Divine Justice Issues (XXII)

In Romans chapter nine Paul is replying to the accusation of the Jews against him. They accused him of indirectly teaching that God's word of promise to Abraham and Israel had failed (or become ineffectual) if Paul is correct in saying that many Israelites will not be saved. The objectors erroneously believed that the promises made to Abraham's seed and to Israel were made to those who are physically or by nature or birth the seed of Abraham and an Israelite. Paul says that this was their error. All those who are believers in the one true God, as Abraham, and who believe in the Messiah, the eminent seed of Abraham, are the true or real seed of Abraham and the true Israel of God. 

He began his rebuttal to this objection by showing that it cannot be as his objectors imagine, who thought that anyone who is born a Jew is thereby entitled to salvation. In the time of Jesus, there was a prominent belief among the Jews that they would be saved expressly because they were Jewish. The Jews thought that they inherited salvation through being the physical descendants of Abraham. The New Testament has a running theme of countering this belief. We see this erroneous belief in various places in the new testament. Notice these words of John the Baptist:

"Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father. ' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones." (Matt. 3: 8-9 nkjv)

John the Baptist went right to the heart of the problem with most of the Jews. They thought that they were God's "elect" and his high favorites, and therefore heirs of eternal life and of God's promised inheritance, simply because they were of Abraham's physical seed and were Israelites according to the flesh. John says that many Jews will not be saved but will be eternally condemned.

Jesus also ran into these people and they said to the Lord “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?” (John 8: 33 nkjv)

Jesus, however, did not share their opinion and like his forerunner attacked this "damnable heresy" (II Peter 2: 1) These Jews thought that they were not in bondage in any sense, surely not in slavery to sin. They had a false opinion of themselves, thinking they were not in any danger of hell fire, when the truth was just the reverse. Jesus responds to this false ideology in these words:

"37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants (physically speaking or according to the flesh), but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” 39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children (they are not spiritually Abraham's children), you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.” (37-47)

Thus, both the Baptist and Christ uprooted this common false belief among the Jews; And, it is that same belief that is behind the objector's argument that Paul first addresses in Romans chapter nine. We will pick up where we left off in the last chapter.

"10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." (Rom. 9: 1-3, 6-13 nkjv)

In the last chapter we examined the previous verses and noted that Paul told his audience how and why it was that Isaac was chosen instead of Ishmael to be the true heir of the Abrahamic promises. We observed how Isaac was chosen to his destiny by God before he was ever born and that God's choice of him was not based upon anything he did or did not do, but upon God's own choice and decision. Ishmael was rejected because he was not chosen and because his birth was not of the Spirit or working of God, but was rather a birth of the flesh and by the workings of Abraham and the slave Hagar. Now he will show us another example of the same thing in the choice of Jacob and the rejection of Esau. Wrote Paul:

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!" (vs. 14) 

By the word "unrighteousness" we may also add "injustice" as some translations indicate as well as do nearly all bible teachers and scholars. Apparently some objected to the idea that being a child of the promise, or the seed of Abraham, or an Israelite, by the sole choice and work of God pictured God as being unfair, yea, even a cruel tyrant. This is the second criticism by another set of objectors in this chapter. 

The first objection said that Paul's teachings led to the conclusion that God's promise had failed in accomplishment. The next objection is that if Paul's teaching is true about election, then God would be unjust. So, how does Paul respond to this second objection? 

First, he strongly denounces as false the accusation. Paul believes in the justice of God and he does not believe that God's choice of Isaac and his rejection of Ishmael was unjust, nor was his choice of Jacob over Esau. Likewise he does not believe it is unjust for God to define who he considers to be the "children of God" or "children (or seed) of Abraham." It seems that Paul's objector thinks it would be just and fair for God to choose those who are in some way better than others and to reject others who are in some way inferior to others. However, the case examples of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau, disprove the idea that Isaac and Jacob were chosen because of something they did that was good and that Ishmael and Esau were rejected because the did something that was bad.

After vehemently denying that his doctrine has the consequences that his opponents say that it has, i.e. that God is unjust in Paul's doctrine of unconditional election, he then will give other rebuttal arguments that show that God did choose and that it was just for him to do so. After firmly denying the accusation that his doctrine made God unjust or pictured him as doing the wrong thing, Paul wrote:

"15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 

In these verses Paul is defending his proposition that God is just and right in his election of Isaac over Ishmael, and of Jacob over Esau, and by extension, to any one person over another person. He argues that God claims the prerogative to show mercy, compassion, or favor to one and not to another. Paul says that God has the sovereign right to determine the destiny of any of his creatures and to give blessing and good things to any he so pleases and apart from any merit or works on the part of the ones he chooses. He may decide to show mercy to one and to "harden" others as he wills. Paul argues that God can do this and it be right for him to do so. Also, it is implied that God may do things that it would be wrong for any creature to do. God has creator rights. 

Notice the words highlighted above in red. The words "so then" is a conclusion. It is a deduction from a premise already stated. That premise says that God the Creator is the sole determiner of any creature's destiny. It is an "if, then" argument. If God is the one who decides whether to show mercy to one and not to another, then we can conclude that no creature determines his own destiny, i.e. "it is not of him who wills (or chooses it) and not of him who runs (works for it)." Someone might ask - "can't it be both of God and of the creature?" Or, "Does one exclude the other?"  

We may also say that if a person's interpretation of Paul's doctrine of election in Romans chapter nine does 1) not provoke people to say that you make God unjust, and does not bring people to 2) conclude that election by God is not of him who wills or works, then your interpretation is false. 

It was not that way in the case of Isaac. Isaac being the chosen of God and being born of the Spirit and becoming the recognized seed of Abraham was not as a result of Isaac's choosing or doing. 

Paul also shows how God was right and just in his sovereignty to choose a different destiny for Pharaoh. He is an example of one who God chose not to show mercy and compassion, one he chose not to choose to own and bless, but who God rather chose to harden his heart and disown. Paul cites the word of God to Pharaoh - "even for this purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." God used Pharaoh and denied him good in order to bring about a greater good. God was saying that Pharaoh exists for the purpose God intended. By "raised up" would include Pharaoh's birth, rearing, and his coming to power in Egypt. Like we saw in previous chapters, Pharaoh would be one example of those who Peter described as having been created for the purpose of being destroyed just like brute beasts. (II Peter 2: 12) 

When people hear Paul say these things they generally find it hard to swallow and think how bad a view of God it is to think that he would choose to favor some unconditionally and to not favor others. That is why they say "there is then injustice with God." Paul gives another of his objector's response to this doctrine of the apostle, writing - "You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 

Again we say that we can discern Paul's doctrine of election by examining the kinds of objections that people made to it. They thought it made God look unjust and unfair, yea, even cruel. They also thought that it made God appear to punish someone for merely being the kind of being he made him to be. Why fault Pharaoh for his hardened heart if God was the one who hardened it? Why fault Pharaoh for opposing God since God brought glory to himself through Pharaoh's destruction? How can God justly condemn Pharaoh? 

We dealt with this type of reasoning when we justified God in his willing evil to exist. We showed that he willed it because he determined to bring greater good from it. Pharaoh was evil, an evil that God raised up, and he brought himself good by it.

Of course, Paul does not mean to say that Pharaoh was not at fault for his heart being hardened and for being the evil man that he was. The same scriptures that say God hardened his heart also say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. God did not make Pharaoh a sinner, although God hardening his heart and removing his divine restraints upon him furthered his evil acts. Just because God suffered him to be born, knowing what he would do and become, does not make God unjust. God did the right thing in raising up this wicked man and in hardening his heart. That good was that God 1) revealed his omnipotence and sovereignty, and 2) made known his name in all the earth. Surely many people came to know the Lord and be saved by coming to know the name of the Lord via his destruction of Pharaoh. 

By the question "for who has resisted his will?" we discover a few important things. From these words the objectors that Paul is rebutting are granting that whatever God wills to be shall in fact be. Of course, in the bible there are two usages for the "will of God." There is God's will as expressed in commands or law, such as "thou shall not steal." When a person steals the will of God is not done. But, there is also another use of that term. That use is seen in the above text. There is a divine will that cannot be frustrated or kept from being realized or fulfilled, that is, it cannot be resisted. Men resist the prescriptive will of God every time they disobey God. But, there is a will that cannot be resisted. We might say this is what is meant by "the determinate counsel" of God (Acts 2: 23) or what he has "predestined." (Eph. 1: 5; Rom. 8: 30) It is what Paul alludes to when he speaks of God as "working all things after the counsel of his own will." (Eph. 1: 11) And Job refers to it when says - "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." (Job 23: 13 kjv)

So, did God create Pharaoh for the purpose of damning him? Yes, in one sense, but not in another. If we grant that God has foreknowledge, then he knows who will go through life without ever being saved. That being so, why does he simply not keep such people from being born? Recall that Jesus said of Judas that it would have been better had he never been born. (Matt. 26: 24) It would have been better too, in one sense, had Pharaoh never been born (the same with men like Hitler). In another sense, however, it was good that he was born for God brought himself glory and made himself known by Pharaoh being born. Every person who God foreknows will live and die in sin are nevertheless brought into existence by God. So, God does bring people into the world knowing that it will mean their eternal damnation. 

