Reformed Theology Roundtable: Does the Author Analogy Succeed?

Last week, while multitudes of theology nerds were still digesting the Molinism vs Calvinism debate between William Lane Craig and James White, our friends at the Complete Sinner’s Guide brought us a fascinating deep-dive on the intricacies of Reformed Theology. Co-hosts Tyler Fowler and Joshua Davidson were joined by frequent guest Joshua Sherman and, to represent the Reformed position, Chris Date, Andrew Elliott, and Jeremiah Short. The purpose of this panel discussion was to clearly articulate the relationship between the Reformed/Calvinistic concepts of God’s eternal decree and man’s free will, as described by the philosophy of compatibilism. While all three affirm God’s meticulous determination of all history, each reject hard determinism and the idea that God is the author of sin. This was a central sticking point in the discussion, especially as Date proposed that their position is best compared to the relationship between an author and his story. I would like to do my best here to represent this view, and to show how I believe this analogy fails to remove God as the author of sin in the Calvinistic system. (Much of the discussion was led by Date, with Davidson doing most of the pressing for clarity. For this reason, I will primarily be addressing their interactions.)

Compatibilism Defined

The heart of the discussion begins about 15 minutes in as Date gives a succinct definition: “Compatibilism… is just the idea that… determinism is compatible with moral responsibility. The whole point of compatibilism is to affirm determinism.” Determinism, from a theological standpoint, is the idea that everything which happens, to the most minute detail, is by God’s determined will. This, of course, raises the question of how we factor in the idea that humans have free will. Date explains that “they have a sufficient degree of freedom as to be held morally responsible.” Elliott adds, “God determines all things, but He does it in such a manner that you will freely choose to do so.” 

This determination is made effective by God’s decree prior to creation. Biblical evidence is cited from Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27-28, which show God’s will being accomplished through the sinful acts of men. However, Molinists equally appeal to such passages for support. Like Calvinists, they affirm God’s decree of all things prior to creation. The key difference is that in Molinism, God’s decree is based in part on His foreknowledge of what human beings would do (allowing for libertarian free will), as opposed to His foreknowledge simply being what He has determined them to do in compatibilistic Calvinism.

The Author Analogy

From here, Date goes on to give his author analogy, as he explains how God’s decree plays out in space-time events in a comparable way to those of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings.” The world imagined by Tolkien is actualized within those stories, but the characters experience them in their own sense of time with their own sense of agency. Date gives a good summary of his mission in this discussion when he says: “I want to encourage my fellow Calvinists to think of… the relationship between God and time as something analogous to the relationship between an author and a story, because I think that non-Calvinists are right to object if there is a meaningful sense in which God is causing people to sin.” He hopes to solidify the discussion around this analogy, as opposed to robot or puppet analogies (which he rejects), adding, “Let the battle happen on that ground.”

What then is the advantage of the author analogy? For Date, the difference is what he calls a “transcendence gap.” In other words, because God exists in the eternal realm and we live out His decree in space-time by our own thoughts and actions, God is not responsible for what we do. This transcendence gap is, in his words, “critical for maintaining moral culpability for humans.” The blame for sin then resides in humans, even though God has determined prior to our existence that we would sin. Since Date has admitted that non-Calvinists have good reason to object to the idea that God causes people to sin, the point of debate becomes clear. Does the eternal decree “cause” people to sin? If it does, compatibilism fails to defend the holiness of God. All three Reformed participants agree that the decree does not equate to “cause.” And this is where I am left genuinely perplexed.

Competing Views of Freedom

Representing the non-Calvinists in the audience, Davidson challenges this notion: “I think the disconnect is that if there is a first cause, and it is not the individual agent, that the freedom is then compromised.” To this Short responds, “You are presupposing incompatibilism.” This phrase will be repeated multiple times throughout the remainder of the discussion, as the Reformed participants take the position that the libertarian concept of free will makes false assumptions about freedom that the compatibilist successfully avoids. 

Date explains: “I come to the issue of freedom, and I try to make no assumptions about what that requires. And one of the assumptions I refuse to make is that in order for an agent’s choice to be free, their choice has to ultimately, full stop, originate with them.” At one point, Davidson seeks clarification: “It just needs to SEEM as though there could be the alternate possibility.” Date gladly affirms: “That’s great! I like that!” 

