Latest / Reformed Thinking / Why Did God Create the World? | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Why Did God Create the World? | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
If I asked you why God created the universe, you would probably
0:03
give a standard Sunday school answer, you know?
0:06
Right, you might say it was for his glory or maybe out of love.
0:09
Yeah, or to share His goodness. But what if I told you that to
0:13
truly answer that question, to actually comprehend the
0:16
mechanics of why the Creator spoke reality into existence,
0:20
you first have to understand why you chose to sit in rush hour
0:23
traffic this morning. It sounds a bit wild.
0:26
I mean connecting those two things.
0:27
It really does. But welcome to reformed
0:30
thinking. We are doing a deep dive today
0:32
into the anatomy of motivation. Yes, and we are going to examine
0:36
a classic, incredibly dense theological text today.
0:40
It is Jonathan Edwards, a dissertation concerning the end
0:43
for which God created the world. Right.
0:45
And specifically, we are focusing on his introduction,
0:49
That is where he sets up his terms and his general positions.
0:52
And well, if you are listening to this and wondering why you
0:55
should care about an 18th century theologians definitions
0:57
of goals and ends, stick with us.
0:59
Absolutely. Yeah, because understanding the
1:02
precise reasons why any agent acts, and specifically the
1:05
precise reasons why God acts, shapes our entire view of
1:09
reality. It shapes our view of Providence
1:11
and your actual place in the universe.
1:13
Spot on. If you can understand the
1:15
mechanics behind a decision, you can understand the final goal of
1:18
the cosmos. It is a phenomenal text, and
1:21
Edwards brings this remarkable clarity to the subject.
1:24
He really does. He approaches theology with a
1:26
rigorous, almost mathematical logic.
1:29
So the goal today is not simply to read a historical document,
1:32
right? We want to parse the precise
1:35
anatomy of motivation and desire.
1:38
Yes, we are going to breakdown how a mind works when it wants
1:41
something. We start with human minds and
1:43
then we move to the divine mind. Because Edwards establishes a
1:46
whole system here, he builds a vocabulary of motivation.
1:49
Right. He recognizes that before we can
1:52
even begin to discuss why God created the universe, we have to
1:55
agree on what a reason or a goal actually is.
1:57
Well. It's so crucial because we use
1:59
words like goal and aim and end very loosely in our everyday
2:02
language. We do, but Edwards refuses to be
2:06
loose. He categorizes every type of
2:08
desire so that when we finally look at the creator, we are
2:12
using the correct tools to comprehend his actions.
2:15
So let us start at the very bottom, right at the base of his
2:17
argument. Sounds good.
2:19
He begins with a ground level distinction.
2:21
Yeah, he separates all goals into two massive categories.
2:24
We have subordinate ends and ultimate ends.
2:27
Let us tackle the subordinate end first.
2:29
OK, so a subordinate end is something an agent aims at, but
2:33
not at all upon its own account. Right.
2:35
It is sought wholly as a means to a further goal.
2:38
And Edwards gives a brilliant simple example for this He asks
2:42
you to imagine a man going on a trip to obtain a medicine to
2:45
cure an illness. Getting that medicine is a
2:47
subordinate end. Why?
2:49
Because he does not value the medicine for its own sake.
2:52
No, the medicine itself might be bitter or expensive or just hard
2:54
to find. Yeah, if you separate the
2:56
medicine from the further goal, which is his health, he does not
2:59
desire that medicine at all. It has 0 intrinsic value to him
3:04
it is purely A stepping stone. And that leads directly to the
3:07
counterpart, right? The ultimate end.
3:09
Yes, an ultimate end is that which the agent seeks for its
3:12
own sake. It is what he loves, what he
3:15
values and what he takes pleasure in on its own account,
3:18
not only as a means to a further goal.
3:21
Edwards uses the example of eating fruit here.
3:24
Right. A man loves the taste of a
3:25
particular sort of fruit. So he will go to great pains and
3:28
cost to obtain it, purely for the pleasure of the taste.
3:31
Well, he values that pleasure on its own account.
