From where do we get the Law, but by the nature of God? Gordon Clark thinks God is above His Law, but God is not above His nature, and that Law is defined by His nature. Does not His word say to not be deceived for the righteous commit righteousness? God can no more commit evil than love can be defined as sin. Love is love, and God is love.
There are absolutes set in play here. God does not supersede righteousness, as if He can do what He pleases and call it good. For then morality is subjective and as is explained in His word of the evils of men, they call good evil and evil good. Good and evil are definite standards, absolute and objective.
What Clark fails to realize is that God is just and His wrath is impeccably pure. The penalty for sin is death, and He is the righteous judge. Yet, God is merciful. He is long suffering that all would come to repentance. He much rather have a man repent and change His ways than for Him to have to bring judgement. He wishes for men to choose good and not evil.
There are absolutes set in play here. God does not supersede righteousness, as if He can do what He pleases and call it good. For then morality is subjective and as is explained in His word of the evils of men, they call good evil and evil good. Good and evil are definite standards, absolute and objective.
What Clark fails to realize is that God is just and His wrath is impeccably pure. The penalty for sin is death, and He is the righteous judge. Yet, God is merciful. He is long suffering that all would come to repentance. He much rather have a man repent and change His ways than for Him to have to bring judgement. He wishes for men to choose good and not evil.