Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Love That Defines True Virtue: God and Created Things in Right Order | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

The Love That Defines True Virtue: God and Created Things in Right Order | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Usually when we measure a good person, you know, we look
0:01
horizontally, we check the visible Ledger.
0:04
Right, the everyday actions. Yeah, we ask ourselves, did you
0:07
hold the door for a stranger today?
0:09
Or did you donate a percentage of your paycheck to a local food
0:12
bank? Spot on.
0:14
Do you avoid telling lies? The actions are clear and
0:18
society points to that horizontal Ledger and says,
0:20
well, there it is. That is what goodness looks like
0:23
it. Is very neat controllable
0:24
system. It is, but today's source
0:26
material takes that entire horizontal Ledger and basically
0:31
sets it on fire. It really does.
0:33
Welcome to Reformed thinking. I am so thrilled you're pulling
0:37
up a chair to be the third person in the room with us
0:39
today. We are glad you're here.
0:40
We are taking a deep dive into some staggering excerpts from
0:44
Jonathan Edwards essay, The Nature of True Virtue.
0:47
And this text is, well, it is heavy.
0:50
It is incredibly heavy. So our mission today is very
0:53
specific. We are figuring out what true
0:55
goodness actually is according to this text, and why our
0:59
conventional everyday conditions of being a good person just fall
1:03
completely short of actual goodness.
1:05
The logical progression here demands your absolute focus.
1:09
I mean it takes concepts we assume we understand, like love,
1:12
goodness and virtue and redefines them.
1:15
Redefines them completely. Yeah, using an incredibly
1:17
rigorous, almost geometric set of proofs, we are dealing with
1:21
an author who looks at morality not as the least of nice
1:27
behaviors. Not at all.
1:28
Right, but as an objective alignment with the structural
1:31
reality of the universe. And that framework totally flips
1:34
modern sensibilities upside down.
1:36
I mean, it is a shock to the system, definitely.
1:39
So let us get straight into the architecture of this argument.
1:42
If we want to know what virtue is, the author anchors his whole
1:45
philosophy on one massive, undeniable assertion.
1:48
The core of it all, yeah. He says that true virtue at its
1:51
core consists chiefly in love to God.
1:54
But he does not just demand we accept that client.
1:56
No, he builds a math case. He builds it based on what he
1:59
calls the primary ground of virtuous love.
2:02
And this primary ground is what he calls being simply
2:06
considered. Being simply considered, let us
2:09
slow down and look at the mechanics of that phrase.
2:12
What does the text mean by being with a capital B?
2:15
Well, in this framework, being frame refers to existence
2:20
itself. OK, And the key is that the
2:22
author treats existence as a quantifiable reality.
2:25
It is a volume. Like it takes up space, yeah.
2:28
Every single thing that exists has a specific share of
2:31
existence. You have a share of existence
2:34
the. Chair you were sitting on has a
2:35
share. Right, and the entire Milky Way
2:37
Galaxy has a massive share. OK, hold on.
2:39
Let me see if I have the mechanics of this right.
2:41
Think about gravity, OK? I'll like where this is going.
2:43
Massive objects have greater gravitational pull.
2:47
Jupiter has more pull than Earth, sure.
2:49
The Sun has more pull than Jupiter.
2:51
So if existence is a quantifiable reality, it acts
2:54
like mass? Yes, And our love, our
2:56
benevolence is the gravity that naturally pulls toward mass.
3:00
That is the precise mechanism the text argues that that
3:03
virtuous love or benevolence it must be proportioned to the
3:07
amount of being something possesses.
3:09
So it is a direct ratio. It is if virtue is having a
3:13
favorable disposition toward existence, then the logical
3:17
inescapable consequence is that the being who has the greatest
3:22
share of universal existence deserves the greatest share of
3:26
virtuous benevolence. Because God has infinite
3:29
existence. Infinite mass, to use your
3:31
analogy. Right, infinite mass.
3:33
So he should command all the moral gravity in the room.
3:36
Here is where the math gets terrifying.
3:39
For a normal human being. The text says God has infinitely
3:43
the greatest share of existence, infinite.
3:45
And because his share is infinite, all other being, even
3:48
the entire universe combined is as nothing in comparison.