3:34
He loves the pleasure, and he's not eating the fruit simply for
3:37
the sake of some other good. The taste is the final stop.
3:41
What is so fascinating here is how Edwards separates actions
3:45
from intrinsic value. I mean, we do many things in
3:48
life that we do not actually. Like all the time, we endure
3:51
them simply to get to a point where we experience something we
3:54
do value for its own sake. We subject ourselves to
3:56
discomfort, labor, expense, all is subordinate means.
4:00
Right. Just to finally arrive at an
4:02
ultimate end where our desire terminates and rests.
4:05
That concept of desire terminating and resting is key.
4:09
It really is. Edwards points out that these
4:12
stepping stones can form a massive chain.
4:14
He outlines A literal chain of ends to show how far this goes.
4:19
Let us walk through that. So a man sells a garment to get
4:24
money. And he uses the money to buy
4:26
tools. Right, he uses the tools to till
4:29
his land. He tills the land to obtain a
4:31
crop. He gets the crop to supply
4:33
himself with food. And he makes the food to gratify
4:36
his appetite. That gratification of the
4:37
appetite is the ultimate end. Every single step before it was
4:41
subordinate. It is so much like looking at
4:43
modern life. I mean, think about your average
4:45
Tuesday. Oh yeah, you sit in miserable
4:47
bumper to bumper traffic on the highway.
4:49
That is a subordinate end. Yeah, You do not love traffic
4:53
for its own sake. Definitely not.
4:54
You sit in traffic to arrive at a grey off office building.
4:58
And you go to the office to work on a tedious mind numbing
5:01
spreadsheet. You work on the spreadsheet to
5:02
get a paycheck. Right, you use the paycheck to
5:05
buy groceries. And you buy the groceries so you
5:07
can host a backyard BBQ with your friends on Saturday
5:10
afternoon. Sitting in traffic and working
5:12
on spreadsheets have no intrinsic value to you.
5:15
If you remove the barbecue and the fellowship from the
5:18
equation, you would never choose the traffic.
5:20
The BBQ is the ultimate end where your desire rests.
5:24
And if we look at how that operates in real time, you can
5:26
see how Edwards is building a framework for all human
5:29
behavior. Yeah, he notes that an end can
5:31
actually be both subordinate and ultimate at the same time.
5:35
He gives the example of seeking a persons love and respect.
5:39
You might seek their friendship partly on its own account, right
5:42
because it is pleasant to be loved by someone.
5:45
In that sense, it is an ultimate end.
5:46
But you might also seek their friendship because you hope they
5:49
will assist you in your business affairs later on.
5:52
And in that sense, it is a subordinate end, a stepping
5:55
stone to financial gain. This shows the intricate nature
5:58
of human motivation. We really layer our desires.
6:01
We do, but establishing that we want things for their own sakes
6:05
creates an immediate problem. Because human beings are
6:08
complicated, What happens when 2 ultimate goals collide?
6:12
How do we decide which one wins? Right, Edwards realized he could
6:16
not just define an ultimate end. He had to build a hierarchy.
6:21
That moves our conversation from the types of ends to the actual
6:25
hierarchy of ends. So Edwards introduces another
6:28
pair of terms here. We have established what an
6:30
ultimate end is. It is something sought for its
6:33
own sake. But Edwards says that two goals
6:36
can both be ultimate and yet not be equal.
6:39
One can be the chief end and the other an inferior end.
6:43
The chief end is the one most valued and most sought after by
6:46
the agent. To illustrate this, Edwards uses
6:48
a striking example from the 18th century.
6:51
Imagine a man traveling to obtain two different benefits.
6:54
First, he's traveling to obtain the possession and enjoyment of
6:57
a bride who is very dear to him. Second, he is traveling to look
7:00
through a newly invented optic glass, a telescope to gratify
7:04
his curiosity. Now he desires both of these
7:07
things for their own sakes. He does not want the bride just
7:09
to get the telescope. And he does not want the
7:11
telescope just to get the bride. Right, there are both ultimate
7:14
ends, but one is vastly superior to the other.
7:18
Obtaining his beloved bride is his chief end.