As we showed in the opening chapters when dealing with the problem of evil and theodicy, God creates or wills the existence of evil and evil men because he intends to bring forth good out of it. This he did in the case of Pharaoh, yea, and in the case of every evil man who dies in his sins. If that is not true, then why does he simply keep those people from ever being born? We may not be able to see how God's allowing Hitler to be born brought forth more good than evil in a cost-benefit analysis, but we can believe it anyway for we trust God and he knows more of the effects than we do.

"20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (14-24)

The word "power" is from the Greek word "exousia" and primarily denotes "authority" (from the verb exesti, "it is lawful"), although power in the sense of might or strength is not excluded. Paul is justifying God and defending the rightness of his ways in presenting this doctrine of election and predestination. The objector is not denying that God is the Almighty, but whether he is right or just or has the rightful authority to create one group of people for a good end and others for an evil end. Any potter has power over the clay as respects mere strength. The clay is powerless in the hand of the potter. But, does the potter have free license to make whatever he wants from the clay? Further, why does a potter or manufacturer make various kinds of products? Wrote the same apostle:

"But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work." (II Tim. 2: 20-21 nkjv)

In God's world or in the world of humans ("great house"), God has created different peoples. These people are likened to "vessels" and says that there are two kinds of vessels (cups, containers, etc.). One kind of vessel is "for dishonor" and another kind is "for honor." This text therefore is a companion to the verses above from Romans chapter nine about the potter and the clay and his making vessels to honor and to dishonor. The difference however is seen in that in Romans Paul says that a person is a vessel unto honor or to dishonor by the hand of God and that people are merely passive in becoming the kind of vessel God wills, but the text in Timothy says that a person becoming a vessel unto honor is by doing the things Paul mentions. So, how do we harmonize those seemingly contradictory texts?

We have stated a truth many times and now state it again. There are things that the bible says that God does and yet also says that people do those very things. God did A and the creature did A. The question becomes in what sense it is God's work and in what sense it is the creature's work? We have already shown how the bible says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and also says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Is that a contradiction? No, because they are showing how both God and Pharaoh were causes, but not in the same sense. There are many kinds of causes. We have already spoken of primary or first causes, and of second causes. But there are many other kinds of causes, such as instrumental causes, contributing causes, incidental causes, etc. 

Paul's view of predestination and divine sovereignty did not lead him into telling sinners that they could do nothing to be saved or to become a child of God and to become a vessel unto honor. He did not say to those who are lost in sin (and who appear to be vessels to dishonor as Pharaoh) that they could do nothing to become a vessel unto honor. That may seem like a contradiction but it was not so in Paul's mind. 

Notice in the above section from Romans chapter nine that Paul says that in the case of the vessels designed or made by Lord God the Potter unto dishonor was because he was "wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known" through them, much the same way he manifested his power through Pharaoh and made his name known in all the earth. On the other hand, God wanted to reveal something different about himself through the vessels made unto honor, which was that he "might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy." In either case God is revealing something about himself, things that might not be known any other way.

In the text Paul says that God "endures with much longsuffering" those who describes as "vessels of wrath." What is God's purpose in this longsuffering? Is it an act of mercy or common grace? 

Further, what does Paul mean when he says that the vessels God made unto dishonor, styled "vessels of wrath," were "prepared for destruction"? On the other hand, what does he mean when he says that the vessels God made for honor were "prepared beforehand for glory"?

Further, what can we learn from Paul's identifying the vessels unto honor with those who are believers in the Lord, saying "even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles"?

But as this chapter has grown long, we will address those questions in the next chapter when will continue to address Paul's doctrine of election and predestination in Romans chapter nine as a necessary step in showing how that doctrine does not make God unjust.

Divine Justice Issues (XXI)

In the previous chapter we saw how God chooses certain people to bless or to give them certain good things to the exclusion of others. We gave several examples where God favored certain people for special blessings and where the ones chosen (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) were chosen by God unconditionally, that is, God chose to bless them and his choice to do so was not based upon anything the chosen did but solely upon the mercy and grace of God. 

This choice of the patriarchs, and of Israel as a nation, says something about God's sovereign will and of his right to so discriminate among his creatures. We cited the words of the apostle Paul in Galatians chapter four where Paul says that the choice of Isaac and the rejection of Ishmael was made by God and was not based upon any condition or merit in Isaac or demerit in Ishmael, and so Paul says to the believers "now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." (Gal. 4: 28) God had promised that his heir, or firstborn son (God even called Isaac Abraham's 'only begotten son' even though Ishmael was born before Isaac - Gen. 22: 2), would be his son by Sarah. But Sarah was barren. Paul wrote of this in these words: 

"And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb. He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform." (Rom. 4: 19-21 nkjv)

The promised son who would be the "heir of the promise" would be born by Sarah even in her old age and in spite of her barren "dead womb"; And, this promised son would be Abraham's seed even though he also was past the age of being able to produce children for that is what is meant by Abraham's "body being already dead." So, if there was to be a child produced in Sarah's womb it would have to be a miracle requiring the power of the Almighty. Paul calls this Isaac's being "born according to the Spirit," i.e. supernaturally.  

So, in what sense was Isaac called "the heir of the promise"? First, because God promised Abraham an heir to replace him and the singular means of fulfilling God's promise to him of a lineage that would bring into being "the heir" who would be the Messiah (or the Desired One, the Redeemer, the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham and later the seed of king David), the one through whom all nations of the world would be blessed. Second, he would be the father, like Abraham, of the seed who would be given the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession and enjoy special blessings from God (such as Paul enumerated in the opening verses of Romans chapter nine and which we cited in the previous chapter). Third, Paul says that "the promise" to Abraham and his seed involved God's purpose "that he should be the heir of the world." (Rom. 4: 13 nkjv) Fourth, it involved salvation from sin and death as we will see. Finally, "the promise" involved the miraculous birth of Isaac and his being the one God chose to be the heir of the promises God made to Abraham. That promise is seen in these words from the book of Genesis:

"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year." (Gen. 17: 15 - 21)

This is "the promise." God promised to give Abraham a son through Sarah the barren. This is the promised child. He was supernaturally born of the Spirit. He was chosen by God to be this heir, blessed by God and the one with whom God would establish his covenant. So, what do we learn from this? Recall that Paul said "now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Here are the things to take note of about Isaac. First, he was chosen by God before he was born to be the heir of the promises. Second, he was born miraculously by the power and Spirit of God. Third, he was named before he was born. Fourth, his birth was at a "set time" by God. Fifth, he was especially and particularly "the seed of Abraham." Sixth, he was a "son given." But, more on how this applies to believers shortly. First, let us notice some other texts that speak of the promise of Isaac.

"And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac." (Gen. 21: 1-3 kjv)

This makes Isaac different from his half-brother Ishmael. It is another case where we see that it was God and his giving that made him different as we discussed previously from the words of Paul in First Corinthians chapter four and verse seven. So, if we answer Paul's question "who made you (Isaac) different from another (Ishmael)?" we must say that it was God and his giving of what was received that made the difference. 

"And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." (16-18)

The promise to Abraham's seed thus involves blessing with salvation. Therefore, to be designated by God as being of the seed of Abraham is essential to being eternally saved and for obtaining the "promise of eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9: 15) 

In Romans chapter nine Paul speaks of the choice of God in choosing people to be Israelites and children of Abraham, and thus heirs of salvation. 

"1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites...6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." 

Paul speaks of the great grief in his heart over the lost condition of most of his fellow Israelites. He affirms that most of them will not be saved nor receive eternal inheritance and blessing. Affirming this brought an objection from the Jews. That objection stated that if what Paul says is true, then that would mean that "the word of God," or his promises to Israel and to Abraham and his seed, had failed, or had "taken no effect." Paul responds in rebuttal by in essence saying "that is not a valid conclusion." That is a case of jumping to conclusions. Paul does agree with his objector in affirming the truth of the proposition that says God's word and his promises will never fail and will always come to pass. So then, how does Paul answer the objection? For it does seem that Paul's statement about Israelites and Abraham's seed being unsaved affirms this because in the old testament God promises salvation to Israelites and to the seed of Abraham. We can put the objection into a syllogism.