3:52
The mathematics of virtue are absolute here.
3:55
I mean, if you are supposed to distribute your love and
3:57
benevolence in proportion to the amount of existence something
4:00
has, and God's existence is infinite, well then any any
4:03
moral system that prioritizes the finite universe over the
4:06
infinite God is a mathematical failure.
4:08
It is a broken equation. It is a complete violation of
4:11
the physics of this moral universe.
4:13
I'm trying to wrap my head around the scale of this.
4:15
Let us try a corporate analogy, OK?
4:17
Let us hear it. Say you have a business where
4:19
one partner owns 99.9% of the shares and another partner owns
4:24
point 1%. It would be absurd to give all
4:27
your attention, your loyalty and your resources to the minority
4:30
shareholder. You would be fired for gross
4:32
negligence. Exactly.
4:34
I mean spot on, but even that analogy feels too small.
4:37
It is too small. You are on the right track, but
4:40
you aren't thinking big enough. How so?
4:42
It is not 99.9% to .1%, it is Infinity to a finite number.
4:48
Oh wow. Yeah, it is more like a partner
4:50
who owns the entire company, the building, the land it sits on,
4:54
the atmosphere above it, and the very concept of commerce itself.
4:58
Compared to what? Compared to a partner who owns a
5:01
single rusty paper clip. A paper clip.
5:04
Right, giving your primary loyalty to the paper clip owner
5:06
is not just poor management. He's insane.
5:09
He's a fundamental break with reality.
5:11
So if the entire universe is as nothing compared to the divine
5:14
Deing, how does this reframe your daily physical world?
5:18
It changes everything. I mean if I am walking outside,
5:21
looking at a beautiful mountain range or looking at my own
5:23
house, the text says the existence of those things is
5:27
basically 0 compared to God. Yes.
5:30
I feel like that should paralyze me.
5:32
Well, it doesn't paralyze you, but it reorients you.
5:35
How do you mean? It completely reframes how we
5:37
value our surroundings. When you walk outside and look
5:40
at the stars, the natural human inclination is to be awed by the
5:45
sheer size of the cosmos. Right, we feel incredibly small.
5:49
But this text argues that being awed by the universe while
5:52
ignoring the creator is a total failure of perspective.
5:56
The universe is a drop in the bucket.
5:58
So true virtue requires acknowledging the bucket, the
6:01
water, and the one holding it all.
6:03
Yes, you can still appreciate the mountain, but you cannot
6:06
give the mountain the moral gravity that belongs to the one
6:09
who spoke the mountain into existence.
6:11
But it is not just about the sheer volume or amount of
6:13
existence, is it? No, it is not.
6:15
The text moves from the amount of being to the quality of it,
6:19
and that shifts the conversation to what the author calls the
6:21
secondary ground of virtuous love.
6:24
Right, so the primary ground is being simply considered, which
6:28
is existence itself. The volume, yes.
6:31
The secondary ground is moral Excellency or beauty.
6:34
Beauty. The text outlines this secondary
6:37
ground by stating that God is infinitely the most beautiful
6:40
and excellent being infinitely and it makes a fascinating claim
6:44
about the nature of beauty in the world.
6:46
It says all the beauty to be found throughout the whole
6:48
creation is just a reflection of His diffused beams.
6:52
Diffused beams. God is the fountain, He is the
6:54
sun, and everything else is just the daylight.
6:57
The absolute distinction between the source of beauty and the
7:00
reflection of beauty is critical here.
7:02
Break. That down for us.
7:03
The text asserts that God's beauty is infinitely more
7:06
valuable than that of all other beings for two specific reasons.
7:10
OK, what are they? 1st the degree of his virtue,
7:13
and 2nd, the greatness of his being, which we just
7:16
established. The infinite mass.
7:18
Right, because he has the most existence and the highest degree
7:21
of virtue. He's the fountain of all beauty.
7:24
Let us expand on that sunbeam idea.
7:26
Because we as humans, we treat beauty like a standalone object.
7:31
We really do. We look at a painting or a
7:33
sunset or a kind act, and we think the beauty originates
7:37
right there in the object. But beauty in this framework is
7:41
more like a frequency. Oh, I like that.