7:20
Looking through the telescope is his inferior end.
7:24
They're both final goals, but they carry completely different
7:26
weights. And this is where Edwards
7:28
introduces A fascinating logical wrinkle.
7:31
He asks the question that pushes against our basic assumptions.
7:34
He asks, can a stepping stone, a subordinate end, be valued more
7:40
highly than an actual final ultimate end?
7:43
The instinct is to say no. The final goal should always be
7:47
the most valuable. But Edwards says yes, it
7:50
happened all the time. He uses the sum of money example
7:53
to prove it. Imagine a man traveling to
7:55
accomplish 2 things. First, he wants to visit some
7:58
friends. Second, he wants to receive a
8:00
massive sum of money. The money is a subordinate end.
8:02
He only wants it for the pleasure and honor it will buy
8:05
him later. Seeing his friends is an
8:07
ultimate end. He wants to see them for the
8:09
sake of the visit itself. However, obtaining the massive
8:12
sum of money might be far more valued by the man than the
8:15
pleasure of seeing his friends. The stepping stone to honor is
8:18
valued far higher than the final goal of a friend.
8:22
Wait, let me stop you there because my brain is snagging on
8:24
this. Sure, let us unpack it.
8:26
If the visit with friends is an ultimate end and the money is
8:29
just a subordinate end, how can the money be valued more?
8:33
It is a great question. Does not the final payoff always
8:36
have to be higher? I am trying to map this onto
8:39
everyday life and it feels counterintuitive.
8:42
That is precisely what I thought when I first read it.
8:44
It feels backwards. Yeah, completely backwards.
8:46
But Edwards points out that we are comparing 2 completely
8:50
different tracks of desire. OK, two separate tracks.
8:52
Right. The man has one track of desire
8:54
pointing toward his friends. And he has another, separate
8:57
track of desire, pointing toward honor and comfort.
9:00
Yes, and the money is simply a step on that second track.
9:04
Because the final goal of that second track, the honor and
9:07
comfort, is so massive, the stepping stone leading to it
9:10
carries immense value. It carries more value than the
9:13
entirety of the first track. Our motivations are not flat.
9:16
Not at all. We have massive, towering,
9:19
subordinate goals that cast shadows over our smaller
9:23
ultimate goals. I see.
9:25
So it is about the destination the stepping stone is pointing
9:28
toward. That makes perfect sense.
9:30
But Edwards establishes A strict rule here to keep the logic
9:34
intact. A.
9:34
Subordinate end is never valued more than the specific ultimate
9:39
end it points toward. You can value the money more
9:42
than the visit with your friends.
9:43
But you cannot value the money more than the honor and pleasure
9:47
of the money is supposed to buy. Probably be absurd.
9:49
It would mean you value the means more than the end it is
9:53
meant to achieve, which contradicts the very definition
9:56
of a means. So the rule is firm.
9:58
A subordinate end is never valued more than its own
10:01
specific ultimate end. But that raises another
10:04
question. Are the means and the end ever
10:07
valued equally? Is a stepping stone ever given
10:10
the identical weight as the final goal?
10:12
Edwards addresses this directly and he says yes, but it is a
10:15
very rare exception. This rare exception is crucial
10:19
for setting up his later arguments about God.
10:21
Edwards explains that an ultimate end is always superior
10:24
to its subordinate end, unless the ultimate end depends
10:27
entirely on one single uncompounded means.
10:30
To explain this, he tells a highly specific, somewhat quirky
10:33
historical anecdote. He asks you to imagine a
10:36
pregnant woman who has a strong craving, a peculiar appetite for
10:40
a certain rare fruit. This specific fruit can only be
10:44
found in the garden of a particular friend who lives far
10:47
away. So she goes on a trip to her
10:49
friends house to obtain that fruit.
10:51
The ultimate end is gratifying her strong appetite.
10:54
The subordinate end is obtaining the fruit.
10:57
Edwards argues that if she believes her appetite can be
11:00
gratified by no other means than obtaining that specific fruit,
11:04
and that it will certainly be gratified if she gets it, then
11:07
she will value the fruit identically as much as she
11:10
values the gratification of her appetite.
