Plantinga - Chapter 3

Chapter 3 of Plantinga’s book provided a very interesting perspective on the difference between sin and evil. “Evil is what’s wrong with the world,” “Sin is culpable evil.” According to this distinction, evil is all that “spoils shalom.” Shalom is what God intended for the world. It is not only peace, but something more glorious and pure; it is what God had planned for the whole of his creation. After the fall, shalom not only introduced sin into the world, it also distorted God’s creation. God’s creation is not experiencing “shalom” because when sin entered the world it also affected God’s creation (i.e. natural disasters). While sin might have introduced evil to the world, all evil is not sin. On the other hand, all sin is evil.

Sin is a difficult concept to struggle with. Sin is what can be attributed to a human; I would say sin is a choice that deviates from God’s path. However I would argue that men are not necessarily always aware that they are making a choice when they sin because they have been blinded. You could argue that according to one person’s cultural values and beliefs, they have no sense of conviction that they are doing something wrong because they have been taught that their actions are right. However the question is not whether a person believes they are doing something right when measured by cultural standards; the question is whether the person is acting in step with the moral law which God has written on their hearts. As Lewis argued in his essays every man has God’s moral law written on his heart. Therefore every man has the opportunity to know when he is sinning and to know what God will one day judge him for.

The concept of sin is difficult in another way. Sin must be an action that is premeditated and that displeases God. Sin cannot be an unintentional occurrence. I think Plantinga’s example of the two year old that mistakenly kills someone with a gun is very ambiguous. I believe that the reason the two year old has not sinned is not based on the fact that he is a two year old, but it is based on the fact that the child mistakenly and unintentionally killed someone. We could use the same example with an adult. An adult who is “playing” with a gun and unintentionally fires a shot that kills someone does not commit a sin. But if the adult (or even a two year old, although it is impossible) premeditates the murder, then they have sinned. In my opinion Plantinga’s example of the two year old does not suggest that the two year old has not sinned because he is too young to understand that murder is a sin; he has not sinned because he mistakenly fired a shot. If this is what Plantinga is saying, I think this helps us understand why we cannot say that someone who “does not know” (culturally) that they are sinning is still held responsible for their sin.

The Poison of Subjectivism

“Are these things right because God commands them or does God command them because they are right? [...] God neither obeys nor creates the moral law. […] God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.”

Lewis’ statement first confused me. But when I reread this paragraph and thought about his point, I found it to be very insightful. In order to come to a better understanding of Lewis’ statement, I had to think back to creation and the nature of God. God is relationship because he is the Trinity; this means he is perfect love and perfect goodness. Out of the abundance of his love he chose to create the world; the world was therefore created out of the essence of who God is. Just as a piece of art bears the mark of the artist, creation bears the fingerprint of its creator. Therefore man, part of God’s creation, bears the moral law (which reflects God’s goodness) in his heart.

God did not “create” the moral law. My first reaction to this suggestion was surprise. God created everything in existence; nothing came about apart from God. Yet, 1 John 4:8 says “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” God is not only loving, just as Lewis says that God is not merely good. God is love. He is goodness. And God is eternal. He has always existed. He did not create goodness or love, because goodness and love are the essence of who God is. The moral law which Lewis is discussing stems from goodness and love. This then also means that the moral law reflects the essence of who God is.

The notion that God is love is incredibly powerful to me. The highest command we were given is to love God and love our neighbor. We live our life craving for love in any way we can receive it. As we have talked about concepts such as longing and our desire to be united with the beauty that we see in this class, the concept that God is love is greatly powerful. We seek to receive love from people and from God throughout our lives in our lives. Yet ultimately what we long for is not only to engage with those who are by nature human (or other) and by characteristic loving, we long to be united with love itself. We long to be united with God.

Mere Christianity

Lewis’ Mere Christianity presents a great case in support of the existence of a universal moral law. I enjoyed Lewis’ essay as it presents arguments that do not require someone to adhere to the Christian faith to follow with his logic and agree with his arguments. Not many have taken it upon themselves to defend morality and Christianity with an intellectual approach, as does Lewis in Mere Christianity.