1. God promised salvation to Israel and Abraham's seed (OT)

2. Many Israelites and Abraham's seed will not be saved (Paul)

3. God's promise failed and was proven to be not true.

Not only that, but the conclusion also forces one to say that God lied to the patriarchs when he promised salvation to Israel and to Abraham's seed.

Paul's rebuttal to the objection is not to deny the conclusion, for he believes that what God promised will surely be realized. Paul rather focuses on premise number one and argues that the problem lies in defining who is intended by "Israel" and by "the seed of Abraham." If it is defined as representing those who are physically descended from Abraham or Jacob (Israel), and premise number two is correct, then yes the conclusion is true. But, Paul denies that "Israel" and "seed of Abraham" denotes those who are merely the physical descendants of Israel and Abraham. He asserts his counterpoint to that premise - "for they are not all Israel who are of Israel (physically speaking)" and "nor are they all children because they are the (physical) seed of Abraham." Well, then, how does Paul define who is an Israelite and of the seed of Abraham? 

He says that "the children of the flesh are not the children of God." Ishmael is such. His conception was not a result of God's miracle working, but was a result of Abraham's sexual intercourse with Hagar the Egyptian handmaid of Sarah. In other words, Ishmael was the work and choice of Abraham, but Isaac was the work and choice of God. Or, we could say that Ishmael was the result of Abraham's willing and running but Isaac was the result of God's willing and running (working or doing). Second, Ishmael was not the one God chose and named before he was even born. Third, Ishmael was not the one God promised. 

Paul had earlier prefaced his Romans chapter nine teaching by writing these words in the second chapter:

"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." (Rom. 2: 28-29 nkjv)

Paul does not exclude the idea that some of the physical descendants of Abraham and Jacob were at the same time the spiritual seed of Abraham, or antitypical Israel, for he says "nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham." The word "all" here is important and demonstrates this truth. Some, like Paul and the other apostles, were both physically the seed of Abraham and Israelites but spiritually too. However, being a Jew inwardly is not the result of being a Jew outwardly in the flesh. As we will see, many Gentiles who are not of "Israel after the flesh" (I Cor. 10: 18) nor of "the seed of Abraham" are spiritual Israelites and the true seed of Abraham, the true "Israel of God." (Gal. 6: 16) 

We see then that it is God's choice of anyone that makes the difference, and also that it is the supernatural birth of children by God's Spirit that makes the difference. Paul writes about how people become the true children of Abraham and of the true Israel. Wrote Paul:

"Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham...So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham." (Gal. 3: 7,9 nkjv)

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (13-14) 

"And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (vs. 29)

Every believing Gentile is, by virtue of his union with Christ by faith, viewed by God as the true seed of Abraham and the true Israel of God. They are the elect, the ones God chose in Christ before the foundation of the world. (Eph. 1: 3-4) Throughout the new testament they are simply styled "the elect of God." Christ is in the highest sense God's elect. Said Jehovah to Isaiah: “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles." (Isa. 42: 1 nkjv) So, to be "in Christ" or "in him" is to be also styled elect. That does not mean that people become elect after they are saved or in Christ, for election is not "because of" salvation but "unto" salvation. (See II Thess. 2: 13) Being saved is what manifests that one has been chosen to salvation before the world began. Isaac's spiritual birth is not the cause that preceded God's choosing him, but is rather the effect of God having chosen him; And recall that Paul said "now we brothers are children of God and elect as Isaac was." 

If it was not unjust for God to choose Isaac before he was born and as a result to give him a supernatural birth, then it is not unjust for God to choose among undeserving sinners whom he will and give them spiritual birth.

Faith is the means of salvation but it is not the reason why God chose any. Election is unconditional, as it was in the case of Isaac and Jacob, but salvation is not unconditional, for it is "through faith" and union with Christ.

In the above words of Paul in Romans chapter nine Paul is informing us how people become the "children of the promise" or children of God, how they become Israelites or the seed of Abraham. If we can ascertain how Isaac and Jacob were chosen by God and how Isaac was spiritually born, then we will see how God chooses sinners to be saved and born of the Spirit. 

Isaac was promised to Abraham before he was born. Both Isaac and Jacob, as we will further see in the next chapter, were chosen to be "children of the promise" before they were ever born and God's choice of them was not conditioned upon anything they did but merely by God's sovereign will. That is why Paul states his conclusion in these words: "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." (Rom. 9: 16) In the next chapter we will continue to look at the doctrine of election in Romans chapter nine and other texts and continue to look at it in the context of whether it was just for God to so choose some to salvation and not to choose others.

Divine Justice Issues (XX)

With this chapter we will continue to answer these questions from our original list.

6.  The justice of God is a debate issue in discussing God's choice of sinners to salvation before the world began by grace alone. Is it just for God to choose one to salvation and not another? 

7. Is it just and fair for God to give more to one than to another? This is a question involving what is called "distributive justice." Or, is God fair? 

Involved in these two questions are other questions, such as the one in the image above - "Why doesn't God save everyone?" And, "does God not give everyone an equal chance (opportunity) to be saved?" And, "does God not equally love everyone?" And, "if God chooses to give one greater chances to be saved, is he not unfair?" And, "if some are chosen to salvation before they are born, why?" And, "is it just for God to choose one over another for salvation unconditionally?" 

In some of these questions we are addressing the argumentation of those who believe in universal salvation, the idea that everyone will eventually be saved and enter into eternal life. These will often argue that God's moral character demands that he save everyone, that is, because he is a God who is love and who is kind and benevolent (even towards his enemies) requires that he save all. Some will even say that God would be unjust, or doing what is not right, to fail to save everyone. 

Most Christians believe that not all fallen angels and men will be saved and that the unsaved will spend eternity in the prison of hell. This the bible teaches as we will see later when we discuss the justice of God in sentencing sinners to such a punishment. Most believe, as the bible teaches, that only a portion of fallen men will be saved, yea, even only a few will be saved and most will be lost forever. So, why is this the case? Why has he chosen to save only a few? On what basis did he choose who to save? Is his choice based upon merit? Is God's choice of people to salvation a selection of the best people? Or, a choice of the unworthy? Is his choice arbitrary or random? 

What are the means of salvation? Does every person have access to the means? If God chooses one to be saved, will it not necessitate that he give the chosen ones the means for that salvation? If one dies without ever having the necessary means of salvation, will he still be saved? Is he chosen to salvation but not given the means of salvation? If the means are necessary, is God not obligated in justice to make sure that all have access to the means? And, that he give to all equal chance to be saved? Is it not true that those who live and die without ever having the means of salvation cannot be saved and cannot have been chosen to salvation?

The Blessings of the Firstborn

There are examples in scripture where God gave a good gift or blessing to one person and not to another. Consider the extra blessings given by God's direction to the "firstborn" male child in a family. In the Old Testament a "double portion" was given to the firstborn son, and was given entitlement to a larger inheritance than was given to his siblings, as outlined in Deuteronomy 21:15-17. How is that fair? What is God's justifiable reason for dictating this legal provision? Is this favoritism? How many heirs of a parent's inheritance today would think it unjust for the oldest child to get double the inheritance? I think most people would think it is not fair. Most would think that God was unjust and unfair in setting up this tradition in law.

Further, consider the fact that this giving of the double portion of the inheritance (also called a "birthright") was undeserved and not earned, in fact it was unconditional for the siblings had nothing to do with it. The only condition for obtaining the greater gifted inheritance was to be the firstborn male, and this condition was not under the control of any child, for they were passive in being born first and as a male. Consider also that the saved, or those "chosen to salvation" (II Thess. 2: 13) are judged by God as being members of "the church of the firstborn ones." (Heb. 12: 23) They too will receive a double portion of good things, or gifts, or of the inheritance as compared to others who receive but common blessings. They too did nothing of themselves in being created and born as the firstborn male. Being the firstborn was not an earned or meritorious gift from God.

Choosing of the Patriarchs

Another example is seen in God's choice of Abraham and his offspring through Isaac to be his special people and to receive gifts that he did not give to others. Paul lists some of these when he writes:

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen." (Rom. 9: 3-5 nkjv)

Was it an act of favoritism for God to choose Israel for these blessings to the exclusion of others? Was he being partial and unfair? The psalmist also spoke of the peculiar gift of the law and word of God to Israel when he wrote these words:

"He declares His word to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any nation; And as for His judgments, they have not known them. Praise the LORD!" (Psa. 147: 19-20 nkjv)

Was that fair for God to give his word only to Israel? Consider also the fact that the word of God is one of the means of salvation. So, by his not giving his word to the Gentiles, was he not keeping them from the means of salvation, and thus from salvation? We see how later in the history of Israel that God would give his word to the Gentiles after the coming of the Messiah, and this is seen in the new testament and in the giving of the great commission where the Jewish apostles were to go into all the world and preach and teach the gospel and word of God. When we look at the doctrine of election this will be an important factor to keep in mind. Ever since the days of Christ very few of the world's population have had access to the gospel and word of God. Are they therefore all lost without a chance to be saved? Why did the Lord not make the means of salvation available to everyone?

