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.
David,
ReplyDeleteI see I have a secret admirer. Please don’t neglect to mention to your readership our 150+ post discussion on facebook, where I did discuss these matters in some depth. If I recall I was willing to continue the discussion, but my discussion partner never came through. Be that as it may, I really am now rather busy, but if any of your readers are futher interested in my reasons for my sharp reaction to Frame (and David Smart), they can find them on the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry facebook group under the discussion “Is freewill actually biblical?” or the facebook group, Calvinism: The Group that Chooses You, under the discussion “Love.” I trust your negligence in mentioning these discussions was merely irresponsible on your part and not disappointingly intentional. (My trust is based on our previous experience together where suspicions got the best of us.) Moreover, I trust your readers will note my concluding comment, “More on this later…”, which indeed seems to imply that I will be offering a well-reasoned response in due course. That being said, thanks for drawing your readers’ attention to my site. I hope that in due time this may further the message of God’s universal goodness and love toward all of humankind.
Best,
DC
Still quite shocked to be honest!
ReplyDelete