7:43
Yeah, God is the broadcaster. Creation is just the receiver.
7:47
So when we love creation without God, we are basically staring at
7:51
a radio speaker and praising the plastic box for the music.
7:54
We think the plastic box is the source.
7:56
That is hilarious but sad. That is the core human dilemma.
8:00
The text tells us that God has sufficiently exhibited himself.
8:04
He's given us faculties to plainly discover his immense
8:08
superiority. We can hear the music.
8:10
We are capable of seeing that he is the broadcaster, yet we
8:14
constantly fixate on the receiver.
8:16
We look at the moral beauty in another human being and we stop
8:19
right there. We treat the reflection as if it
8:21
were the source. We do.
8:22
We hug the radio. We hug the radio, and by
8:25
focusing strictly on the text assertion, God is defined as the
8:29
head of the universal system. He is the fountain.
8:32
The sum and comprehension of all existence and excellence.
8:35
Yes, when we elevate a created thing which is just a diffuse
8:40
beam or plastic radio to the level of the fountain, we are
8:43
rejecting the true order of the universe.
8:46
So a proper view of nature or art or human achievement
8:50
according to this framework, is that they are mirrors.
8:52
Just mirrors. They are valuable only in so far
8:55
as they reflect the divine. They have no intrinsic beauty of
8:58
their own. None.
8:59
They are completely dependent on the fountain for every single
9:02
drop of goodness they possess. They are entirely dependent.
9:06
The text says. God is the one from whom all is
9:09
perfectly derived, and on whom all is most absolutely and
9:12
perfectly dependent. If you sever the beam of light
9:15
from the sun, the light ceases to exist.
9:18
Goof. Gone.
9:19
Therefore, true virtue must consist in a supreme love to
9:23
God, because loving the reflection without loving the
9:25
source is entirely illogical. It makes no.
9:28
Sense. OK, I track with the logic, but
9:29
this raises a massive practical hurdle for me.
9:32
What's that? I am a finite human?
9:34
I look at this math right? God has infinite existence and
9:37
infinite beauty. He is the fountain.
9:40
But if God is the infinite source and has absolutely no
9:43
deficits, why does he need my love?
9:47
Yes, I mean my neighbor actually needs me.
9:49
My neighbor's hungry. My friend needs a shoulder to
9:52
cry on. God does not need my help.
9:55
So shouldn't my fellow creatures be the most proper objects of my
9:58
benevolence? The text anticipates this exact
10:01
objection, calls it the profitability objection.
10:04
The profitability objection. The argument goes like this.
10:08
We cannot be profitable to God. Our goodness cannot extend to
10:12
Him in a way that meets a need. Therefore, we should focus our
10:17
benevolence on created beings who actually benefit from it.
10:20
And how does the author answer this?
10:22
Because look, evolutionary biology and psychology wire us
10:24
for reciprocal altruism. I scratch your back, you scratch
10:27
mine. I meet your deficit, you meet
10:28
mine. That is how humans survive.
10:30
It is. So on a human level, the
10:33
profitability objection makes perfect sense.
10:35
It makes sense to us, but the author answers it by destroying
10:38
our transactional definition of love.
10:41
Yes, he redefines what it means to exercise benevolence.
10:46
The text states that a benevolent repensity of heart is
10:49
exercised not only in seeking to promote the happiness of someone
10:53
OK, but also in rejoicing in their happiness.
10:56
Rejoicing in their happiness, we think of love as a rescue
10:59
mission. Always a rescue mission.
11:00
I see someone drowning in debt, I throw them a life preserver of
11:04
cash. That is love as a response to a
11:06
deficit, right? But what happens when you
11:09
encounter someone who has already standing on solid
11:11
ground, wealthy, healthy and lacking nothing?
11:15
How do you love them? The text says you rejoice in
11:17
their completeness. You celebrate the fact that they
11:20
do not need a rescue. But we struggle with that
11:22
because human egos are often tied to being the rescuer.
11:25
We like feeling useful, Yes, we want to be the hero.
11:28
The text argues that if someone is above any need of us, true
11:32
benevolence still dictates that we rejoice in their prosperity.