This exchange reveals that in compatibilism, the choice between competing options is an illusion. You may think you are making the choice, but it has been chosen for you. Yet you take responsibility for that choice because you are the one who performs it, believing you are making it. Date summarizes: “Their will is influenced by all sorts of factors including their genetics, their prenatal development, their upbringing, their life experiences, their addictions, everything. Their friends, their relationships, all of that influence the will, including their own desire, and the result of all that influence is that the will makes a choice. But… that choice has been pre-determined by God.” Wouldn’t all those factors be included in the eternal decree? 

Force vs. Decree?

Date further explains: “Ultimately, they make a choice, and God has decreed that, but nothing is forcing their hand.” He goes on: “…there is no programming that is firing, in the world God has created, that brings about the action that God has decreed. So that’s what I mean by free. There is literally nothing forcing the agent’s hand to do what they nevertheless do, exactly as God has decreed.” 

In response, Davidson makes what I believe to be a fairly obvious point: technically, they are “forced.” Date asks what is forcing them, to which he responds, “the authorship.” And I have to ask, if the eternal decree of God is not powerful to “force” what happens in space-time, what is it good for? It seems to be simultaneously all-powerful and powerless. Anyone noticing a problem here? 

Date resorts to his escape hatch of the transcendence gap by insisting that the “authorship” doesn’t exist in time, therefore it doesn’t force individuals to act out the parts that have been written for them from eternity past. All that matters is that we “seem” to have a choice. That illusion of choice is sufficient to make each of us morally responsible, and it lets the God of Reformed theology off the hook. How convenient!

How the Analogy Fails

What the author analogy ultimately presents is an illusion of reality. Just as the choices of characters in a novel do not originate in themselves, but in the mind of the author, so too do the sinful thoughts, desires, and actions of human beings originate in the mind and will of God, according to compatibilism. Fictional characters are incapable of producing anything that doesn’t reside in their source. Just the same, human beings could not produce sinful thoughts and behaviors that did not originate in God. Fictional characters possess no actual agency, but we willfully adopt the illusion for the sake of the enjoyment of the story. In compatibilism, human agency is likewise a useful illusion. We are left to deceive ourselves into believing that we are actually making choices, and that we were able to have chosen differently than we did. Since all things that happen in space-time are included in God's decree, this illusion of free choice is also decreed from eternity past. 

The transcendence gap, as described by Date, only succeeds in separating reality from fiction. It effectively does the opposite of what he hopes by diminishing the sinfulness of sin. An author can write stories full of violence, death, and all sorts of sinful behaviors, yet himself retain innocence of those sins because those fictional characters are not actually sinning in real life. Their world carries no actual consequences for real individuals. They do not actually suffer pain or misery or death, so we do not hold the author accountable for any crimes or acts of cruelty committed within the story. Yet we know that what we experience is real. All the evils of this world are real. Our suffering is real, and we cannot be convinced otherwise. Likewise, our sin is real, and because it is, our guilt is real and deserving of judgment. And because all the evils of this world are real, the grace of God is every bit as real, possessing incomparable value.

Conclusion

If God has "authored" all history, He has inevitably written every aspect, including all the suffering and death that results from the sin that is within that story. To argue that God has meticulously authored every detail of the story and deny that He has authored sin is an irreconcilable contradiction. This analogy leaves us to conclude that either the “reality” we experience is pure fiction, or God is the author of real sin. The former does damage to God's power to create real beings made in His image. The latter is fatal to His holiness (Jeremiah 32:35). Neither option is acceptable, therefore we should reject the author analogy. If it is the best representation of compatibilism, we should reject compatibilism. If compatibilism is the best Reformed theology has to offer, we should reject Reformed theology. As Date said, “I think that non-Calvinists are right to object if there is a meaningful sense in which God is causing people to sin.” The author analogy cannot remove that meaningful sense, therefore we are right to maintain our objections.

Making Sense of Christianity 6: Atonement Through Sacrifice

Last time, I proposed the idea that the atonement of Christ is best seen through the lens of healing. What was accomplished through His death is not about taking away eternal punishment, but was a way in which Christ, though He Himself was not guilty of sin, shared in its consequences as a human being. Through His sharing of our experience, He can sympathetically minister as our eternal High Priest. 