Why did God choose the patriarchs and their seed? Was it because they were superior to others? Was it because they met some conditions that others did not perform? Notice what Moses says to the chosen people:

"The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." (Deut. 7: 7-8 nkjv)

Stephen in his sermon to the Jews in Acts chapter thirteen says to them:

"The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it." (Acts 13: 17 kjv)

It seems clear from these verses that God chose the patriarchs and their descendants unconditionally, meaning that they were not chosen because of any superiority they had over others not chosen. Many find such instances of God choosing people for blessings, gifts, and privileges to be unfair. Rather than choosing the unworthy, they think he should have rather chosen the best people. Just like people today choose a president who they think has superior talents for that exalted position, so many think that God should likewise have chosen those who were in some way superior to others. But, the words of Moses above denies that God chose people because they were judged by God as possessing some superior quality or did some act that set them apart. We have seen this same issue discussed during the last two thousand years in the history of the Christian church. Did God choose to salvation those who he foresaw would believe, repent, be baptized, and endure faithful in holiness and fealty to God until they die? If he did, was he not the one who was responsible for anyone doing those things? But, more on that later.

The Case of Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and Esau

What about God's rejection of Ishmael, Abraham's firstborn, and his choice of Isaac to be the recipient of the promises made to Abraham and to his chosen seed? Was it because Isaac was superior to Ishmael? Was it because one was more worthy than the other? Was it because one was of Abraham's seed and the other not? No, because both were the sons of Abraham and Ishmael was the firstborn. Should God not have chosen Ishmael for that reason? So, why did he reject Ishmael as the chosen heir to the promises of good things made to Abraham? Was God's choice arbitrary?

What about God's rejection of Esau, the older twin, and also the firstborn, and his choice of Jacob to be the heir to the promises God made to Abraham and to Isaac? Was Jacob chosen because he was a good boy, better than Esau? No, for Jacob himself was a deceiver and conspirator, and obtained the birthright of the firstborn from Esau by devious means. So, if God chose Isaac and Jacob, was it because he saw something in them that was different from their older brothers? And, if he did, was it God that made them different? On that matter we have already seen where Paul says that it is God and his giving of good things to a man that makes him different so that no one can claim he was chosen because he made himself better than others. In choosing Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was God showing a respect of persons and being partial and discriminatory? 

In discussing the case of Isaac and Ishmael, Paul says that their story is an "allegory," a representation of Christian salvation. Wrote the apostle:

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free." (Gal. 4: 28-31 nkjv)

By "he who was born according to the flesh" is meant Ishmael. By He who was "born according to the Spirit" is meant Isaac. Why was Isaac the "child of the promise" and Ishmael not? Why was Ishmael "the son of the slave" while Isaac was the "son of the free woman"? Was it because of anything that each son did? Or was it rather all in the hands of God? Was it not because of God's choice? Does it not seem that God is being arbitrary and acting at random? Recall these words of the same apostle (which we have previously cited):

"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence." (I Cor. 1: 27-29 nkjv) 

What an amazing act of God! Rather than choosing the superior ones among men, he chooses inferior ones. Rather than choosing the worthy he chooses the unworthy. This is why we are told that God has chosen the poor of this world to become the heirs of salvation. (James 2: 5) So, does this not mean that one must be poor, weak, unpopular, low class, etc., in order to be saved? If yes, then God make us all poor and despised! Further, if God is the one who makes us to differ from another, then his choosing us because we are different still makes God the sole decider of destiny and the one alone who deserves the credit for choosing and saving a person. 

What did Isaac do of his own volition in order to become "the child of promise"? What did he do to be "born of the Spirit"? What did he do to become the heir to the Abrahamic promised blessings? Or conversely, what did Ishmael do or not do to cause him to be rejected by God for those blessings? Does it not appear to be a case where God chose people by his mere good pleasure alone and for reasons known only to him? If he chose Isaac because he was born of the Spirit rather than born of the flesh, i.e. born by the power of God and contrary to nature, why was he born miraculously (to a woman and man who were beyond the age of being able to procreate)? Was his spiritual birth the result of his own choice or his own doing? Or, was his spiritual birth the result of God's unmerited choice of Isaac? God chooses those who he first makes different and not because one makes himself different. This leads us to the oft debated question as to whether God chooses those who have faith or whether people have faith because they have been chosen. Did God choose me because I first chose him? Or, do we rather choose God because he first chose us? The apostle John says "we love him because he first loved us." (I John 4: 19) 

What these scriptures are telling us is this; If God chooses us, and gives good things to us, such as eternal life and salvation, because we are different (we believe and repent, for instance), it still does not make God's choice and favors to be merited because the very things the choice depends upon are themselves God's creation or causation. This is why in debating this ordo salutis with those who say "God chose in eternity those who he foresaw would have faith in him in time" I find it better to discuss why one has faith and another does not, and to discuss whether faith is given to one and not to another. If faith be shown to be God's gift or his production, then he would simply be choosing those he predetermined and therefore foreknew would have the faith that he predetermined to give. Other Calvinists choose rather to simply deny that God chose those who he foreknew would believe. 

It is a well known fact that the church fathers in the first few centuries of the Christian era believed that God chose those who he foreknew would believe. I don't find that to be objectionable, as long as we see faith as an undeserved gift of God and that it is effectually given to all those he chose to give it. If we look at the case of Isaac, all the things that were involved in his becoming God's chosen, spiritually born son, or the child of promise was not of his own active doing, but of God's doing, a work wherein Isaac was simply the passive receiver. This, as we will see in the next chapter, led Paul to conclude: "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." (Rom. 9: 16 nkjv) God's choice of Isaac and Jacob to be the heirs of the promises was not because Isaac and Jacob willed for it so to be or pursued that end and destiny, but merely because God chose them and favored them with mercy. 

Divine Justice Issues (XIX)

In this chapter we will continue to address God's distributive justice. We know that it is true that "all men are created equal" so far as political or civil rights go. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, on the other hand, it may also be affirmed that everyone is not born equal in every respect. How many times have people said “Life is not fair”? Some people are born with physical defects, such as blindness, deafness, etc. Some are born with natural gifts and talents in the arts. Some seem to be born with better genes. Why does God not keep this from happening? Why do some people have better "luck," to use a common expression, than do others? Why are some people born with a silver spoon in their mouths and others are born into poverty? How is that fair? Why are some more "fortunate" than others?

The word "fortune" or "fortunate" was in ancient times associated with the Greek goddess Tyche, goddess of luck, fortune, and chance, and the Roman equivalent of Tyche is Fortuna. Many Greeks and Romans sought luck and good fortune from the goddess. Does the bible teach luck, chance, and fortune? Does it teach "fate"? Got Questions (See here) says this about luck and chance (emphasis mine):

"The main question is, do things happen by chance? If they do, then one can speak of someone being lucky or unlucky. But if they do not happen by chance, then it is inappropriate to use those terms. Ecclesiastes 9:11-12 states, “I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. Moreover, no man knows when his hour will come: As fish are caught in a cruel net, or birds are taken in a snare, so men are trapped by evil times that fall unexpectedly upon them.” Much of what Ecclesiastes shares is from the perspective of a person who looks at life on earth without God, or life “under the sun.” From such a perspective—leaving God out of the picture—there seems to be good luck and bad luck."

But, we cannot leave God out of the picture. Said the wise Solomon: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." (Prov. 16: 33 kjv) If the roll of the dice is determined by God, then all is determined. Nothing happens by luck, fate, chance, or happenstance. What seems to us to be serendipitous is not as it seems. Behind the seemingly random is God's providence. The Bible consistently attributes the unfolding of events to God's providence rather than random chance. In Matthew 10:29-31, Jesus illustrates God's intimate involvement in creation and providence, saying, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." We might well call this meticulous providence. Not a bird falls to the ground apart from God's will? God has determined how many hairs are on my head?

Of course, though God's will and providence are primary causes of all things, this fact does not exclude what are called "second causes," or instrumental causes. So, we may say that a man may be bald because of something he has done, or from genes, and they would be second causes. We are born or created the way God determined. Logic alone tells us that if God could prevent people from being born with a handicap, and chooses not to prevent it, then he willed it.