11:12
Let me push back on this because I want to see if we can break
11:14
Edwards logic here. Go for it.
11:16
If the fruit is simply a physical object, a stepping
11:20
stone to the chemical sensation of gratification in her brain,
11:23
how can she value the object identically to the sensation?
11:26
It is a fairpoint to raise. What if she arrives at the
11:29
garden and the friend offers her a different fruit that is just
11:33
as sweet? Or what if she just wants an
11:34
excuse to take a trip and the fruit is a convenient reason to
11:38
leave the house? Those are the exact objections
11:40
Edwards anticipates. He puts incredibly specific
11:44
boundaries around this thought experiment.
11:46
If she just wants a vacation, then the fruit is no longer the
11:49
sole means to her end. The travel itself is part of the
11:52
end. Right, and if she accepts a
11:54
different sweet fruit, then her desire was not for that specific
11:57
rare fruit, but for sweetness in general.
11:59
Meaning there are multiple means to her end.
12:02
Edwards argues that if and only if that specific rare fruit is
12:08
the singular, absolute only way to satisfy the craving, the
12:12
means and the end carry the identical weight in her mind.
12:16
So it is an all or nothing scenario.
12:18
Yes, and Edwards adds further conditions to seal the logic.
12:21
If she's doubtful whether the fruit will actually satisfy her
12:24
craving, she will not value the fruit equally with the
12:27
gratification. Or if her appetite requires that
12:29
rare fruit, but also requires other ingredients to be mixed
12:32
with it to create a specific dish, then her value for her
12:36
final goal is divided among all those several ingredients.
12:39
No single ingredient will be valued equally with the final
12:42
gratification. The math only works if it is one
12:45
perfect singular means leading to 1 perfect singular end.
12:50
If you are listening to this and thinking well this feels like a
12:52
massive logic puzzle, you are right.
12:55
Edwards is essentially doing mathematical proofs with human
12:58
desire. But why does he spend so much
13:00
time on this bizarre example? What is the actual point he is
13:04
trying to make for us? He is proving a point about
13:06
human limitation. He explains that it rarely
13:08
happens that a subordinate end is equally valued with its final
13:12
end. Because obtaining a final goal
13:14
rarely depends on one single infallible stepping stone.
13:18
Human desires are messy. We need multiple ingredients,
13:22
multiple conditions. And we are often doubtful if our
13:24
plans will even work. Because our means are fractured,
13:27
uncertain, and prone to failure, our final goals remain supreme
13:31
in our minds. Therefore, human final goals are
13:33
commonly our highest goals. He is meticulously establishing
13:37
the supremacy of final goals. This is all a massive setup for
13:40
how we must view a perfect beings goals.
13:42
If a perfect being has a single supreme goal and uses perfect
13:48
infallible means to achieve it, how does that framework operate?
13:52
We have mapped out the intricate mechanics of human motivation,
13:56
but humans are fragile. Now we shift the focus to the
14:00
creator of the universe, who is not fragile at all.
14:04
This is where we get into the theological heavy lifting.
14:06
We are moving from human psychology to the mind of God.
14:10
Edwards outlines a massive distinction here, the difference
14:13
between original ends and consequential ends.
14:15
This is the turning point in understanding God's actions.
14:18
An original end is something valued on its own account,
14:21
completely independent of all conditions or any supposition of
14:24
particular circumstances. It is a desire that exists in a
14:27
vacuum. A consequential end is something
14:29
valued for its own sake, but only after certain circumstances
14:33
have come into existence. To make this clear, Edwards
14:35
gives us the family man analogy. The family man analogy is
14:38
brilliant. Edwards says to imagine a man
14:41
who natively loves society. An inclination for fellowship is
14:44
planted in his very nature. This love for society is
14:48
antecedent, meaning it comes before any particular
14:51
circumstances exist. This original love for society
14:54
causes him to seek a family. The comfort of society is his
14:57
original final goal. But once he actually has a
15:00
family, new desires emerge. He now desires peace, good order
15:04
and mutual justice within his household.