11:35
Even if we cannot add to. It right, the author points out
11:38
a glaring absurdity here. If inability to profit God meant
11:41
no benevolence was due, it would also mean no gratitude was due.
11:44
Oh, let us trace the mechanics of that, because the
11:49
implications are huge. Yeah, if you say I cannot give
11:52
God anything he needs, therefore I owe him no love, right?
11:56
You must logically also say I cannot repay God for what he has
11:59
given me, therefore I owe him no gratitude.
12:02
Because both love and gratitude, in that flawed transactional
12:05
model, require an equal exchange of goods.
12:08
Exactly. And since we cannot offer an
12:10
equal exchange change to an infinite being, we are off the
12:13
hook entirely. But the text asks where is the
12:16
man who believes a God in a Providence that will say this?
12:20
No one would say that out loud. Right.
12:22
Anyone who acknowledges a Creator must acknowledge that
12:25
gratitude is due to Him, even if we cannot requite Him.
12:28
And if gratitude is due, then benevolent affection is due.
12:31
You cannot live in a universe void of gratitude without losing
12:35
your humanity. OK, but even if I owe God
12:37
gratitude, I am still a finite creature.
12:39
I cannot actually do anything for an infinite being.
12:42
Not in a way that feels a lack, no.
12:44
My actions do not move the needle for Him, do they?
12:47
The author mentions we can be instruments of promoting His
12:50
glory, but how does my tiny finite action promote the
12:54
infinite? Well, the text asserts that God
12:56
takes a true and proper delight in the actions of finite
13:00
creatures. A proper delight.
13:01
This is a fascinating mechanism. God's delight is not the delight
13:05
of receiving something He lacked.
13:08
It is the delight of seeing His own beauty and glory reflected
13:12
back to Him like a mirror. Like a mirror perfectly angled
13:15
to catch the sun. When we act as instruments of
13:17
His glory, we are participating in that system of sunbeams.
13:21
We are reflecting the light of the fountain.
13:23
Right, the fountain does not need the light to reflect back
13:26
to be a fountain, but the reflection is the proper
13:29
structurally sound order of the system.
13:31
So God delights in the structural integrity of his own
13:33
creation. Yes, and the author exposes the
13:36
glaring inconsistency in secular writers on morality who build
13:41
these massive philosophical frameworks but completely
13:44
sideline the deity. Oh, he calls them out.
13:46
He basically points out they are recognizing the system but
13:48
ignoring the architect. Yes, he knows that some writers
13:51
do not wholly exclude God from their moral schemes, but they
13:55
mention him so slightly that he becomes a subordinate part of
13:59
morality. Just a footnote, right?
14:01
They insist on a benevolence to the created system.
14:04
Loving your neighbor, helping the poor is the most essential
14:07
thing. And the text response to that
14:09
is, if God is in the system at all, he has to be the head of
14:12
it. He has to be.
14:13
You cannot acknowledge that God exists, that he has infinite
14:16
greatness and moral mass, and then treat him like a secondary
14:19
character. The logic is inescapable.
14:22
If he belongs to the whole system of beings, he must be
14:25
regarded as the chief part of it.
14:27
Because of the math. Because of the math, He is
14:29
infinitely more than all the rest combined.
14:31
So to ignore Him, or to place human benevolence above
14:35
benevolence to God, is to act in direct opposition to reality.
14:39
This brings us to a severe friction point in the text.
14:42
Here we go. If God must have the absolute,
14:44
undisputed, supreme spot in our hearts, what happens to the love
14:47
we feel for our family or our friends or our country?
14:51
I am biologically and socially programmed to prefer my family.
14:54
This section is arguably the hardest pill to swallow for
14:58
modern Raiders. He really is.
15:00
The author introduces the concept of a private system.
15:04
A private system. A private system could be self
15:06
love, where your goodwill is confined just to yourself, or it
15:10
could be a larger circle, your family, your local community,
15:13
even your entire nation. But the text states that
15:16
affection to any private system that is independent of or not
15:20
subordinate to general benevolence, which we defined
15:23
earlier as love to God, is not true virtue.
15:26
It falls infinitely short. Infinitely short.