All Good are Gifts of God

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." (Jam. 1: 17 nkjv)

"John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven." (John 3: 27 nkjv)

These texts affirm that every good thing that anyone possesses or experiences comes from God, they being his gifts. So, does God give to all equally? And, if he doesn't, is that just and fair? It is an observable and undeniable fact that all do not enjoy equal good in life. This being true, we must admit that it is because God gives more good gifts to some than he does to others. The next question is why? On what basis does God make his decision to give greater good things and more blessings to one than to another? Does God discriminate or show partiality? 

As we will see, some people have more good things because some divine gifts come with conditions. God says "do this and you will be blessed" and those who do those things are blessed and those who do not are not blessed. Of course, that is not true of every gift or blessing, for some are given unconditionally. Another question concerns whether God is to be thanked and credited for one person choosing to do what God says. Does anyone merit God's blessings and gifts? Is choosing to obey God a good thing? Obviously yes. Then that choice is itself a gift from God. This brings us to ask another question. Is God then to be blamed for not blessing another to make the right choices for obtaining other blessings and gifts? Let us look at some scripture that will help us answer these questions.

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (I Cor. 4: 7 kjv)

Dr. Albert Barnes in his commentary wrote these excellent comments on this text:

"For who maketh... - This verse contains a reason for what Paul had just said; and the reason is, that all that any of them possessed had been derived from God, and no endowments whatever, which they had, could be laid as the foundation for self-congratulation and boasting. The apostle here doubtless has in his eye the teachers in the church of Corinth, and intends to show them that there was no occasion of pride or to assume pre-eminence. As all that they possessed had been given of God, it could not be the occasion of boasting or self-confidence."

"To differ from another - Who has separated you from another; or who has made you superior to others. This may refer to everything in which one was superior to others, or distinguished from them. The apostle doubtless has reference to those attainments in piety, talents, or knowledge by which one teacher was more eminent than others. But the same question may be applied to native endowments of mind; to opportunities of education; to the arrangements by which one rises in the world; to health; to property; to piety; to eminence and usefulness in the church. It is God who makes one, in any of these respects, to differ from others; and it is especially true in regard to personal piety. Had not God interfered and made a difference, all would have remained alike under sin. The race would have together rejected his mercy; and it is only by his distinguishing love that any are brought to believe and be saved."

The reason why no one can boast or brag about his superiority is because he would not be superior had God not made the difference by his blessing. There is no room for merit in the larger view of things. This is why Christians do not say "good luck" but rather say "God bless you." 

Can we reason as do some and say "if God is the reason why I am different, then there is no need for me to strive to be better"? Does God making the differences in men logically necessitate that men themselves do not make themselves different? Or, to try to do so? Answer: no. The reason is because many things in the bible are said to be both the result of God's doing and of men's doing. The one does not exclude the other. The bible gives numerous examples of this, but I will give one. 

In the book of Exodus, we are told that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. But, we are also told that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Is this a contraction? Or, can they not both be true? Three times Yahweh declares that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 14:4). Three times we are told that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15; 8:32; 9:34). The question then becomes in what sense each is a cause of the heart being hardened. Is Pharaoh the first cause and God the secondary or instrumental cause? Or vise versa? It seems to me to be quite clear that God is the first cause. He does not play "second fiddle" in his providence. 

Barnes continued:

"Why dost thou glory... - Why dost thou boast as if it were the result of your own toil, skill or endeavor. This is not designed to discourage human exertion; but to discourage a spirit of vain-glory and boasting. A man who makes the most painful and faithful effort to obtain anything good, will, if successful, trace his success to God. He will still feel that it is God who gave him the disposition, the time, the strength, the success. And he will be grateful that he was enabled to make the effort; not vain, or proud, or boastful, because that he was successful. This passage states a general doctrine, that the reason why one man differs from another is to be traced to God; and that this fact should repress all boasting and glorying, and produce true humility in the minds of Christians. It may be observed, however, that it is as true of intellectual rank, of health, of wealth, of food, of raiment, of liberty, of peace, as it is of religion, that all come from God; and as this fact which is so obvious and well known, does not repress the exertions of people to preserve their health and to obtain property, so it should not repress their exertions to obtain salvation. God governs the world on the same good principles everywhere; and the fact that he is the source of all blessings, should not operate to discourage, but should prompt to human effort. The hope of his aid and blessing is the only ground of encouragement in any undertaking."

So, if God is the reason why people are different, the question then arises as to whether this is just and fair. That God does discriminate in the giving of gifts, is evident in the bible and from observing the world. That God has the sovereign right and power to do this is also evident in the same way. The only question that remains is whether God is just in so discriminating.  

We must acknowledge that even among men it is not judged to be a case of injustice or unfairness for a giver of good things to give something to one person and not to another. Christmas time is a time of giving gifts. Do all Christmas givers give the same gifts to everyone involved in the gift-giving, or to everyone in the world? No. Do they think they are being unfair if they only give gifts to some and not to others? Do they think that they are being unjust to give a better gift to one than to another? No. Well, cannot God do the same? Notice these words of Jude, the Lord's brother:

"And on some have compassion, making a distinction;  but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh." (Jude 1: 22-23 nkjv)

Jude is saying that we should "make a distinction" or discriminate in the way we treat those in need or who are in a pitiful condition. In the context this is said in regard to apostates and false teachers. But, the principle is true in many other contexts. Think of all the homeless beggars and drug addicts. Many of them are panhandlers. When they ask for money should we not discriminate as to whether we give them money or do something else? If we are fairly sure that they are going to use the money for illicit drugs, should we not refuse to give them money? If they are hungry, should we not rather give them food? 

Success is of the Lord

"Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain." (Psa. 127: 1 nkjv)

"The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the LORD." (Prov. 21: 31 esv)

These verses tell us that success is of the Lord. That being true, people might respond by saying that God must be blamed for failure. That is, failure results from God not giving success. This is true indirectly. The direct cause of failure is because a person does things that bring failure. We could apply the same logic in other ways. A person could argue that he is ill because the Lord has not healed him. But, that would be true only indirectly. But it is still true that unless God gives success that there will be none. This being true, God gets all the credit for anyone's success, though he is not responsible for anyone's failures.

The bible says "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The Lord has made them both." (Prov. 20: 12 nkjv) The ability to see and to hear are gifts of God. So, why do some not have those gifts when born? Did God not give them those gifts? We must say yes, even though many will be reluctant to admit such a fact, believing that it paints God in a bad light. Is God unjust because he makes some people blind at birth by not giving them the ability to see? No, because God is under no obligation to give any of his creatures such a gift, especially sinful and rebellious creatures. All sinful and condemned sinners are owed nothing good, having forfeited any rights to good. Therefore, any good that sinful creatures are given by God are acts of mercy and compassion; And, all mercy shown is at the discretion of God and no one is entitled to it. 

When the Lord spoke to Moses and told him to go and speak to Pharaoh, Moses began to complain that he was not able to speak well and the Lord's response to him is quite enlightening. Notice the words of God to him:

"So the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?" (Exo. 4: 11 nkjv)

Some Christians interpret these words by saying that "God made the people who are blind but He did not make them blind." However, that is not what the text is saying. Notice some other translations of the text:

"The LORD said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" (niv)

"Then the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" (esv)

"But the LORD said to him, “Who has made the human mouth? Or who makes anyone unable to speak or deaf, or able to see or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" (nasb)

So, how does God make people deaf, blind, or mute? Is it not because God did not give them those gifts or gave them and then took them away? Is that unjust? Obviously not for all that God does is just. Further, as previously observed, God is under no obligation to give to all these gifts. If he does so, it is an act of mercy and grace, what is undeserved. And, when it comes to showing mercy, God says "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." (Exo. 33: 19; Rom. 9: 15) Mercy that is deserved is not mercy. 

We have a similar text in the proverbs of Solomon who said: "The rich and the poor have this in common, The LORD is the maker of them all." (Prov. 22: 2 nkjv) No one doubts that the rich and the poor are both God's creatures. So, that is obviously not what Solomon is saying. Rather, he is saying that whether a man is rich or poor is of the Lord's doing. Wrote John Gill in his commentary on this text:

"the Lord is the Maker of them all: not only as men, but as rich men and poor men; God gives riches to whom he pleases, and poverty to whom he pleases; riches and poverty are according to the order of divine Providence; and he can and does change scenes at his pleasure; wherefore the rich should consider themselves as dependent on him, and not despise and crush the poor; and the poor should be content with their state, as being allotted to them by the Lord, who can alter it when he thinks fit."