Lewis’ arguments are compelling and logical. I thought Lewis’ comparison between morality and mathematics was very applicable and interesting to the concept of morality. Just as there are absolute truths in mathematics, there are absolute truths of morality. This then means there is such a thing as absolute right and absolute wrong. In a world of increasing relativism, the existence of right and wrong is constantly contested, yet is foundational to Christian beliefs.

The story of the Gospel rests upon the existence of the moral law. When God created the universe, he said it was good. But sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, thus committing the first wrong action. Christ, the good and perfect sacrifice, took the penalty for our sin. In Christ, we may experience forgiveness for our wrong actions and are being transformed into the good creation God originally intended. Each step of this story includes the concept of right and wrong. Why would we need to be saved if we have nothing to repent of?

One of the points that struck me as we discussed morality in class was the idea that the moral law is applicable across all time and place. However morality may be applied differently in different cultures. I believe the reason for this is that morality is tied to the meaning and significance of the action. This is where relativity comes into play. An action in one culture may represent one meaning and motivation, while in another culture it has a fully different meaning. However the moral principles are the same in every situation and they all sum up to one word: love.

Screwtape Letters

“But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing.”

This is the ultimate goal of the Devil. And yet God’s ultimate purpose and desire is to have a personal and intimate relationship with men. These two agendas are opposed in every way. Where God’s plan is relationship, the Devil’s goal is isolation and discontentment; where God is truth, Satan is lies; where God is perfect goodness, the Devil is perfect evil. Yet it is not always the type of blatant evil we so often imagine.

What I find most insightful, as well as most disturbing, is that “the safest road to hell is the gradual one.” What is so dangerous about Satan’s lies is that they become believable when we are not wearing the armor of God. Lies begin small and seemingly “harmless.” We can give in to one small lie, compromise one small thing, and live our way just once, because it will have no eternal consequence or impact. This is how we are persuaded to think. What I find most disturbing is that Satan is at his best when he eats away at our hearts and spirits’, yet has us convinced that we are “good Christians” because of our outside actions. He may not attack our outside actions until he has our hearts and minds perfectly convinced of a lie. Only then will he move on to influencing our actions. Our actions are always preceded by a thought. This is why the mind is so powerful. And that is why Scriptures gives us this command:
“Demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” -2 Cor. 10:5

In the face of such lies, we must always be aware of the roaring lion seeking to destroy us. But we do not live in fear, because we live in the victory of Christ:

“Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” -James 4:7

If we resist these lies at their roots and discern even the smallest lie, we will cease to become Satan’s prey. He will quickly give up on those constantly seeking truth and turn his attention to those who are willing to receive his small seeds of sin.

The Weight of Glory

I greatly enjoyed C.S. Lewis’ “Weight of Glory.” Lewis touched on so many interesting points and
tackles the concept of glory. Lewis identifies five scriptural promises regarding heaven. First, we will be united with Christ; secondly, we will be made like him; thirdly, we shall have glory; fourthly, we will be fed and entertained; fifthly, we will have an official position in the universe.

I appreciate that C.S. Lewis does not shy away from pointing out that these promises may seem somewhat odd to us from our standpoint. He brings up a very interesting question, which I have often wondered before: what is the glory that God promises us which is supposed to be so wonderfully appealing? I appreciated Lewis’ description of his initial understanding of glory, “Either glory means to me fame, or it means luminosity.” Yet Lewis goes on to thoroughly explore what Scriptures are referring to and how we currently see our longing for glory. He reaches the conclusion that glory means “good report with God, acceptance by God, response, acknowledgement, and welcome into the heart of things.”

If this is the glory that God is referring to, which I believe it is, then humanity is already desperately displaying its longing and desire for this type of glory. Man’s desire to be noticed, acknowledged, and valued is blatantly obvious in our relentless pursuit of success, recognition, and love in life. We seek to be known and loved in so much of what we do every day. I thought Lewis gave another insightful example that indicates that we are also destined for glory. He pointed out that we become enthralled with the beauty of this world, yet we feel limited. We do not want to merely observe glory and feel insignificant before it; we want to be a part of such glory ourselves. I think our desire to have recognition from God and man, and our desire to be a part of the beauty we see in the world reveals that we were created for glory. Yet we will never experience the fullness of the glory God intended us for until we reach heaven.

