the truth as a basis for faith, is of a different, lesser quality. First, you choose what you want to believe. What you’ve chosen might be something different than mine. I like something different, and it doesn’t matter that they disagree or even contradict. People might treat scripture like it is just a vessel to conform to whatever they want, but it isn’t. However, they are doing this now.
Second, many varied religions compare in what’s important. It’s better just to look for common ground. Everyone has free will and you won’t convince anyone by trying to force them. These similarities, kindness, treating other people like they want to be treated, the golden rule, are what’s important. Those are the common ground, hence the truth. The Bible says nothing like this either.
Third, the truth is really just what you feel in your heart. Follow your heart. That feeling that you feel is something God wants you to know. Are you going to deny that God doesn’t want you to know what you need to know? God’s Word says to try these feelings, this intuition, using God’s Word.
Fourth, the very existence of so many religions says that it’s near to impossible to be certain on the truth. So many people couldn’t all be wrong. It’s proud to think you do know.
Fifth, two plus two equals four. That’s knowledge. Faith is categorically different, not knowing in the same way as math. Math is real. Twelve divided by three equals four. If religion was the same as math, then you could say that you know it. Religion, faith, has much more variation, because it isn’t so sure. Whatever someone happens to feel or think about religious matters is as good as what anyone else says. It’s very personal, unlike math. Two plus two means the same thing to everyone. Religion and faith are different, more like choosing a wallpaper pattern.
None of the reasons or explanations I’ve given here are true. Man walks according to his own lust and his view of faith, religion, knowledge, and the truth conforms to that. What’s real is what’s out in the world, the people he knows, his dreams, what he wants to do. Faith and religion can be modified to fit that. In the end though, God will still judge them to fall short of a biblical plan of salvation.
Burk Parsons tweeted yesterday (Sunday): “Saying you’re a new kind of Christian with a new kind of Christianity is basically saying you’re an old kind of heretic.” You can want people to include you in Christianity, but your new kind of Christianity isn’t really or truly Christian.
Not just the world, but churches today in rapidly growing fashion coddle relativism.
Recent Comments