15:29
The text details 3 reasons why private affections fail to meet
15:32
the standard of true virtue. Let's dig into those.
15:35
The first reason is that a private affection detached from
15:38
general benevolence will eventually set a person against
15:41
general existence. It makes them an enemy to the
15:43
public good. Walk me through the mechanics of
15:45
that. How does loving my kids make me
15:47
an enemy to the universe? Well, the text starts with the
15:50
example of selfishness. If a man is governed entirely by
15:54
his own private interest, he will act as an enemy to the
15:57
public whenever his interest clash with the public good.
16:00
We all recognize this. If you steal from the community
16:03
treasury to enrich yourself, everyone agrees you are
16:06
operating with a base sordid spirit.
16:08
Right, everyone gets that, but the author scales their exact
16:12
same logic up to family or national love.
16:15
He scales it up. He says if your affection takes
16:18
in half a dozen more people, your children and family, but
16:21
still falls infinitely short of the universal system, it exposes
16:26
you to the exact same structural problem.
16:28
Which is. You will pursue the interest of
16:31
your particular object, your family, in opposition to general
16:35
existence whenever a conflict arises.
16:37
I see the conflict of interest. If I love my family supremely
16:40
and I do not care about God's universal order, I might lie,
16:43
cheat, or steal to advance my family's position.
16:46
Yes, I am still operating with a narrow spirit.
16:48
It is just a slightly larger circle of selfishness.
16:51
The chief good of virtue is that it favors being in general.
16:54
Private affection, by definition, has a tendency to
16:57
oppose that general good, to protect its own small borders.
17:01
That makes sense. The second reason the text gives
17:03
is that private affection sets up a rival object of supreme
17:06
regard. Rival Prince?
17:07
The author uses a vivid analogy here.
17:10
He says it is like setting up another Prince as supreme in a
17:13
Kingdom distinct from the lawful sovereign.
17:17
It naturally tends to enmity against the lawful sovereign.
17:20
Think about a computer operating system.
17:22
If God is the root operating system running universe, loving
17:26
your family independently of God isn't just a minor glitch.
17:30
It is like installing a secondary OS that tries to take
17:34
over the hardware and overwrite the main drive.
17:36
It acts like malware. It is systematic treason.
17:39
That captures the mechanism perfectly.
17:41
The private system tries to hijack the processing power of
17:45
the general system. The malware tries to run the
17:47
whole computer, yes. The supreme, infinite, all
17:50
comprehending Being requires a supreme regard to himself.
17:54
He insists that respect to him should universally rule in our
17:57
hearts. Because of his infinite volume.
18:00
Right. If you are conscious of this and
18:02
yet you choose to set up another Prince, whether that Prince is
18:05
your own ego, your spouse, your children or your country, you
18:09
are establishing A rival throne. You cannot have two absolute
18:13
operating systems fighting for the same hard drive.
18:15
You cannot. The text says that continuing in
18:19
such an act must unavoidably excite enmity and fix us in a
18:23
stated opposition to the Supreme Being.
18:25
So elevating a private affection above general benevolence is
18:29
treated as an act of moral rebellion.
18:31
Yes, that is staggering. I mean, it completely dismantles
18:34
things we consider highly moral. It does philanthropy,
18:37
patriotism, providing for your children.
18:40
But if those actions operate independently of a supreme love
18:43
to God, this text labels them as rebellious.
18:46
It labels your strongest natural virtue a rebellion.
18:50
And that leads to the third reason private affections fail.
18:53
Yes, not only do they tend to oppose the supreme object, but
18:56
in their very nature they are an instance of great opposition,
18:59
because they subject the supreme object to an inferior one.
19:03
They. Flip the hierarchy.
19:04
They put down being in general, which is infinitely superior,
19:08
into an inferior place. To use the the corporate analogy
19:11
again, it is taking the partner who owns the entire company.
19:14
And forcing them to report to the partner who owns the single
19:16
paper clip. The rusty paper clip.
19:18
It acts in direct opposition to the structural reality of the
19:22
universe. The author concludes that
19:23
whoever takes a subject and exalts him above his prints,
19:27
treats the Prince as a subject and acts the part of an enemy.
19:30
Any affection whatsoever to any creature, no matter how noble it
19:34
looks on the outside, if it is not dependent on and subordinate
19:37
to a union of the heart to God, has zero nature of true virtue.
19:41
Zero. But wait, if human love has to
19:44
be perfectly subordinate to God's order, how does God's own
19:47
love work? That is the next logical
19:50
question. Does the creator have to follow
19:52
his own mathematical rules of virtue or is he exempt?
19:55
He is absolutely not exempt. The philosophy turns its lens
19:59
upward to the nature of the divine mind.
20:01
The text asks if virtue is a propensity of heart toward being
20:05
in general, according to the measure of existence and beauty.
20:09
How does the divine mind exercise virtue?
20:11
And the text argues that divine virtue consists primarily in
20:14
God's love for himself. It describes it as the mutual
20:17
love and friendship which subsists eternally between the
20:21
persons in the Godhead. We have to trace the logic
20:23
carefully here, building on the premises we already established.
20:26
Let us do it. We agreed that virtue is
20:29
proportioned to moral mass, being and beauty.
20:32
Right. God has infinitely the greatest
20:34
share of existence and the highest degree of moral beauty.
20:37
Therefore, if God is perfectly virtuous, He must love that
20:42
which has the greatest existence and beauty.
20:44
Supremely, yes, since He himself possesses the greatest existence
20:48
and beauty. God must love himself supremely
20:50
in order to be mathematically and morally correct.
20:53
Correct. But in humans, loving yourself
20:56
supremely is the very definition of narcissism.
20:59
It is. It is the root of all the
21:01
private affection problems we just talked about.
21:03
So is God a narcissist? How does the author reconcile
21:08
this tension? The reconciliation lies in the
21:11
vast difference between the finite and the infinite scale.
21:14
When a human being loves themselves supremely, you're
21:16
violating the mathematical rule of virtue.
21:19
They're taking a tiny finite fractional share of existence
21:23
and valuing it above the infinite whole.
21:25
That is the definition of a private, narrow spirit.
21:28
Because you are not the center of the universe.
21:30
But when God loves himself supremely, He is loving the
21:34
infinite whole. He is the center.
21:37
He is the fountain. So his self love is not a
21:40
private narrow affection. No, it is the most expansive
21:45
universal affection possible because he comprehends all
21:48
existence within himself. God's self love is the purest
21:52
form of general benevolence. If he loved a finite creature
21:55
more than he loved his own infinite glory, God would be
21:59
valuing the finite over the infinite.
22:01
Which is mathematically incorrect.
22:03
Exactly. It would be an error in the
22:04
system. That blows my mind.
22:06
The exact same action. Supreme Self love is the
22:09
ultimate sin for a human and the ultimate virtue for God simply
22:13
because of the scale of their being.
22:14
The text goes further, stating that God's goodness and love to
22:17
created beings is actually derived from and subordinate to
22:21
His love to Himself. So when God loves us, it is a
22:24
Bible byproduct of him loving his own glory.
22:26
Yes, and this provides the template for how created beings
22:29
are supposed to love 1. Another the template.
22:31
Virtuous love between humans must arise from a temper of mind
22:35
that loves God supremely. Our love for each other has to
22:39
coincide with God's end in creation.
22:41
Which is the manifestation of God's glory to created
22:44
understandings, the communication of His infinite
22:47
fullness. The physical world is just a
22:49
stage, the text says. The inanimate world was made for
22:53
the moral world, as much as a house is prepared for the
22:56
inhabitants. True goodness in a moral agent
22:59
is agreeing with that design. A truly virtuous mind is under
23:03
the sovereign dominion of love to God and seeks the glory of
23:06
God above all things. It makes this his supreme
23:09
governing, an ultimate end. In everything.
23:12
So when I exercise benevolence toward another created being,
23:15
when I love my neighbor, I am chiefly seeking their good so
23:19
that they can know God's glory, unite with God, and have joy in
23:22
Him. I am not just seeking to make
23:24
them physically comfortable, I am seeking their ultimate
23:26
alignment with the fountain of all being.
23:28
That disposition of heart, that active consent to be being in
23:32
general, is what the author finally labels as true grace and
23:35
real holiness. No other disposition or
23:37
affection, but this is of the nature of true virtue.
23:41
This drops a massive hammer on secular philosophy.
23:45
I mean, if everything we have discussed is true, the corollary
23:49
at the end of the text exposes A fatal defect in how modern
23:52
society operates. The corollary is absolute.
23:55
It is. It states that any scheme of
23:57
religion or moral philosophy that does not lay supreme regard
24:01
to God is the foundation and handle all other virtues and
24:05
subordination to it is fundamentally and essentially
24:08
defective. The author writes that however
24:11
well these secular schemes might treat of benevolence to mankind,
24:14
however nice they seem, however much money they raise for the
24:17
poor, if they do not have a supreme regard to God, they are
24:20
not true schemes of philosophy. They possess nothing of the
24:24
nature of true virtue or religion in them.
24:26
Nothing. Think about a modern
24:27
philanthropist who gives away billions of dollars to cure a
24:30
terrible disease. OK, they build hospitals.
24:33
They eradicate suffering. The whole world applauds them as
24:36
a hero, but this philanthropist has no regard for God.
24:39
They do not acknowledge the Creator.
24:41
According to this text, that person possesses nothing of the
24:44
nature of true virtue. Modernity judges the action by
24:48
the material result. The hospital was built,
24:50
therefore the action is virtuous.
24:52
But Edwards judges the action by its alignment with universal
24:56
reality. It comes back to structural
24:58
integrity. Yes, you cannot build a
25:01
structurally sound house on a denied reality.
25:04
Right. You can build walls that look
25:06
beautiful. You can paint the rooms, you can
25:08
put in nice furniture. That is the secular benevolence,
25:11
the philanthropy, the hospitals. Looks like a good house.
25:14
But the text argues that the foundation itself is
25:17
compromised. If the foundation is a private
25:20
affection, even one as large as the entire human race, it is
25:24
still infinitely short of universal existence.
25:27
It is still a rival prints. So no matter how much good that
25:30
philanthropist does horizontally for mankind, vertically they are
25:34
engaged in an act of cosmic treason by elevating humanity
25:37
above the infinite being. The action lacks its proper
25:40
source and its proper end. The text ends by asserting that
25:44
nothing is of the nature of true virtue, in which God is not the
25:48
first and the last. The alpha and the Omega.
25:51
If an action does not have its first source in the apprehension
25:54
of God's supreme dignity and its final end in respect to God, it
25:59
is empty of true goodness. We have covered incredible
26:03
philosophical ground today. We really have.
26:05
We started by noting how comfortable it is to view
26:07
morality as a horizontal Ledger. Just being nice to fellow
26:11
humans, holding doors, giving to charity.
26:13
We love the Ledger because it is a system we can control and
26:16
measure. But the text forces us to
26:18
abandon the Ledger entirely. It moves us to a morality based
26:22
on mathematical proportion and structural reality.
26:25
We have to weigh our love against the infinite volume of
26:28
existence and the blinding reality of the fountain of all
26:31
beauty. It requires a supreme total
26:33
alignment with the Creator of all Being, to the point where
26:36
even our love for our own families must be subordinate to
26:39
our love for Him, lest we establish A rival Prince in our
26:42
hearts. It requires recognizing that we
26:44
live in a house prepared for inhabitants, and the purpose of
26:48
the inhabitants is to reflect the glory of the architect.
26:51
Before we wrap up, I want to leave you, the listener, with a
26:55
final provocative thought to ponder on your own today.
26:58
Something to chew on. Yes, it builds right on the
27:01
tension we have been wrestling with this whole time.
27:04
If true, virtue requires our love to be proportioned
27:07
precisely to the amount of being and beauty something possesses,
27:11
right? And we are finite creatures with
27:13
highly limited attention spans. How do you practically go about
27:17
your Tuesday? Loving your family, doing your
27:19
job, enjoying a meal without letting those temporary
27:23
horizontal things eclipse the infinite vertical being behind.
27:27
Them. That is the daily friction of
27:29
living out this philosophy. It really is.
27:30
Thank you for pulling up a chair and joining us as the third
27:33
person in the room for this deep dive on reformed thinking.
27:36
We will see you next time.