Plantinga - Chapter 2

I enjoyed chapter 2 of Plantinga’s “Engaging God’s World,” particularly because much of what he discusses in this chapter connects with other classes I have taken at Calvin. I enjoy approaching one specific topic in different classes.

One thing that stuck out to me was only a very minor point Plantinga made, yet I think it has huge significance in how we live our lives. Plantinga reminds us that God created the earth for six days, then rested on the seventh day. He also points out that God not only rested on the seventh day, but also during the nights between each of the days. I find that to be remarkable and to be a statement about how we should live our lives. Not only did God command us to take a Sabbath day to rest in the Ten Commandments, but God Himself rested when he created the earth.

I see a couple reoccurring lies in American culture that concern the concept of rest. I believe that American culture is a highly "hyperactive" culture. By hyperactive I mean that it is highly valued to be a constantly busy, highly-involved-in-everything, never-resting person. Americans place emphasis on “doing,” instead of “being.” Those who keep themselves busy are highly valued in society. Even if you are a family with young kids, there is often pressure for families commit their children and the parents to multiple activities each, in addition to school and hyperactive church involvement. I would go so far as to say that in most settings, being a person who never rests is seen as a good thing. I think this trend is true for both believers and non-believers.

I find that unhealthy trends and pressures exist within the American church culture or in full time Christian ministry families. The reasoning behind hyperactive Christians may look something like: “In order to prove that I love God, I must be highly committed to serving and to my church.” People then begin being involved in church for the sake of being involved itself, instead of out of an overflow of God’s love. It becomes legalism. But I grew up in a missionary community, and I have also seen another kind of justification for hyperactivism without rest: “There is so much need to serve and to build God’s Kingdom and I am accomplishing so much (or have so much to accomplish) for the Kingdom; how could I rest when there is so much I could do to serve?” When I observe this kind of justification for hyperactive Christianity, I think back to the fact that God rested. God could have accomplished and created great things during the time that he rested; yet he still took the time to rest.

There is a time to rest and a time to work and serve. God himself demonstrated this when he created the earth; he then commanded it to us in the Ten Commandments. I think rest is something American culture, and even more so the American Church Culture, should be obedient in. We are not what we do. We do not create our value by what we do. We are who we are through Christ’s redemption. All we can do is accept his love and forgiveness.

Our English Syllabus

I thought Lewis’ article touched on many interesting points. The point that interested me the most was his distinction between pursuing education for the sake of gaining an education, and pursuing education for the sake of knowledge in and of itself. He compared it to games and health: “Games are essentially for pleasure, but they happen to produce health. They are not likely, however, to produce health if they are played for the sake of it. Play to win and you will find yourself taking violent exercise; play because it is good for you and you will not.”

I found Lewis’ example to be interesting and made me think about the relationship between education and my motivation for obtaining an education. Just as someone said in class, I think we have a different approach to college today than in Lewis’ day. The average, middle class American is often expected to go to college. They are persuaded to attend college by their parents and teachers because “you can’t do anything without a college degree,” or because “everyone in the family went to college.” Although I think there are students who go to college out of their passion for knowledge, I think these students are more and more rare. This means that many students’ end goal and purpose while attending college is to get their graduation diploma, instead of learning for the sake of learning.

I think this causes many problems to society and to our educational systems. One of the main dangers I see is that students would become lazy and unmotivated. If they simply want a diploma, yet have little interest in knowledge itself, they risk seeing the education before them as pure work and not something with intrinsic value. If education is simply work to get through in order to reach the ultimate goal of a diploma, students may begin looking for “shortcuts” and try to “get by” without investing themselves in their education. In the past this may have been a danger for grade school and high school, but not for college. I would imagine that since fewer students attended college 100 years ago, less college students attend school because of expectations (and with the main goal of obtaining a degree); and those who did attend college were likely more passionate to acquire knowledge itself. It seems that that is now the role of graduate school. Those who wish to pursue their education at a deeper level go to graduate school. They will find students who are more motivated and whose purpose is to invest themselves in their education in order to acquire knowledge.