Cramer & The Cause of Sin - Pt. 3(a)

My friend and faithful brother David Cramer has continued his discussion on John Frame's argument but he has done so in two independent posts (here and here). My analysis will distinguish the content of his objection into four individual categories—(1) Objective Evil, (2) The Sovereignty of God, (3) The Cause of Sin, and (4) Cause vs. Authorship—and I will publish on each category over the next four days, beginning with (1).

1. OBJECTIVE EVIL

According to Cramer's position, the Bible teaches us that "there are some things that are objectively morally evil" which, he goes on to argue, God surely hates. I wish for the readers to understand that I agree with Cramer on this point, but with some notable reservations.

First of all—and this is hopefully a minor point—I submit that "morally evil" is a redundant expression because "evil" is itself a normative moral term. Consequently, as the astute mind will detect, I reject the term "natural evil" (e.g. earthquakes) because that imports a humanistic definition of "evil" into what should be our stalwart commitment to Scriptures. You see, I hold that moral order is grounded in the very being of God. Ergo, for an earthquake to be considered a natural 'evil' it would have to occur against God's will; if a phenomenon in nature occurs according to God's will, surely it is not evil. So I prefer to reserve "evil" for moral contemplation while we should call things such as earthquakes "natural disasters," as we normally do. (As the reader might surmise, I also submit that "evil" and "sin" are synonymous, interchangeable terms; i.e. they both refer to the same thing. Furthermore, such an argument as I affirm here quite readily hands Euthyphro his hat and shows him to the door.)

Secondly (and I hope Cramer would concur), I affirm that if anything is evil, it is so objectively. In other words, biblically speaking there is actually no such thing as subjective evil. Why? Because moral order is not a human invention; moral order is grounded in the very being of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. Consequently, if 'objective' means "independent of either a particular human mind or human minds altogether," then we may assert that all evil is so objectively.

Cramer states that "objective moral evils are those actions [which are] wrong for any being, at any time, anywhere, to do them." While this might work on the surface, a difficulty arises when we examine it more closely; i.e. literally "any being"? I hear Euthyphro knocking at the door again. I reject such a notion because there is no moral order to which God himself is subject. He is the sole Lawgiver, whose commands are forever consistent with his immutably holy nature and which express all moral parameters. In other words, "any being" cannot be literal; it must restricted to only those beings created by God which he ordained to hold culpable at his judgment (angels and humans). God, as a being, is not included in the moral culpability to which 'objective evil' refers; neither are horses, nor plankton, nor a host of other beings. Also, this is why the taking of human life is not evil per se (in itself); it is evil only where God has proscribed against it. Sometimes God has commanded the taking of human life (1 Sam. 15:3) and the refusal to do so is evil (v. 24; cf. v. 20). It is possible that all of this truly is what Cramer meant; such precision was my own desire.

Tomorrow I shall post my comments on (2) The Sovereignty of God.

Cramer & The Cause of Sin - Pt. 2

Although there is, at this point in the discussion, no significant material to respond to on Cramer's blog (he is undoubtedly still buried in class work), there are some items worth noting.

First of all, Cramer is now aware of my blog, which is why this can now be referred to as a 'discussion'. Although he mistakenly thinks I followed him here, the reality is that I have been with Blogger for over five years; this particular incarnation (Itinerarium Mentis) is somewhat new, but my former blog (Apologia) was around for a while and, at one point, had even garnered the attention of Jared Wilson and the boys at The Thinklings, and also Austin R. Cline, a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism. I have been around for a while.

Secondly, I wish to make something clear to Cramer personally: Please do not feel obligated to respond to my blog posts. I certainly appreciate your thoughtful responses and the challenges they present, and I do admire your commitment to growth in the knowledge of Christ and your passion for the purity of the gospel, but I know you have a good deal on your plate as a student so I do not want you feeling as though you have yet one more thing to deal with. My blog is a place where I like to share my thoughts and experiences as I likewise grow and mature in my Christian walk; some of those encounters occur on IRC, some of them on message boards, and some through reading other people's blogs and critically examining their content. Your views on Frame's argument grabbed my attention. I look forward to engaging you in a discussion, I just do not wish for you to feel burdened.