Many proponents of views similar to mine, Christus Victor, or moral influence theory will accompany their view with a disdain for the idea that the cross was a demonstration of the wrath of God towards sin. I believe this is a significant error. While the understanding of the transaction of penal substitution is incorrect, it remains true that what Christ endured was purposefully intended to display the severity of sin and God’s hatred of it. This is a needed component of the atonement, and the reason why it would not have been satisfactory for Jesus to have simply died of old age or in secrecy. No, Jesus did not simply happen to die by crucifixion, but He willfully went to the cross as the spotless “Lamb of God.”

The Perfect Sacrifice

“Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) This introduction from John the Baptist, the prophet who prepared the Jews to receive their Messiah, was a declaration of the significance of Jesus Christ as a sacrificial atonement for sin. The Jewish people had been living under a system of animal sacrifices to God as a covering for their sins. John’s announcement foretold that Jesus would not only be a sacrifice for sins, but He would be THE sacrifice to end all sacrifices. 

Once again, the book of Hebrews helps us to understand the sacrificial aspect of the atonement, as it focuses on Jesus’ role as our High Priest. “Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.” (Hebrews‬ ‭7:23-28‬) We see that, as our eternal High Priest, Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. He is the only sacrifice that is sufficient to cover any and all sins for all time. There is no need to offer any other. 

This point is clarified and reiterated in 9:25-28: “not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.” 

Common Errors

Because Christ lives eternally, His sacrifice on our behalf is sufficient to save any sinner. But note that His sacrifice is not itself to be equated with salvation. This is a common error among Christians. The atonement makes salvation available to anyone, but it is only applied to “those who eagerly wait for Him.” Remember the analogy of the serpent on the pole. It was only effective to heal those who fixed their gaze upon it. So we can say that the atonement of Christ is “sufficient for all, but efficient for the believer.” People are often confused by the concept of the blood atonement, thinking that Christ shed x number of drops of blood to cover y number of people. This is not the case. Neither the amount of blood shed nor the duration of Christ’s suffering are the issue. What is important is that He offered Himself as a blood sacrifice on our behalf. Because He is the spotless (sinless) Lamb of God who has been perfected forever, there is no need of any further sacrifice.

The Purpose of Blood Sacrifices

But why were blood sacrifices needed? As we discussed last time, the punishment for sin is death, so it doesn’t make sense to say that the Old Testament blood sacrifices of animals were a punishment for the one who sinned. Hebrews 9:13-14 offers an explanation: “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” 

There is a connection between the blood of the innocent and the purifying and cleansing of the guilty sinner. The conscience is provoked to forsake sin and serve God. How does this work? The blood illustrates the severity of our sin by shattering the illusion that it only affects ourselves. When we choose to sin, we inevitably bring harm to others. Blood sacrifices illustrate how our sin contributes in bringing suffering and death into the world, which brings conviction that leads to repentance. We may be ok with taking the consequences of sin upon ourselves, but when we see the collateral damage, we are made to face its ugliness. At the cross we see how the blood of God Himself is shed and His life is taken because our sin’s effects are felt even at the source of all creation.

Counterfeit Blood Sacrifices

If anyone doubts this, consider the number one objection to the blood atonement of Christ: “It’s unjust for an innocent man to die for someone else’s sins.” We all know this, but the Christian recognizes that his or her sins do not exist in a vacuum. God has given us free agency, but our actions profoundly impact the world around us. Our sins stain the world. 

Those who reject the atonement of Christ fail to see the hypocrisy of their own beliefs. Nothing makes this clearer than the abortion of over 60 million children in America. If ever there was a case of innocent life being taken as a covering for sin, it is this. In the name of autonomy and human progress, we have sacrificed our children on an altar to ourselves. And this is the inevitable result of any false system of belief: the innocent will die for the sins of the guilty. Human history is a testament to this fact as hundreds of millions have died for the sake of empires and ideologies that war against the will of the one true God. 

Human Sacrifices Rejected

Some may object: “But what about God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?” (Genesis 22:1-18) Many see this as evidence that the God of Scripture is cruel, bloodthirsty, and unworthy of worship. Yet the whole point of the story was to show quite the opposite. Unlike the false gods of pagan cultures throughout the Old Testament and the entirety of human history, the true God does not require the taking of innocent human life to appease Him. He provided a substitute to Abraham. At the cross He volunteered Himself.