Again, we must say that God's making men either poor or rich does not exclude men themselves making themselves either rich or poor. But, we must also always remember that success is of the Lord, and keep in mind the words of Moses who said: “And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth" (Deut. 8: 18 nkjv).

Many goods are available to his creatures but are conditioned upon people doing their part in acquiring those goods. Of course, that is not true in regard to every good thing that God gives or makes available to his creatures. Wrote Solomon:

"For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God." (Eccl. 2: 26 kjv)

These words might seem to contradict what we observed previously about how God blesses the wicked with material gain and fewer troubles in life because he knows that they will die lost and spend eternity in hell and so God shows them this kindness. But, they do not. God does promise to bless those who in their lives live according to his precepts and to deny blessings to those who do not. Yet, a lost man will still enjoy more in this life than a saved man, although even that lost man will often lose blessings for his disobedience to the Lord. The same is true with saved people. Even though they are generally poor and have more trials than do the wicked, yet that does not mean that they will not be more blessed in becoming God's servants. Keep in mind that we are not merely talking about wealth, but about other gifts that are priceless, such as joy and peace, contentment, wisdom and knowledge of God, etc. Wrote Mark:

"Then Peter began to say to Him, "See, we have left all and followed You." So Jesus answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time--houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions--and in the age to come, eternal life." (Mark 10: 28-30 nkjv)

Becoming a Christian does not instantly bring wealth. However, the bible does teach Christians on how they might escape poverty and to have more than they would have had if they had not abided by those teachings. The gift of wisdom itself will keep the Christian from becoming poor. Of Wisdom it is said: "Length of days is in her right hand, In her left hand riches and honor." (Prov. 3: 16 nkjv) On the other hand, there are several proverbs of Solomon that say that certain things will bring poverty, such as laziness. He said: "He who has a slack hand becomes poor, But the hand of the diligent makes rich." (Prov. 10: 4 nkjv)

Does God purposely make some people to be dumb (mute), deaf, or blind, and others with all such abilities? In some instances, this is surely true, as in John 9:1-3, a text we looked at in writing on the problem of evil. There a man was born blind, not because of anyone's sin, but so that God could be glorified in his healing. Though the text does not directly say that God caused his blindness, it is certainly inferred. 

Is it not a simpler reading of Exodus 4: 11 to say that God gives to some an eloquent tongue, seeing eyes, and hearing ears, and does not give those gifts to others? Can we not admit that God in his providence can keep any creature from being born with such disabilities? Can we not also admit that God can heal any person at any time he pleases? That he can make the blind to see and the deaf to hear when it pleases him? 

The question involves God's distribution of his gifts and his distributive justice. If God gives one man the gift of sight, must he in justice give all men that gift? That is the chief question. If God gives one good thing to one person, is he obligated to give the same gift to all? Many would say yes, even though we see that this is not the actual case. Nor do men practice what they preach for they do the very thing that they think is unjust for God to do, as we have previously observed. 

NEARER OH LORD!

 Today as I was having my morning "moment with God" I was listening to "Nearer My God To Thee" by André Rieu & his Johann Strauss Orchestra. The first two stanzas are instrumental, with the last being sung. As I watched the faces of the people listening, seeing even the musicians shedding tears as they played, it highlighted the fact that the Christian faith is the only religion where music and singing cannot be divorced from it.

As tears began to well up in my own eyes, I began to recall all the times this song was sung by those in tragedy, such as when Titanic was sinking, and those in despair in concentration camps, and those, like me, who are very near the shores of Zion through sickness or age. 

I immediately went to hear another version of this song, sung acapela. The same tears began to flow down my cheeks. The God who pierces the heart in a fancy concert, is the same God who pierces the heart in a country church.

Oh to be near Him! Oh to know that He will carry me over to Zion! Oh to feel Him ever near, here and now!  To be drawn into His presence, even while undeserving of it. Draw near to Him dear friend! 

Hear the orchestra version here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yRC1VJsCk8 and watch intently the faces of the people and musicians

Hear the acapella version here  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CTlxFwXHAs and see the intensity of the singers

Divine Justice Issues (XVIII)

With this chapter we will begin to answer these questions from our original list.

6.  The justice of God is a debate issue in discussing God's choice of sinners to salvation before the world began by grace alone. Is it just for God to choose one to salvation and not another? 

7. Is it just and fair for God to give more to one than to another? This is a question involving what is called "distributive justice." Or, is God fair? 

I include these two questions together because they are intimately related. They deal with what is called "distributive justice" because they focus on fairness in the distribution of resources. Later we will deal with what is called "retributive justice" which focuses on punishment for wrongdoing, and whether or not God is just in the punishment he has ordained for those who have transgressed his law, and whether "eternal punishment" is just, or a case of "cruel and unusual punishment" (or whether God is cruel). 

Some argue that the unequal distribution of wealth, opportunity, and happiness is evidence of an unfair God. In beginning answering the above questions we must first talk about what it means for someone to be "fair." Secondly, we must ask whether fairness is the same in every respect for both God and his rational creatures. 

Questions related to this subject would be whether God is a "respecter of persons," or whether God shows favor, favoritism, or partiality. As we have already stated in previous chapters, every person has no doubt questioned at times whether God was being fair in his showing of divine favors or fair in his government of the world. Many people, when tragedies occur, find themselves questioning God, as did the suffering Job, questioning whether God was being fair or unfair to them. Job thought that God was being "cruel" in his suffering his various calamities. Wrote Job in his complaint to God:

"15 Terrors are turned upon me; They pursue my honor as the wind, And my prosperity has passed like a cloud. 16 "And now my soul is poured out because of my plight; The days of affliction take hold of me. 17 My bones are pierced in me at night, And my gnawing pains take no rest. 18 By great force my garment is disfigured; It binds me about as the collar of my coat. 19 He has cast me into the mire, And I have become like dust and ashes. 20 "I cry out to You, but You do not answer me; I stand up, and You regard me. 21 But You have become cruel to me; With the strength of Your hand You oppose me. 22 You lift me up to the wind and cause me to ride on it; You spoil my success." (Job 30: 15022 nkjv)

So, was Job right? Was God being cruel to Job? Was God unjust to have put righteous Job though all his sufferings? I have written extensively on Job's situation and have stated what God himself says of Job, i.e. that Job spoke what was right about God. (See Job 42: 7) This is contrary to what many theologians say about Job, affirming that he was not righteous, deserving all his calamities, and affirming that he said things about God that were not correct. These would say that Job's affirmation that God was cruel to him was a falsehood and a case in point. But, I don't think so. I rather think that what he meant was that God was being hard on him in his providence more than he was being hard on the wicked; And, that was certainly true. 

In Job's dialogues with his counselors he asked them - "Why do the wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power?" (Job 21: 7 esv) In other words, why is it that in many cases the good live in poverty and die young and those most wicked often live in wealth and die old? Is Lord God not being unfair in regard to distributive justice? 

A superficial view of the case would lead one to think that God was indeed cruel. After all, lots of evil men suffered very little, and yet Job, a most righteous man (God's judgment of him), suffered much. Who would not think that such was unfair and that God was being cruel? The psalmist also spoke of the "men of the world who have their portion in this life" and "whose belly You fill with Your hidden treasure."  (Psa. 17: 14 nkjv) So, why is it that many wicked people have a better life, economically speaking, and live long lives, and often have fewer burdens and troubles? That was Job's question too. Why do the good die young and the wicked grow old and prosper? Wrote the Psalmist again in agreement with this fact:

"For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men." (Psa. 73: 3-5 kjv)

So, why would God in his providence and government of the world allow the wicked to fair better than his righteous servants, or even his own children? Again, from a superficial view of things, one might jump to conclusions and say that God is indeed cruel, unfair, and unjust. But, a broader and more informed view would see that things are not always as they seem. When you consider that wicked unrepentant men will be imprisoned forever in Hell, and the righteous and penitent will be happy forever in Paradise, then you might see the reason behind this paradox in what the texts above are telling us. God is being merciful to the wicked for he knows that this life is all the good that they will ever enjoy. Wrote the psalmist again in further confirmation of this fact:

"9 For evildoers shall be cut off; But those who wait on the Lord, They shall inherit the earth. 10 For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, But it shall be no more. 11 But the meek shall inherit the earth, And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. 12 The wicked plots against the just, And gnashes at him with his teeth. 13 The Lord laughs at him, For He sees that his day is coming." (Psa. 37: 9-13 nkjv)

