Lord's Day 3

Ursinus' commentary on Lord's Day 3 is extensive, clocking in at 66 pages, and covering topics ranging from original sin, why God allowed the possibility of sin, the types of sin, free will, sin against the Holy Spirit and many other issues. As a theologian Ursinus is establishing foundational concepts that will be the building blocks for furture discussion. This section also includes many of the “objection/answer” segments – a catechism within a catechism. In order to manage the discussion, focus was placed on basic exposition of the three Questions and Answers (6, 7, 8); a section under Q.7 regarding why God permitted sin; and then a lengthy discussion under Q.8 on Free Will.

It was interesting to me that Ursinus asks “But is the plucking of an apple such a great and heinous offence?” He does not get bogged down in dispute over the actual fruit of the forbidden tree, but rhetorically jumps over any petty arguments to the crux of human objection - “No just judge inflicts a great punishment on account of a small offence.” He establishes that this was not just a matter of trying some new and exotic treat – instead, taking the word of the serpent, aspiring not just to be made in the image of God, wanting more, much more – “ your eyes will open and you will be like God.” Adam's own “cogito,ergo sum”, a challenge to the true I AM. As Ursinus notes, “a most aggravated sin—comprehending pride, ingratitude, apostasy, etc.”.

The discussion of “free will” is interesting and helpful in considering that free will does not necessarily preclude restraint. In the section “What Kind of Liberty of Will Has Man; or How Many Degrees of Free-Will Are There, According to Man's Four-Fold State?” Ursinus establishes that free will does exist, but the “state” – 1) pre-fall, 2) post-fall, 3) regenerated, 4) glorified – determines the constraints on human choice. In State 1, there was the ability to choose good or evil; State 2, people can choose but since, by definition, humans are in rebellion to God any choice is evil. State 3, a human, still in “the flesh”, but with a regenerated heart is able to once again experience some ability to choose good over evil; and finally, State 4, in our resurrected, glorified bodies we will never desire anything other than the glory of God.

Discussion Notes: A question: partly related to the question of why God permitted sin, but more generally, a question how we understand the purpose of God in his plan. In discussion of Q. 8 Ursinus considers two reasons for permitting sin – one is to show the weakness of the creature “when left to himself”, and the other is that God “might display his goodness, mercy, and grace, in saving, through Christ, all them that believe; and manifest his justice and power in punishing the wicked and reprobate for their sins.” A typical Reformed formulation is that God does all for his own glory. The pushback on this, correctly, was that God does all things to display his mercy and love. On the face, these ideas, if pushed to their limits, seem opposed to one another – in fact, in our limited human frame and understanding doing something for one's own glory might seem questionable.

Enter the Internet :) It is not hard to find various sides of this discussion. One author expresses this sensitivity to maligning God's character:

My basic argument is that if we were to say that the purpose in God’s creation of humanity is for His own self-glorification without major qualification, I believe that we do damage to God’s character. I want to briefly lay out my reasons why I would not and do not say that God created man to glorify Himself

Another sees this as a Calvinist/Arminian faceoff:

I suggested that at the heart of Calvinist theology is the desire to preserve the glory of God as the sole cause of salvation and that the heart of Arminian theology is the desire to preserve the faithfulness of God to his own relentless love for every one of his creatures.... The fairly standard Calvinist response is that God shows his justice and holiness for the sake of his own glory.... This means – amazingly – that God is more ego-centered than he is other-centered.

In order to parse this question we must be careful to not get off too far in one direction or the other, and it also helps to have further background and scope of understanding to consider additional aspects that affect the discussion. One of these is perichoresis which adds to our understanding of the intra-Trinitarian relationship. The interaction and giving of glory between the three persons of the Trinity gives greater depth and nuance to the idea of God giving glory to himself. This author does a good job of giving a balanced explanation:

Now I want you to consider that when God gave Jesus for our salvation, He sent Him because He loved the world, but His ultimate goal was not our salvation, but the glory of His Son Jesus Christ through our salvation. And when Jesus died for our sins, He died for us, but ultimately He was dying for us because He loved the Father and wanted to obey, please, and glorify Him by laying down His life for the sheep.

The bottom line is that it is difficult to understand many of these things, and it is important to be aware of aspects that affect and interact with one another, careful to keep things in balance and perspective.

Soli Deo Gloria!