Self-Sacrificial Love

This brings us back to the very identity of God. He is love, and that love is self-sacrificial. As Jesus said to His disciples, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” ‭‭(John‬ ‭15:13‬) Where the world says “let nothing stand in the way of your happiness,” Christ offers His own life for our benefit. To love as He loved is to nail our own lives to the cross and submit to His will. “Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.’” ‭‭(Matthew‬ ‭16:24-25‬) Real love always comes at a cost to the one who gives. Jesus exemplified this at the cross, and He calls us to model that love to others. 

Through the Lens of Healing

It can then be said that the death of Christ serves as a moral example which can be understood through the lens of sacrifice. Yet that sacrifice is best seen through the lens of healing. Often cited in support of penal substitution is the prophecy of Isaiah 53, but there we see further support for healing as the principle that governs the atonement: “But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.” ‭‭(Isaiah‬ ‭53:5‬) Yes, Jesus suffered by the will of the Father. Yet that will was His own, as He is one with the Father. He went willingly, “as a lamb to the slaughter,” (53:7) with the intention of restoring us to His will. “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” (John 12:32) This is the healing of the human condition. 

Looking Forward

But one glaring question remains: How can the death of Christ effectually save the human race? That will be the subject of the next installment, as we discuss “Resurrection.” 

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Making Sense of Christianity 4: The Spiritual War

As I explained last time, the world is tainted by the effects of sin, but each of us are personally guilty of contributing to the mess. Human responsibility lies at the core of what is wrong with the world and why we see so much evil. However, the problem runs much deeper than the physical realm in which we choose to satisfy our skewed physical appetites. Underneath it all, there is a spiritual war for the souls of each and every human being.

Souls with Bodies

Orthodox Christians believe that human beings are not merely physical machines. While we have bodies, we are souls. This dual nature involves the interaction between the two, where the soul affects the body and the body affects the soul. They are not one and the same, but are both needed to live according to God’s design for our lives here on the earth. This dual nature is also reflected in the relationship between the brain and the mind. The two are not the same, but work in concert with each other. How we think and what information we choose to take in impacts the brain, and the condition of the brain impacts our ability to think (ie. brain trauma, Alzheimer’s). The immaterial part of ourselves, which we associate with our “hearts” and minds, is where our core identity resides. I can imagine my soul inhabiting a different body and still being the same person, but if I imagine a different soul inhabiting my body, I intuitively know that such a person would not be “me.” So it is self-evident that I am most essentially a spiritual being. Going back to what we said about the “image of God,” it only makes sense that we are most essentially spiritual in nature because God Himself is an immaterial, spiritual being. As Jesus said, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John‬ ‭4:24‬) Therefore worship of God is not rooted in physical action, but spiritual submission to Him. 

Spiritual Beings

God has created us as spiritual beings who inhabit physical bodies, and God Himself is an immaterial, spiritual being who is not bound by any physical limitations. But are there any other beings that are spiritual in nature? There is some debate among Christians as to whether animals have souls, and I believe they do, though they are not created in the image of God (Ecclesiastes 3:21). If they have souls, then human beings are above them in a hierarchy of beings with God at the top. Yet Scripture teaches us that there are other created beings who are spiritual in nature, but are in at least some ways, superior to human beings (Hebrews 2:9). These are what we call “angels.”

Angels and Demons

Like human beings, it seems that angels possess all the qualities we attribute to the image of God. They are rational, moral beings, possessing the ability to choose to submit to or reject God’s purposes for them. Unlike human beings, they do not possess physical bodies, but seem to have some kind of “spiritual body” which allows them to interact with the physical world, but also inhabit the heavenly realm. Regardless of their relationship with God, their spiritual bodies are not under the curse of death, so it seems that they will go on living forever unless God willfully extinguishes their lives. This is not to say that they have existed for all eternity (only God has), but they were created at some point in the past to dwell in the presence of God. 

Like human beings, all angels were created good, but some of them turned against God in an act of rebellion. It is believed by many Christians that as many as 1/3 of all the angels rebelled against God and were cast out of His presence. The leader of this rebellion is called “Satan” or “the Devil.” Those angels, which we call “demons,” are in a continual state of rebellion, and they are actively working in our world to thwart God’s plans for His creation. When it comes to human beings, that means appealing to fellow moral agents to join their rebellion against our Creator. (See addendum below for my theory on why they rebelled.)