15:06
He delights in those things for their own sake.
15:09
They are final goals in the daily management of his house.
15:12
But they were not his original end.
15:14
He did not seek a family just so he could enforce rules.
15:17
The justice and peace of the family became a goal,
15:19
consequentially. They depend entirely on the
15:22
family existing in the first place.
15:23
Let us apply this directly to God, relying on our shared
15:27
Reformed theology framework. We adhere to the Westminster
15:30
Confession, which teaches that God is completely
15:33
self-sufficient. This is the doctrine of a seity.
15:36
He lacks nothing. He's not lonely, he does not
15:39
need a cheering section. So before creation, before a
15:42
single star or Adam existed, what was God's original goal?
15:46
What inclination moved him to create the universe?
15:49
After creation, we know God desires justice.
15:52
He desires to fulfill his promises to his creatures.
15:55
The. Scriptures are full of.
15:56
This. But Edwards is pointing out that
15:58
those desires are consequential. God's love of doing justly to
16:02
intelligent beings was not what originally induced him to create
16:06
the world. That completely shifts how we
16:09
you God's justice. The justice of God's nature
16:13
makes it just regulation agreeable, but there must be
16:16
subjects to regulate first. Think about the philosophical
16:19
nightmare that occurs if we get this wrong.
16:22
If God created the universe because he needed someone to be
16:25
just toward, then God is dependent on us to actualize his
16:29
own character. He would be incomplete without a
16:31
universe to manage. Edwards annihilates that idea.
16:34
As Edwards argues, the perfection we call God's
16:37
faithfulness, his inclination to fulfill his promises, could not
16:40
properly be what moved him to create the world.
16:43
You cannot fulfill a promise to a creature that does not exist.
16:46
The faithfulness of God is a consequential goal.
16:48
Once the world is created and God has bound himself by promise
16:52
to His creatures, then His faithfulness moves him in His
16:56
providential actions towards them.
16:58
Exercising his faithfulness is a final goal in a lower sense,
17:02
because God delights in truth for its own sake.
17:05
But it was not the original ultimate end of creation.
17:08
This protects God's self-sufficiency perfectly.
17:11
God did not create the universe because he was a lonely judge
17:14
who lacked A courtroom to enforce his rulings.
17:17
His justice and faithfulness are consequential goals.
17:21
They are reactions to the existence of the universe.
17:23
There must be an original independent goal that caused him
17:26
to create everything to begin with.
17:28
An original ultimate end. Edwards states that this
17:31
original, ultimate end of creation is the only thing that
17:34
induces God to give the occasion for consequential ends.
17:37
It is the root cause of everything.
17:39
And this brings us to a massive structural point in Edwards
17:42
logic. He states that the more original
17:43
the end is, the more extensive and universal it is.
17:46
That which God had primarily in view in creating the world must
17:50
be constantly kept in view. It must have a governing
17:53
influence in all of God's works. It governs everything he does
17:57
towards his creatures. We have two sorts of final
17:59
goals, original and consequential.
18:02
When we speak of God's final goal in the creation of the
18:05
world, we are talking about that highest, original, independent
18:10
sense. The reason that existed before
18:13
time began. If God has an original,
18:16
independent reason for creating the universe, does that reason
18:19
still matter for you today? Edwards connects the original
18:23
act of creation to the ongoing timeline of history.
18:26
He says that the original goal of creation is the most
18:28
extensive and universal goal governing all of God's
18:32
subsequent works in Providence. Providence, in our Reformed
18:35
understanding, is how God sustains, directs, and governs
18:39
all creatures and actions. So I have a question to posed to
18:42
you. Sure, what is it?
18:43
Does this mean that the overarching use God makes of the
18:46
world right now is identical to the reason he designed designed
18:49
it in the first place? It does.
18:50
Edwards uses airtight logic here.
18:52
He states that whatever appears to be God's final goal in his
18:56
works of Providence in general, that must be the final goal of
19:00
the work of creation itself. God's works of Providence in
19:03
general are the identical thing as the general use to which He
19:06
puts the world He has made. You can look at the general
19:09
trajectory as how the universe operates to deduce the reason it
19:13
was made. You can argue from the general
19:14
use God makes of the world backward to the general end for
19:18
which he designed it. He is not operating on two
19:21
different blueprints. The blueprint of creation and
19:23
the blueprint of daily Providence are identical.
19:26
Let us expand on that, because it is easy to look at the world
19:29
and see isolated events that do not seem to fit a grand,
19:33
singular blueprint. Edwards admits that God might
19:36
have certain goals, in particular emergent
19:38
circumstances, that are not the original goal of creation.
19:41
In isolated instances, God acts to fulfill a consequential goal,
19:45
like delivering a specific judgment or fulfilling a
19:47
specific promise to a specific person.
19:50
But if we are looking at the use of the world in general, the
19:52
vast sweep of history and reality, the final goal does not
19:56
depend on particular cases. It depends on the nature of
19:59
things in general and God's general design in the
20:01
constitution of the universe. This completely affirms the
20:04
Westminster Confessions view of a sovereign God.
20:07
God is not reacting to unforeseen circumstances.
20:10
He is not making things up as he goes along, adjusting his final
20:13
goals because human beings surprised him with their
20:16
choices. There is one supreme original
20:20
goal. Edwards will argue in the rest
20:22
of his dissertation that this original goal is God's own
20:25
glory. For our purposes in this
20:27
introduction, the vital take away is the structure itself.
20:31
Every single act of Providence, every event in history, every
20:34
physical law of nature is either a ordinate stepping stone or a
20:39
consequential action moving toward that singular, supreme,
20:42
original goal. That brings incredible weight to
20:45
everyday life. Edwards concludes his
20:47
introduction by saying that if there is but one thing that is
20:49
originally agreeable to God, independent of any future
20:52
supposed cases, then there can be but one last end of God's
20:56
work in this highest sense. One supreme peak that everything
21:00
else points toward. We have covered a massive amount
21:02
of ground today on reformed thinking.
21:04
We started with a basic question about the anatomy of a decision,
21:07
looking at the difference between the bitter medicine we
21:10
tolerate and the sweet fruit we crave.
21:12
We moved through the complicated hierarchy of human desires where
21:16
towering subordinate goals can over shadow our smaller ultimate
21:20
goals. We wrestled with a rare
21:22
exception of the single perfect means, which proved just how
21:26
fractured and fragile human planning truly is.
21:29
And that fragility set up the perfect contrast for
21:31
understanding the God of the Westminster Confession.
21:34
A God who is entirely self-sufficient, lacking
21:37
nothing, who did not create the universe out of loneliness or
21:40
need. We saw how God's justice and
21:43
faithfulness, while glorious, are consequential reactions to
21:47
the existence of His creatures. They are the rules of the house,
21:50
but they are not the reason the house was built.
21:52
The reason the house was built, the original independent motive
21:55
for creation, is the singular force that governs every single
21:59
act of Providence in history. The blueprint of creation and
22:02
the blueprint of Providence are one in the same.
22:04
Which leaves us with a closing consideration for you to Mull
22:08
over this week. We have spent this deep dive
22:11
analyzing the mechanics of goals ends in stepping stones.
22:14
We have looked at how a perfect God governs the cosmos with
22:17
absolute precision, aiming all of history toward one supreme,
22:22
original goal. Think about your own life this
22:24
week. Think about the traffic jams,
22:26
the tedious spreadsheets, the unexpected delays, and the
22:29
moments of intense frustration. If God's original reason for
22:33
creating the universe is the identical reason governing His
22:36
daily Providence today, how does that shift your perspective on
22:40
those random, seemingly disconnected events you
22:42
experience? In a universe governed by the
22:45
God of the Westminster Confession, operating under the
22:47
precise logic Edwards has outlined, there are no wasted
22:51
stepping stones. Every single subordinate end in
22:53
your life is being governed by a Creator who is moving all things
22:57
toward a supreme, ultimate end. If there is a chief end
23:01
governing the cosmos, nothing is random.
23:03
Thank you for joining us for this deep dive on reformed
23:05
thinking. We will see you next time.