And thirdly, back to the readers now, Cramer makes a couple of statements I wish to briefly respond to. He maintains, first of all, his rather unfavourable characterization of John Frame's argument—quite expectedly, I should think—here calling it "theologically abominable." What I wish the readers to note is this: It is not yet clear that he is properly understanding Frame's thesis in the first place, and it will not be clear until Cramer has some time available to write more fully on the matter. So for the time being, the reader is really encouraged to take Cramer's comments with a proportionately sized grain of salt. I am familiar with Frame's argument on this point and I know there is nothing "theologically abominable" about it, as surely does Frame himself.

Also, it certainly is not enough to call a spade a spade, but that has nothing to do with today's pluralistic society. It has to do with sound reason, critical thinking, and our moral duty toward our brothers in Christ; to "simply call a spade a spade" is only so much ipse dixit (i.e. "any unsupported rhetorical assertion that lacks a logical argument") and will not compel anyone. If he is going to assert that Frame has strayed from the truth of the gospel, then he should expect that his readers will want to know how and why this is so. (And so would Frame himself, should he have ever happened upon the post. An unlikely event, but a good principle to consider.) Cramer is entitled to call Frame a "spade" but his academic discipline should inform him that doing so shoulders the burden of exposing the argument that produces such a conclusion. If he did not have the time to provide even an outline thereof—and he admits to not having the time—perhaps he could have expressed his reaction with less censure for the time being. Or saved it as a draft until it did include the outline. My only point is that if one is going to make such a terrible accusation against someone who has established himself as a God-fearing apologist and critically acclaimed Christian philosopher, it should include one's reasoning. My passion is fueled by the conviction that we, as Christians, are bound by a higher moral rectitude toward the members of God's family.

Cramer also states he is not claiming that Frame has "rejected the gospel" or "does not affirm the gospel message." True, but he is claiming that Frame here strays from the truth of the gospel. That is a very, very serious charge, is it not?

For now Cramer rightly has his academic responsibilities to attend to. Both myself and his readers, I am sure, can wait with due patience until he has the requisite time to elaborate.

Cramer & The Cause of Sin - Pt. 1

David Cramer, a Facebook friend of mine from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, wrote an interesting (albeit brief) piece on his blog this earlier afternoon. Cramer, it would seem, is quite shocked about something theologian John Frame had argued in his scholarly work The Doctrine of God; specifically, that Frame would dare to argue in favour of the idea that God is the cause of sin. Cramer said that this excerpt from Frame's book is "quite chilling" and that it shows "how far from the truths of the gospel we can stray while still maintaining strict adherence to biblical authority." That is a very serious charge for Cramer to level against Frame, so how does he support such a statement?

He doesn't.

Despite the deep respect for Cramer I have—or perhaps as a result of it—I am obligated to call him on such irresponsible negligence. He admits candidly enough that his current homework load does not permit him to write very extensively, but here is the crucial point: if he had the time to level such a critical charge against Frame then surely he had enough time to provide a brief outline showing why he thinks Frame has strayed from the truth of the gospel. Frame himself, in the excerpt Cramer linked to, made a reference to the book of Job (1:20-22); at a minimum there is a starting point Cramer could have commented on. But he did not. He provided his readers with his emotional reaction but nothing more.

What Frame discussed, and Cramer neglected to comment on, is the distinction between cause and authorship, insofar as God is the ultimate 'first cause' behind the existence of sin, "referring to God’s agency in bringing evil about," Frame notes. But God is never guilty of sin, he does not commit sin. Humans are responsible for sinning, but God is responsible for creating beings capable of sinning; Frame recognizes the difference between "God as the 'remote cause' and human agency as the 'proximate cause'." Does Cramer offer a scholarly response to any of these things? Does he tell his readers why things like this compel him to "reject the Calvinist framework as a whole"? No, he does not. It is very disappointing and irresponsible.

I titled this post "Pt. 1" because if Cramer should subsequently write more on this, perhaps shouldering his burden of proof and making his case, I will critically examine his arguments here.