Hope for Humanity 

While the fate of Satan and the host of demons is set, ours is open-ended. We will die a physical death, but the destiny of our souls is a matter to be decided. For the angels, their sin is purely an act of the will. Being in the presence of a perfectly good, holy God and choosing to war against Him is something you don’t return from. There is nothing God can do to show Himself more worthy of their worship and devotion, so their decision is made. However, human beings have not known the fullness of the glory of God, therefore we are capable of seeing Him more clearly (1 Corinthians 13:12). It is possible that those of us in a current state of sinful rebellion could come to know more about who God is, and learn that He is worthy of our love and devotion.

Demonic Strategy

Now we can begin to see the war raging all around us. Demons, though they are motivated by pure hatred of God and not physical desires for sin, know that we have those desires, and can influence us to obey them, knowing that doing so will begin to reshape our affections to be in opposition to God’s will for our lives. Hebrews 3:12-13 says, “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” 

Sin’s Deception

How can sin be deceitful? Going back to what I said earlier, the body and soul are interconnected. What we do with our bodies has an impact on our souls. We can become hardened in unbelief by embracing the desires of our flesh. The demons know that if we indulge ourselves, we will become willing to join their rebellion against God. And this is what we see in Romans 1. “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” ‭‭(Romans‬ ‭1:24-25‬). 

Continuing in this thought from verse 28 onward: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;” (Romans‬ ‭1:28-31‬). 

What we see is a progression from physical disobedience to spiritual hostility. The culmination is in verse 32: “who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” At this stage, the individual has joined forces with Satan and the demonic host in waging war against God by encouraging others to join the rebellion. This is why no Christian can be in the business of calling sin “good.” To do so is “Satanic.”

Like Satan

People often get confused by Christians talking about things being Satanic. The assumption is that we are ascribing an intention in those who practice such things to worship Satan. Some Christians might believe this, but most of us do not. The truth is that what is Satanic (or “demonic”) has nothing to do with any conscious acknowledgment of Satan. An accurate definition would be to say that whatever is like Satan in its willful rebellion against God is Satanic. To live in opposition to God’s stated or teleological purposes is to do as Satan and his demons did. This is Satanic rebellion, and those who are “religious” can be be guilty of it, as Jesus makes clear in John 8:44: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.”

The Great Deceiver

Satan is called “the father of lies,” and sin accompanies those lies. Just as the practice of sin can affect our thinking so that we believe lies to justify our sin, we may also first believe lies and proceed to sin in our flesh on the basis of those false beliefs. Remember, the body is dependent on the mind, and the mind is dependent on the body. This is why it is important to be grounded in the truth and to understand what we believe as Christians and why we believe it. 

How does Satan go about achieving his plan? As Jesus said, he is a liar. Through demonic influence, we are deceived into believing that rejection of God’s will is what is best for us. Consider how this played out in the Garden of Eden: “Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” ‭‭(Genesis‬ ‭3:4-6‬) 

Just as Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 tells us that the serpent who deceived Adam and Even in the garden was Satan, we are also led on the path of sin through the deception of spiritual beings whose influence in the world can lead us to join their rebellion. 1 Peter 5:8 says: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”

Looking Ahead / Catching Up 

Putting all of this together, it would seem that we are in a hopeless situation. We have sinful appetites in our bodies working against us, and we have a whole host of beings more powerful than ourselves who are actively working to deceive and lead us to sin, which itself deceives us into believing the lies that they tell us. It’s a vicious cycle. Yet God has provided a way for us that leads to freedom from sin and death. This way is not dependent on our perfect obedience, for He knows what we are dealing with. This will be made evident next time, as we discuss “Atonement Through Incarnation.” 

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Addendum

The following is my own speculation about why Satan and the demons rebelled against God. Scripture doesn’t give us an answer, so this is my best guess. Take it for what it’s worth. 

I think it could be that Satan resented that God created this world, and particularly that He created human beings in His image. As angels, they had a unique relationship to God as “sons of God” prior to our creation. God’s choice to create lower beings that also bore His image was something Satan found to be beneath Him and defiling to His holiness. As the first to object to God’s plan, Satan found other angels to join him in voicing their disapproval. Lacking trust in His wisdom, and thinking they knew better than the all-knowing, perfectly benevolent God, they sought to turn all of the heavenly host of angelic beings against Him. In response, God banished them from His presence, yet gave them the freedom to influence His created world. God would prove to him that He would succeed in His plan to bring human beings into a loving relationship with Him, and that Satan could try his hardest, but he would still lose. This plan would not only succeed in bringing in many human beings who willfully chose to worship God, but would also succeed in exposing those angels who had enjoyed His presence and worshiped Him in practice, yet did not truly submit to Him as their Lord. 

Now that the demons have been expelled, and certain judgment awaits them, their goal is to make a fool of God and show that His plan failed. They are committed to the task of destroying human flesh by deceiving us into trusting our physical desires above God’s intended design for our lives. Satan desires to annihilate the human race and prove that he was right and God was wrong. But God will win in the end!

Making Sense of Christianity 3: Sin and Death

If there’s one thing everyone can agree upon it is this: the world is not as it should be. While we all see significant problems, we offer vastly different and contradicting solutions to them. Much of our disagreement arises from where we believe the problems originate. The secular world often assigns the blame to external circumstances and accidents of nature, believing that human beings are victims of chance. Those who inflict harm on others do so because others inflicted harm on them, with the blame continually pushed back in an endless chain of prior causes. Christianity offers a different view. Evil exists in our world because we all sin. While each individual cannot change their circumstances, we always have a choice to do what is right or wrong. Therefore, the world is tainted by the effects of sin, but each of us are personally guilty of contributing to the mess. 

What is Sinful about Sin?

While the Christian belief in personal responsibility and the universal sinfulness of the human race is well known, what is not clearly understood by most, including those within the Church, is what makes a sin a sin. Many understand it in terms of “divine command theory.” That is to say, a sin is a sin because God declares it so. The Bible states that such and such behavior, thought, or belief is wrong, therefore it is sin. While God’s commands make it clear to us that such things are sinful, they don’t encompass all of what is sin, especially since Scripture is silent in many areas. While we can apply principles from certain commands to other situations, we cannot always arrive at a clear answer. Perhaps there is a better way to understand sin. I believe that better way is teleology.

Teleology

Teleology is the idea that there is purpose and design in nature. Many of us may be familiar with teleological arguments for a Creator God that show how “fine-tuned” the universe and our planet are to make life possible. We might consider the distance from the earth to the sun, or the strength of the gravitational force, or how we happen to have the water and food we need to survive, as well as the abiltity to reproduce to keep life going. These are a minuscule sampling of the various factors of what is required for us to live and sustain life, and they collectively make a powerful case for the conclusion that this world is not an accident, but the result of an intentional Creator. However, we often fail to make the connection to how we ought to live. If God has fine-tuned the universe for our existence, couldn’t He also have created us with functional purposes in mind? For many, the discussion of teleology stops short at what has been done for us. Doesn’t it also imply what WE should be doing?

Recall what I said in the previous post: “If He (God) IS love, then love is in accordance with what is good, which is in accordance with what is rational, which is in accordance with the will of God. And if this is so, the perfect expression of our love is to be in submission to His will for our lives, and to encourage others to do the same.” From this we can logically infer that sin is that which is not in submission to God’s will, which is ultimately irrational, not good, and unloving. From a teleological perspective, sin is the willful rejection of God’s design for human beings to flourish. Having this framework for our definition of sin helps to bring clarity to the issue. On divine command theory, God’s rules may be arbitrary. Theoretically, He can command us to do things that we know intuitively to be morally wrong. From a teleological perspective, He only commands us to do what is good for us collectively and helps us to function properly in this world. This proper function is based on God’s knowledge of His creation and how it is designed to work. Instead of merely “because God says so,” we want to obey Him because it is good for us to do so. Living according to the purpose for which we are created is the way that we flourish. When we disobey, there are negative consequences for us and for others. 

Another advantage teleology provides is that it helps make sense of sin as a universal problem for humankind. For much of humanity prior to Christ, and continuing today, access to Scripture and the stated commands of God is either forbidden or has yet to be obtained. There are corners of the world where the Gospel has yet to be preached and the Scriptures have yet to be delivered to the people. Are those who have not heard accountable for commands they haven’t received? 

Breaking From the Design

Romans 1:18-32 details the universal sin problem, and shows how sin is not rooted in arbitrary commands, but is associated with rebellion against God’s design for human nature. Those who have not heard the specific commands we find in Scripture still have knowledge of God as revealed in the natural world. They have enough of this knowledge that verses 19-20 says, “what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” What follows is an explanation of how detachment from God-given design and purpose leads to our affections being for created things, and our behaviors deviating from the form and function for which we exist. Verses 26-27 illustrate the degree to which teleology is rejected. “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” The example Paul uses here may trigger our modern sensibilities, but it is a clear example of sin being defined as a break from God’s intended design for human beings. Following desire over design leads to destruction.

God’s Right to Life

Teleology stands in sharp contrast to our culture’s commitment to autonomy. While we value our own right to do whatever we want with our own bodies, God requires that we submit ourselves to His will. Disobedience is disfunction, and it leads us to destruction. While Christians defend the “right to life,” we often fail to see that it is first and foremost God’s right, and it applies to each and every one of us. Our lives belong to God as our Creator and the one who gives us our purpose. We are accountable to Him. He has the right to give us life and the right to take it away. 

The Consequences of Sin

This brings us to the reality of death. As Scripture records in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they brought damage to God’s perfect design. The thing about sin is that it takes root in the body of the sinner and skews its desires, making the sinner prone to keep on sinning. Once that first sin was introduced to the human race, it began a cycle of sin that was then passed on to the children of the first couple as they inherited the fallen flesh of their parents with its sinful appetites. The human body was misaligned with its perfect design, and would be incapable of restoring itself to its original condition. 

To be in unity with God is to be in perfect alignment with His will. We have each “fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and have incurred the penalty of death as the “wages of sin” (Romans 6:23). As God warned Adam and Eve, “in the day you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17).

The Mercy of Death

Through sin, suffering and death were introduced into the world. The “curse” of death is often seen as punishment, but what is often overlooked is the mercy of God. We are told that God set angels at the Gates of Eden to block entry so they would not have access to the tree of life. The lesson here is that it is not God’s will for the human race to exist eternally in a sinful state. Death is required to free us from our fallen condition. But death is not God’s ultimate desire for us. His desire is that we live forever free of sin. We cannot do so in our present state. 

Looking Ahead / Catching Up

We love to do things our own way, and to make matters worse, there are powerful forces at work to lead us down that path. I will turn my attention to those next time as we discuss “The Spiritual War.”

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Making Sense of Christianity 2: Personhood and the Image of God

In the previous post, I made the case that there must be something that has always existed and continues to exist that is the cause of everything else that exists. This is what we mean by “God.” However, I haven’t shown that this God must be anything resembling the personal God of Christianity. Couldn’t it be an inanimate, eternally existing physical substance of some sort that blindly birthed all that has ever come to exist? I’d like to explain how this option won’t work, and that the eternal God must be personal. From there, I will show how this personal God aligns with Christianity and the concept of humans being created in the “image of God.”

Created by Choice

To be eternal is to be changeless, since change is a quality of sequential existence. For an eternal physical substance to suddenly birth the universe would require some change in its condition that precedes that moment. To illustrate this point, imagine a deflated basketball. Without the addition of air into the ball, it will remain deflated. Once it is added, the ball begins to change, and with enough air it will be able to bounce on a hard surface. Its own existence isn’t sufficient to inflate itself and bounce. It needs the addition of air and a hard surface to act on its potential, and it is powerless to do so on its own. So it is with all physical things. Nothing purely physical can go from inactivity to action by itself. So this option won’t work. 

The only other option is something that exists eternally without change in itself that has the capacity to create change. This capacity is what we might refer to as “will” or “intention.” In simpler terms, this boils down to the freedom to choose. Impersonal forces or substances do not have this ability. Only living beings that think can do so. Therefore, at the very least, for anything to exist at all, there must be a mind that willed other things into existence. God is that mind, and all that exists is the result of His choice to create. 

Personhood vs. Instinct

Now, the ability to choose is found in human beings as well as in the animal kingdom, yet we do not consider animals to be persons. So what does it mean to be a person? I would argue that a key distinction is to be found in how choices are made. As humans, we think introspectively and consider the options before us. As philosopher J.P Moreland describes, we have “thoughts about our thoughts.” This distinguishes us from animals that act on instinct and sets us apart from all other living things in the natural world. Animals act purely in response to their environments as their natures dictate. In this sense, their choices are made for them in a system of cause and effect. Humans, by contrast, have the ability to make different choices in the same circumstances. With this comes something significant that animals lack: moral responsibility. We do not think our pet cat is a criminal deserving of punishment if it kills a bird. We do think our neighbor should go to jail if he shoots our cat. This is because he has a choice in how he will respond to it. He could also choose to pet the cat or to simply ignore it. Therefore moral agency is an evident component of personhood. Human beings possess the ability to refrain from doing things that are recognized as morally wrong. We also can do things that are understood to be good. 

A Common Objection

Defining personhood in such a way will inevitably lead to the objection that infants, children in the womb, and those with severe mental disability do not qualify as persons. However, this assumes that personhood is something most people develop in time. It would logically follow then that there is one second when a human being is not a person followed by another where he/she is. Much like the basketball analogy, you have to ask: what is added in that moment to roll one over to personhood? Can non-persons make themselves persons? A better solution is to acknowledge that all human beings are persons from the moment they are conceived, but their capability to express their minds and make moral decisions is inhibited by a lack of experience in the world and/or physical development. The fact that most do shows that humans are born with the potential to express the attributes of personhood, and that is only possible if they are persons to begin with. As a result, personhood is not a matter of degrees. Every human being is equally a person who bear’s God’s image. To be able to ground human value in what God assigns it is a distinct advantage of the Christian worldview.

The Image of God

As the Scriptures teach us, God created man and woman “in the image of God.” Genesis 1:26-27 says, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
‭‭

Having already shown that God is not a physical entity, we can surmise that the image of God is spiritual in nature. Everything I’ve laid out about personhood meets this description. Therefore, we can conclude that God’s image at the very least includes personhood, which entails a rational mind coupled with moral agency. Another aspect is creativity, which is a way humans “image” the Creator. So we see reflecting back at us that bearing the image of God is linked to His own personhood. Therefore, God is not merely a rational mind, but is also a moral agent.

God as the Source

Another way to look at this is to see God as not merely the Creator of all things, but also as the source of all things. What this implies is that nothing can possess an ability that is greater than its source. Humans cannot possess any ability greater than God possesses in Himself. We can’t receive what can’t be given. Since this is true, the fact that human beings are personal requires that God is personal. We couldn’t have obtained personhood if God didn’t have it first to give us. 

Of course, the naturalist will disagree and argue that greater things continually emerge from lesser. From their vantage point, things like consciousness and personhood can and did emerge from physical things that lack them, and the universe (or multiverse) itself at some point was birthed from nothingness. It should be pointed out that if this is true, it is even more miraculous than the intentional act of a supernatural Creator. At least with an eternally existing God, there is always a source that is capable of producing whatever exists in our world. Naturalism logically requires that something (and consequently everything) came from literally nothing.

Why it Matters

The implications of a personal God cannot be overstated. Being personal, we know that He has chosen for this world, and all of us as individuals, to exist. When we consider that God is a rational, moral being, we can conclude that He is the source of rationality and morality. Therefore, all that exists is ordered to His laws of logic, and all persons are subject to His standards of right and wrong. And because God is consistently both rational and moral, we can conclude that His morality is itself rational. As personal beings, we long for connection with others. Therefore, we must have a God who desires connection with other persons. We know that the greatest of all virtues is love, therefore God must highly value love. Perhaps He loves. Perhaps He is love. As 1 John 4:8 says, “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” If He IS love, then love is in accordance with what is good, which is in accordance with what is rational, which is in accordance with the will of God. And if this is so, the perfect expression of our love is to be in submission to His will for our lives, and to encourage others to do the same. 

God in Relationship

As a final note, I’m not intending to present a philosophical defense of the Trinity in these posts. I believe that case is best made from the Scriptures, and would require more space than I can give here. What I will say is that we can reasonably conclude that if our personal God cares about His creation, He is likely to reach out to them to make His presence known to them. One way He can do this is through creation itself, but sometimes He might want to speak more clearly to those He made in His image. Scripture is the work of a God who loves the people He created and desires for them to be in relationship with Him. Christianity teaches that it is written by human beings moved under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore our conclusion that God Himself exists as one being in a tri-personal relationship is one derived through the special revelation of Scripture, but it is consistent with the natural revelation of one personal God.

Looking Ahead / Catching Up

Having laid out a definition of what is good, next time we will turn our attention to what is not: sin & death.

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith