Is God Obligated to His Creation?

[micah4]

Jonathan Edwards, in defending Calvinism against the charge that it makes God the author of evil, has said this:

...sin is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the Most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action and energy...

and further:

...men never commit sin, but only when God leaves them to themselves, and necessarily sin when he does so...

So my question is, if men "necessarily" sin when God leaves them alone or "witholds his energy", then wouldn't the decision to create man create a corresponding obligation to provide this energy, and not "leave men to themselves?"

Edwards attempts to remove God from the picture by affirming that sin is not a fruit of his "positive agency", but certainly the existence of men arises as a a positive act of God's agency.

Is it not true that certain actions necessarily entail corresponding obligations? Traditionally theologians (especially reformed) have resisted the idea that God should be obligated to anything- but in this case, it would be an obligation which God voluntarily takes on.

Certainly when parents decide to reproduce and bring children into the world, this necessarily entails certain obligations to care for their offspring. This obligation is voluntarily assumed by the parents in the decision to create. Why would God's decision to create beings which cannot rightly care for themselves apart from his aid not entail a similar obligation to care for that which he has created?

It would seem to me that even if Edward's position removed God from being the "author" of sin it would still leave him a negligent parent.

[seer]

Jonathan Edwards, in defending Calvinism against the charge that it makes God the author of evil, has said this:



and further:



So my question is, if men "necessarily" sin when God leaves them alone or "witholds his energy", then wouldn't the decision to create man create a corresponding obligation to provide this energy, and not "leave men to themselves?"

Edwards attempts to remove God from the picture by affirming that sin is not a fruit of his "positive agency", but certainly the existence of men arises as a a positive act of God's agency.

Is it not true that certain actions necessarily entail corresponding obligations? Traditionally theologians (especially reformed) have resisted the idea that God should be obligated to anything- but in this case, it would be an obligation which God voluntarily takes on.

Certainly when parents decide to reproduce and bring children into the world, this necessarily entails certain obligations to care for their offspring. This obligation is voluntarily assumed by the parents in the decision to create. Why would God's decision to create beings which cannot rightly care for themselves apart from his aid not entail a similar obligation to care for that which he has created?

It would seem to me that even if Edward's position removed God from being the "author" of sin it would still leave him a negligent parent.

One has to wonder. I asked this in a different way a while back - do we deserve God's love. Using the parent and child model.

BTW I recently attended a wedding in the Church that Edwards was schooled in as a child. It's not far from here... pretty cool...

[Sparko]

I would say that God doesn't leave us alone, we leave HIM alone. We reject him and his love and therefore we sin. Actually that IS what sin is.

God does not OWE us anything, since we are the ones who rebell against him. He would be perfectly justified in wiping the slate clean and starting over. That he hasn't done that and instead has sent Jesus to pay for our sins, is an act of Love and Mercy. Mercy is not obligated.

[semmie]

I would say that God doesn't leave us alone, we leave HIM alone. We reject him and his love and therefore we sin. Actually that IS what sin is.

God does not OWE us anything, since we are the ones who rebell against him. He would be perfectly justified in wiping the slate clean and starting over. That he hasn't done that and instead has sent Jesus to pay for our sins, is an act of Love and Mercy. Mercy is not obligated.

i would agree. but it assumes lfw, no? if you reject lfw, then you are left with one option (that i can see, anyway), and that is: god leaves us alone (or as edwards puts it, the withholding of god's action/energy).

It would seem to me that even if Edward's position removed God from being the "author" of sin it would still leave him a negligent parent.

it would seem so.

any calvinists offering some insight on this?

[micah4]

I would say that God doesn't leave us alone, we leave HIM alone. We reject him and his love and therefore we sin. Actually that IS what sin is.

I tend to agree with this; we sin when we act apart from God. This seems like the whole problem with Edward's 'explanation'; he has man 'sinning' by acting apart from God, and yet under his model it was God that withdrew first.

God does not OWE us anything, since we are the ones who rebell against him.

Possibly it is true that in light our rebellion we forfeit any claim upon God's providence.

But the question here concerns man even before the fall, before his rebellion. I think most people agree that a human parent is obligated to their children, because they made a choice to bring them into existence knowing that an infant can not care for itself, and needs a caretaker. It seems reasonable that if God knows that humans could not do rightly on their own, but needed him to provide for them, that in his decision to create he has assumed an obligation similar to that which is assumed by a human parent in their decision to create a new life. Even if I take in a pet, a cat or a dog, I assume an obligation to care for that animal. Are our lives of less value than an animal?

Apart from the parent/child model, there are many other examples. Anytime I initiate events which are potentially hazardous- for example, driving a car down the highway; I assume a certain obligation to watch over those events which I have initiated.

I can't escape responsibility for allowing a crash to occur which kills somebody by saying "hey, I didn't exercise any 'positive agency' to cause the car crash; I just took my hands off the wheel, and the car crashed on it's own!".

It seems to me this is what Edwards would do to deny God's responsibility under the Calvinist model. God has initiated events which would necessarily result in the devastation of man through sin, and Edwards answer is "hey, God didn't 'actively' crash the car, he just took his hands off the wheel!" Initiating certain states of affairs often carries a corresponding continuing obligation to responsibly oversee the situation which one has created.

He would be perfectly justified in wiping the slate clean and starting over. That he hasn't done that and instead has sent Jesus to pay for our sins, is an act of Love and Mercy. Mercy is not obligated.

Mercy couldn't an obligation, but before the fall there was no judgment of justice and therefore no situation requiring mercy (at least in the sense of mitigating judgment).