God does not chastise or discipline those who are not his children. (Heb. 12: 6-7) There are those who are "without chastisement" because they are not loved by God as are his sons and daughters. This chastening often will involve the denial of blessings in this life, a thing that the wicked do not experience. Secondly, God has sent hard times and troubles to his people in order to purify them, to build their characters, and to try them, and to give them opportunities to learn more about God. Thirdly, it is also because God desires to keep his people from the sin of pride and to keep them humble and meek. Fourthly, the rich nearly always believe that they do not need anyone, including God. This is why Solomon wrote:

"Two things I request of You (Deprive me not before I die): Remove falsehood and lies far from me; Give me neither poverty nor riches— Feed me with the food allotted to me; Lest I be full and deny You, And say, “Who is the LORD?” Or lest I be poor and steal, And profane the name of my God." (Prov. 30: 7-9 nkjv)

The rich are more apt to deny the Lord and their need of him. Their perceived self reliance makes them think that they are superior to others, yea, even being God's favorites, or the world's elite. I wrote a lengthy series on this question titled "God's Elect or World's Elite?" Of course, being in poverty also has its temptations as Solomon said. But, still it is the poor who have a better chance, circumstantially, to seek God's help and his salvation. So Jesus said: "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matt. 19: 24 nkjv) James the Lord's brother also said:

"Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?" (James 2: 5 nkjv)

No wonder then that we read where it is recorded that "the common people heard Him gladly." (Mark 12: 37 nkjv) By "common people" is meant those of the lower socio-economic classes. It was these same people that Jesus specially pointed to when he said "the poor have the gospel preached to them." (Matt. 11: 5 nkjv)

Paul also chimes in on this area of our subject by saying:

"26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence." (I Cor. 1: 26-29 nkjv) 

Thankfully the apostle said "not many" rather than "not any" for in that case no rich person would be saved. God has chosen the poor of this world for salvation so that his grace, mercy, and power might be more fully manifested.

So, in this introduction to this part of our study of the justice of God, we say that God often sees to it that wicked men receive more good things in this life than even his own people. That might look unfair, at least until we know the reason behind his providence, which the above texts inform us about. 

Of course, God had his good reasons for what he did in the story of Job. Much good came from it. So, from a higher perspective, knowing more of the facts and the context, we see that God was not cruel, but only seemed to be for the time, and in comparison to others who are not God's own.

We must also keep in mind the principle that Jesus spoke about when it comes to why he punishes some more severely than others:

"And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12: 47-48 nkjv)

Greater responsibility comes with greater divine gifts and also greater punishments for misuse and abuse of those gifts. Those who know better and do wrong will receive harsher treatment while those who did wrong but did not know better will receive lessor divine rebuke and fewer loss of blessings. Again, James adds these words: "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment." (James 3: 1 nkjv)

This is the reason why the Lord rendered severer judgment upon Israel. Notice the words of the prophet:

“Speak comfort to Jerusalem, and cry out to her, That her warfare is ended, That her iniquity is pardoned; For she has received from the LORD’s hand Double for all her sins.” (Isa. 40: 2 nkjv)

Israel was punished doubly so because they knew God's will and were ordained to be the teacher of the Gentiles. In view of this the apostle Paul also wrote:

"Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." (Rom. 11: 22 nkjv)

God can be severe in "retributive justice." He also, in his distributive justice gives more earthly and temporal blessings to those who are lost and condemned to eternal torment. This is not unjust, however, as we have seen. God has his good reasons for this being so.

In the next chapter we will continue to address the issue of whether God is fair in the distribution of good. After that we will discuss the question of why some are chosen to salvation and others are not.

Divine Justice Issues (XVII)

In this chapter we will further address some of the common objections against the doctrine of original sin. First, in regard to the objections stated in the above image, I would say that the doctrine of original sin is not an invention of Augustine, but as we have seen, was first taught by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter five. Secondly, we have already shown how God created the human race under a different constitution than he did the angels. If God is not just in imputing the sin of Adam to his posterity, then it is also not just for God to impute our sins to Christ the innocent. 

As far as why Christ was not born of original sin has been mentioned by me so far in that I have stated that Christ was an exception. So, how do I know that? 

First, Adam could not be the head of Christ because he is the head of Adam. We have previously cited the words of Paul who said that Jesus was "the head of every man." (I Cor. 11: 3) 

Second, he is the counterpart of the first Adam, and both were sinless at their creation. 

Third, the scriptures assert that Christ was without sin, and this is not said of any other person, making him unique and an exception. (II Cor. 5: 21; I Peter 2: 22; Heb. 4: 15; 7: 26; etc.) Universal statements, such as we have in Romans chapter five, may be true although with an exception. One example of this is seen in these words of the apostle Paul: "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him." (I Cor. 15: 27 kjv) All things, except God himself, are "put under" Christ. So we likewise say that "all men sinned in Adam, or are born in sin, except for Christ." Another example of this is to be seen in the words of Solomon who said "For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin." (Eccl. 7: 20 nkjv) Christ is the exception to this universal proposition. He is a just man on earth who only did good and did not sin.

Fourth, Christ was born of a virgin. But why? Surely it was to keep him from being born in sin. What other reason could there be? I believe this is intimated in these words: "And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1: 35 nkjv) He would not be the holy one from his birth if he were not born miraculously by the virgin Mary. This is why Christ in the protoevangelium is called uniquely "the seed of the woman." (Gen. 3: 15) All other human beings are represented as being the seed of the man. Christ in his human nature was not the seed of man as the bible uses the term. That does not mean, however, that he was not a man with a fully human nature. It simply is alluding to the fact that Christ's body, soul, and spirit were free from sin. Yes, he was born "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8: 3), but this does not mean he had sinful flesh, but simply means that you could not tell by looking at his body and flesh that he was without sin, but that he looked like every other man, all of whom were of sinful flesh. 

Those of the Roman Catholic church, believing in the imputation of original sin, don't think that the virgin birth of Christ is sufficient in itself to have kept Christ from being born in sin or guilty of original sin. They think that it was also necessary for his mother Mary be herself without sin. This led them to formulate what is called "the immaculate conception." Many people who hear that term for the first time assume that it is talking about the immaculate conception of Christ. But Roman Catholics believe it rather refers to the birth of Mary who was given special grace to keep her from being born sinful. But, that begs the question for there is no scripture that asserts such a thing. Rather, the only exception, as we have seen, to being born without original sin, is Christ. These Catholics say that if Mary had not been born immaculate, and had been subject to the physical and spiritual corruption of sin, then Jesus would have inherited that corruption also. But, that is another case of begging the question. One of the biggest problems with this view is that it also logically necessitates not only that Mary be immaculately conceived, but also her mother, and then her mother, all the way back to Eve. 

Another difficulty for the Roman Catholics is that they are forced to answer the criticism of the infidel who would ask "why does he not give everyone descended from Adam that same kind of special grace that was supposedly given to Mary and therefore keep all men from being born with a depraved nature?" Such a view would make God appear to the worldly mind to be more fair and just. 

Now that we have addressed the criticisms in the above image, let us consider some other objections. I will begin with citing from an Internet article titled "The Original Sin Paradox" (See here) by philosopher R.N. Carmona. Wrote Carmona (emphasis mine):

"It has become routine for atheists and people who are skeptical of Christianity to question God’s view on justice. On the one hand, he thinks that penal substitution is acceptable, hence sending Jesus Christ, a scapegoat, to pay the ransom for the sins of mankind. On the other, he thinks that rampant guilt by association is morally acceptable and to see this, one does not have to venture very far into the Bible. One need only read the first three chapters of Genesis to come across the Fall, the origin of sin. What few people question is the other side of the coin. While it is apt to question God’s twisted view of justice, it is arguably more appropriate, first and foremost, to question God’s distorted view of accountability."

To this we respond to this skeptic by asking him how he would have created man if he were God. Would he have made him capable of sinning? Would he have been just in punishing sin? Or, would he simply excuse it? Would he have made each man accountable for his own sins? How would he then make salvation and forgiveness possible? Would he allow a substitute? If he thinks that original sin and God's defining and determining each one's accountability or responsibility is a "twisted view of justice," then what would be his idea as to what justice would be like if he were God? It is one thing to criticize a system of justice and then offer no better system. 

Wrote Carmona in regard to atheist John Loftus:

"John Loftus identified the first half of The Original Sin Paradox. He, in other words, questions whether most of us, assuming the same exact conditions, would sin as Adam did. He states:

There are Christians who object that it doesn’t matter if thinking people can’t understand the truth because of all of us deserve to be condemned for the sin of our first human parents in a Garden of Eden anyway. But isn’t it obvious that only if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions can such a test be considered a fair one rather than a sham? But if some us would not have sinned in the Garden of Eden under the same “ideal” conditions, then there are people who are being punished for something they never would’ve done in the first place." (Loftus, John W. The End of Christianity. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011. 85. Print)

As the federal head of the human race, Adam stands before God as our representative and so acts on our behalf. His misdeed was our misdeed because he acted as our proxy before God. Lest anyone complain that Adam was a bad representative, he may argue that God knew, had he been in Adam’s place, that he would have done the same thing. So Adam does not fail to represent us accurately before God and so serves as an apt representative on our behalf. This is of course a weak argument and involves a degree of speculation. 

The question concerns what each human being would have done if he were born in the same innocent state as Adam and Eve. Or, what if God had made each person individually as he did the angels? In the case of the angels some did sin and some did not. So, we may presume that had humans been constituted as the angels that some would have sinned like Adam and some not. We simply do not know the answer to this question and could only speculate. So, does the justice of God depend upon the question as to whether every man would have done the same as Adam? I don't believe so. So, in debate with the atheist or other skeptic we must take another approach if we are to convince him that God was just in making the human race's destiny to depend upon Adam. We might rather respond to these type of critics with these words.

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness (or injustice) with God? Certainly not!" "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” (Rom. 9: 14, 20 nkjv)

God is just and what he does is just and right whether we can comprehend how it is so in every case. We must not insult God by calling into question the goodness, justice, or wisdom of his every work. We are reminded of the words of Solomon who said: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding." (Prov. 3: 5 nkjv) As we have before stated, God says: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD." (Isa. 55: 8 nkjv)

We have also shown how if it is just for Christ to have the sins of others to be imputed to him (he becoming accountable for them), then it was just to set up Adam as the head of the human race and to make the entire race to be responsible for his act.

Wrote Carmona:

"There are two layers to Loftus’ contention, one of which is not elaborated on. The first is that if some people would not have sinned given the same conditions, why punish them? The second, which is crucial to creating the paradox, is that if each and every one of us would have sinned given these initial conditions, then is it not the case that we were already flawed to begin with? Therefore, we are left with a paradox: Did man Fall because of Adam’s original sin or was Adam already “Fallen” (i.e. flawed) and powerless to not commit the original sin? Either you have a situation in where God rigged the game, pitting a newly created man against a master Machiavellian or he rigged the game by making a person that is inherently flawed, hence justifying the idea that any one of us would have made the same mistake and therefore, deserve to be punished. So was humankind flawed from the beginning, thus the original sin or did the original sin make us flawed?"

Many of the confessions of faith within the Christian community affirm that Adam, when originally created by God, was given a choice, or "free will," and that he was made mutable or "liable to fall." Loftus calls this a "flaw" and is the reason why Adam sinned, and this makes God responsible for Adam's flaw. The logic of Loftus cannot be refuted. However, instead of the pejorative word "flawed," I would rather say that God made Adam less than perfect, and the same is true with the angels. Most of the confessions also state that Adam had the ability to have obeyed. That being so, we can say that he was not flawed.

The kind or degree of perfection that the elect angels and glorified human beings will have following their resurrection and entrance into eternal life will far exceed that in which Adam or angels were originally created. There is now no possibility of the elect angels sinning nor will any human saint have such a possibility when they have been glorified. The imperfections in the original creation of man will no longer be part of the new creation of man. He will no longer be mutable but immutable. His will will no longer be free to sin but only free to holiness. (See Rom. 6: 20-23)

Yes, man was originally made in the image and likeness of God. (Gen. 1: 27; 5: 1-2) When he sinned, he no longer had that image. When a person is regenerated in his spirit the process of making him once again into the image and likeness of God is begun. The original divine image was not so much in man's body but in his soul, mind, and spirit and involved being righteous and holy. (Rom. 8: 29, 1 Cor. 15: 49; Col. 3: 10). Paul exhorts believers to "put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4: 24 nkjv) That kind of perfection exceeds that which Adam and Eve, or the angels possessed, and which did not originally characterized them. They certainly were not immutable in holiness but had "liability" to fall from their state of perfection. There is no such liability now among the elect angels nor any saint in heaven.

God had the right to make his creatures, whether angels or men, with such limitations (what Loftus and Camona call a "flaw" which is the root meaning of the Greek word "hamartia" that is often translated as "sin"). Creating them with such limitations was not without good reason. The elect angels who were witnesses to the rebellion of Lucifer and the fallen angels, and elect sinners from among the human race who have experienced and witnessed the results of man's fall into sin and death, now know good and evil on a level that they could not have known otherwise. The good that comes to them by God's creating them, even after foreknowing that they would fall, was to raise them higher by their experience with sin and death. We could expand on this idea, but will forestall, having already shown a probable justification for God to have created angels and men as they were originally made. It was not a case where God "rigged the game" against his creatures, although he knew what would be the outcome of creating angels and men with such limitations. He had a greater good in mind in suffering it so to be. 

Wrote Carmona:

"This paradox is a devastating blow to Christianity, a religion that has already been blistered by numerous contentions and outright defeaters."

Yes, we know of the numerous objections that infidels raise against the holiness, righteousness, and justice of God. We do disagree however with the conclusion of many who think that such paradoxes are a "devastating blow" to Christianity or to the bible. We might ask such infidels - "how would you have made man different?" Would you have made him without any limitations? Would you have given him free will? How would you have taught men about what is sin and death? Or about what is holy versus what is unholy? Seeing this whole story about the creation and fall of men and angels is a real story, how would you have written the novel?

Wrote Carmona:

"The penchant for some Christians to object to the doctrine of original sin simply does not work because the early Church Fathers readily accepted it and there has been no convincing doctrine offered to supplant it. "

What doctrine do the Pelagians offer to supplant the truth? How is it better? How does that story end? We could ask the same thing of the bible's critics. How would you have written the story of the creation and fall of angels and men? Would it be better in the end than the story the bible gives us? Tell us of your historiography. Would you agree with Leibniz that this is the best world that you could create? Or say that a world without the possibility of sin and death are not possible? 

Wrote Carmona further:

"There is also the fact that the earliest Christian on record, the Apostle Paul, outlined the doctrine in very clear terms: Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:45. In any event, the paradox makes it abundantly clear that God intended the Fall and therefore, all of the suffering he claims follows from it. Any way one slices it, Adam was predestined to fail because he, or anyone else in his position, was flawed to begin with or he was so utterly powerless to resist Satan’s temptation that anyone else would have disobeyed God and eaten from the tree. In either case, this does not bode well for a God that is perfectly good. His view of moral accountability is so twisted that he must assume any one of us would have failed where Adam did, even in a pre-Fall state. Or, it is simply the case that we were intrinsically flawed from the start and are therefore being held accountable for a test we never took. This is not to give any credence to what is clearly unadulterated hokum, but this is the bunk that convinces close to 50 percent of the world population, i.e., every adherent of the three major monotheisms. Hopefully this paradox will make it possible for the scales to fall from more eyes."

We agree that God created man foreknowing that he would fall. Yet, he created him anyway. Would you have done the same, Mr. Infidel? Yes, God did intend the fall, for he created angels and men knowing that they would fall into sin. In chapter five of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, we have these words:

"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that His determinate counsel extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also He most wisely and powerfully binds, and otherwise orders and governs, in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceeds only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."

Of course, we discussed God's purpose in the existence of evil in the earlier chapters. The fall of angels and men did not catch God by surprise. He foreknows all things. Wrote the prophet:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure.’" (Isa. 46: 10 nkjv)

It is one thing to declare the beginning from the end (which is what we see historically looking back into the past), and quite another thing to declare the end from the beginning. Only the author of the novel of man's existence could do that.

The above skeptics believe that for God to create a world where evil was possible, yea, even certain, makes God to be not good. But, we have shown how this reasoning is not sound. 

Some of what Carmona says may be true with respect to Eve, though not to Adam. For the inspired apostle says "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." (I Tim. 2: 14 nkjv) Adam did not sin because he thought as did Eve. Unlike her he knew that the Serpent told a lie. So, if not deceived, why did he follow the lead of his wife and eat the forbidden fruit? Most bible scholars affirm that he did it so that he might share all with his wife, and to be with her, no matter what. I think that is likely correct. Perhaps we will not know for sure until we are with the Lord. We do know that he was not deceived like Eve. 

We agree that Adam was not made immutably perfect. Without the attribute of immutability we may indeed say that Adam was "flawed" if by that term we mean that he was mutable and liable to fall, and if we view the attribute of "free will" as a defect. We may say the same thing in regard to angels, however. The elect angels, as we have seen, were those angels whom God kept from sinning, or we might say, whom he made immutable in holiness as God is himself. We may also say that God could have prevented Adam and Eve's sin as he did the elect angels. We can affirm also that the elect angels cannot credit or praise themselves from having been kept from the apostasy of other angels.