brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
I could use some help with this one. In the parts of Robert Reymond's
systematic that I have read, I have learned much and found much to
agree with. However, I am having trouble with one particular passage
he writes in the context of discussing whether or not God is the
author or chargeable cause of sin. He says (with my numbering added):
Now, my understanding was that God's moral law, unlike his ceremonial
law, is a reflection of "the ethical norm by which he" does live. That
does not necessitate a higher lawgiver, it simply means that the
standard he requires of man is in fact how he lives. That was my
understanding - was I incorrect?
I also find Reymond's reasons to be invalid:
1) If this is valid, then it holds true for men as well. Men cannot
worship another God because there is none.
2) Does not God the Son honor and obey God the Father eternally (even aside
from the Incarnation)?
3) If God had killed Adam prior to the Fall yet after establishing his
covenant with him, would this not constitute murder even though he
created and owned Adam? (perhaps the issue of the covenant muddies the
water here)
4) This seems valid - any objections?
5) The same reasoning could be applied to all of the commandments
could it not? God cannot break his law because his nature disallows
it. That seems to be missing the point of what Reymond is trying to
argue. He isn't arguing that God does not and will not ever break his
commandments, but rather that they cannot apply to him.
6) Again, this seems valid.
Furthermore, God is faithful to his bride, he does not commit
adultery. He also rested from His work in creation and the very fact
he did so is our Sabbath example.
I have heard this reasoning used by NCT.
Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks,
systematic that I have read, I have learned much and found much to
agree with. However, I am having trouble with one particular passage
he writes in the context of discussing whether or not God is the
author or chargeable cause of sin. He says (with my numbering added):
"Men are responsible for their thoughts, words, and actions because
there is a Lawgiver over them who will call them to account (Rom.
14:12). But God is not "responsible" for his thoughts, words and
actions because there is no lawgiver over him to whom he is
accountable. Contrary to what some might think, he is not obligated to
keep the Ten Commandments as the human creature is. The Ten
Commandments are his revealed precepts for men. They do not apply to
him as the ethical norm by which he is to live. 1) He cannot worship
another God because there is none. 2) He cannot dishonor his father
and his mother because he has no parents (we are not considering at
this moment the Incarnation), 3) he cannot murder because all life is
his to do with as he pleases, 4) he cannot steal because everything
already belongs to him, 5) he cannot lie because his nature disallows
it, 6) he cannot covet anything that does not belong to him because,
again, everything is his already." p.376
Now, my understanding was that God's moral law, unlike his ceremonial
law, is a reflection of "the ethical norm by which he" does live. That
does not necessitate a higher lawgiver, it simply means that the
standard he requires of man is in fact how he lives. That was my
understanding - was I incorrect?
I also find Reymond's reasons to be invalid:
1) If this is valid, then it holds true for men as well. Men cannot
worship another God because there is none.
2) Does not God the Son honor and obey God the Father eternally (even aside
from the Incarnation)?
3) If God had killed Adam prior to the Fall yet after establishing his
covenant with him, would this not constitute murder even though he
created and owned Adam? (perhaps the issue of the covenant muddies the
water here)
4) This seems valid - any objections?
5) The same reasoning could be applied to all of the commandments
could it not? God cannot break his law because his nature disallows
it. That seems to be missing the point of what Reymond is trying to
argue. He isn't arguing that God does not and will not ever break his
commandments, but rather that they cannot apply to him.
6) Again, this seems valid.
Furthermore, God is faithful to his bride, he does not commit
adultery. He also rested from His work in creation and the very fact
he did so is our Sabbath example.
I have heard this reasoning used by NCT.
Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks,