Back to the Basics: Building Blocks for a Sound Theodicy, Pt. 4: What Genesis Teaches Us

We’ve spent the last few posts covering divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and how these two elements are essential building blocks for a sound theodicy. In other words, you can’t defend the righteousness of God in a theodicy if you don’t take into account divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

In this post, I’m back to put Genesis chapters 1-3 into perspective for us, as we proceed with our discussion. What can Genesis chapters 1-3 teach us about the concepts of divine sovereignty and human responsibility? How can we appropriate these chapters into a sound theodicy – which then makes its way into a sound theology?

We can learn a few things from Genesis 3 about divine sovereignty and human responsibility:

·      God’s sovereignty remains intact – the Lord, as sovereign, comes to the scene of the sin and punishes all parties involved (Adam, Eve, and the serpent). At the same time, however, He proclaims hope in that, despite the sin and stain upon humanity and creation, the seed of the woman (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Satan), Gen. 3:15. Notice that the Lord refers to “He” when discussing the seed of the woman and the “you” and “your” when referring to the serpent. Scripture tells us that Satan is “that serpent of old” (Rev. 12:9). The seed of the woman refers to Christ, “The God of peace” who will “crush Satan under your feet” (Romans 16:20). God’s sovereignty can also be seen through the fact that He expels man and woman from the Garden and places a cherubim angel with a flaming sword to guard the Garden.

·      Man’s responsibility remains intact – despite man’s sin, he must still cultivate the ground, even after he is expelled from the Garden (Gen. 3:17-19, 23). Man does gain the knowledge of good and evil in the encounter, but he must now encounter evil – something that hadn’t happened prior to Genesis 3. All the consequences that occurred in the Fall were bad, and man must now live with these consequences while still having to work the ground, produce childbirth, and live in marriage.

·      Man is the author of Sin – Sin enters the world and stains creation because of man. Although Satan was in the Garden that day, it is not Satan (the serpent) who is blamed for the Fall; rather, the ground is cursed “because of you,” which was God’s response in making Adam responsible for it (Gen. 3:17). In addition, the Lord tells Adam that he disobeyed the divine command: “because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’” (Genesis 3:17) God’s statement to Adam shows that the Lord is absolved of guilt because He forewarned Adam about disobeying Him, and Adam listened to the voice of his wife against the word of God (which makes Adam guilty all on his own).

·      Divine sovereignty comes back in full force, even after human responsibility fails – If Open Theists were right, God would have claimed ignorance after Adam and Eve sin in the Garden. Instead, the Lord tells the serpent that, not only will he crawl on his belly for the rest of his life, but that his head will be crushed by the seed of the woman. We know from progressive revelation that this refers to the cosmic battle of the Lord over Satan and his demons (cf. Luke 10:18; Romans 16:20). In the end, the Lord will rule over all, and He would claim the victory over Satan through His death and resurrection on the cross (Colossians 2:13-15).

·      Death enters the human family – It’s a sad thought indeed, but Adam and Eve’s sin brings death into the human family. The Lord had forewarned Adam of death (“the wages of sin is death,” Paul said in Romans 6:23), but Adam decided to disobey God in the face of the divine warning. The sentence for not just Adam, but all of mankind, is death (Romans 5). I mentioned in the last post that the Lord forewarns of death despite the fact that death didn’t exist with mankind prior to the Fall, but it reminds us that the Lord, while being the Giver of Life in Genesis, always had the power to take life, too.

·      The environment is cursed because of the fall of man – “Cursed is the ground because of you,” the Lord says to Adam in Genesis 3. Adam’s decision to sin affected not only Adam and Eve, but also their descendants (Romans 5:12) as well as creation, including the ground (Romans 8:19-22). In other words, we see the implications of the Lord making Adam and Eve to “rule over the earth”: their sin would result in the curse of all creation, not just themselves and humanity. Adam and Eve could not have foreseen that their sin would impact their children (Cain and Abel), as well as the remainder of humanity. By the time of the Flood, sin had so pervaded humanity that the writer could say “the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). In response to the evil, the Lord could say, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth” (Genesis 6:13).

Even Noah’s name was linked to the curse of the ground: “Now he [Lamech] called his name Noah, saying, ‘This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed’” (Gen. 5:29).

When Jesus dies on the cross, Matthew notes that creation responds to the Lord who made it: first, darkness falls upon the land (Matthew 27:45); then, the earth shakes and the rocks split (Matt. 27:51). This was to show that the Lord of creation was dying on the cross and that the Lord’s crucifixion and resurrection would have an impact on creation.

These lessons gleaned from Genesis show us that Adam and Eve’s decision to sin had far-reaching impacts that the couple could never have foreseen in Genesis 3. Man’s rule over the earth plunged the earth into the curse when man disobeyed God.

I’ve gone through some basics of divine sovereignty and human responsibility as provided in Genesis, but we’re not done with basic building blocks for a sound theodicy just yet. Next on the list is omniscience, and I’ll start my investigation of this component of a sound theodicy in my next post. Stay tuned.

Back to the Basics: Building Blocks for a Sound Theodicy, Pt. 3-B: Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Continued

In my last post, I started an examination of Genesis and what the first biblical book tells us about divine sovereignty and human responsibility. We see that, in the beginning, the sovereign Lord who creates the world also makes man and gives him “dominion” or “rule” over the animal kingdom and the earth itself. We know this to be true because of what happens in the Fall.

And the Fall happens to be the background for today’s post: that divine sovereignty and human responsibility meet sin in the narrative. How does the Lord handle sin? What role do Adam and Eve play in the sin committed? You likely know the narrative, but we’ll cover it because it shows us in no uncertain terms that sin doesn’t negate God’s sovereignty (contra Open Theism) nor does it negate man’s responsibility. Even Calvinists struggle to reconcile how their theology posits that evil is foreordained by God while still attributing evil to man.

Yes, I am aware of the “primary” and “secondary causes” language that is philosophical in nature; even Arminius used these terms in his three-volume theology (The Works of Arminius, or simply, Works), but even if you posit man is the primary cause of an evil action, you’re still stuck with God as the secondary cause. Any agent in our world today that “drives the getaway car” from a murder of the scene of a crime is still guilty, even if he or she never even touched the trigger of the gun or the dagger that killed the victim. And, if the Lord never approved of aiding and abetting the wrongdoer, why would He not care about being free of evil Himself? 

God as secondary cause is still not enough to free the Lord of the crime of committing evil. And, if the Lord is the primary agent of a noble action, then He must do so in a way that is non-coercive. The Lord does this in the salvation process, when His Holy Spirit convicts a man of his sin and need for Jesus but does not force the individual in any way to make a choice to either receive or reject the gospel. The same happened in the account of the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-27).

Commands, freedom, and warning

The end of Genesis chapter 2 shows us divine sovereignty and human responsibility in yet another beautiful display of the two concepts. First, we see the Lord, in His sovereignty, gives Adam the responsibility and freedom of naming the animals in the animal kingdom. The Lord creates the animals (sovereignty and divine freedom), and then the Lord allows Adam to name them (again, another display of divine sovereignty). The text even tells us that Adam got free reign over what to name the animals: “and [He] brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name” (Genesis 2:19, NASB; cf. Gen. 2:20).

Naming the animals was another responsibility the Lord gave to Adam in creation, along with cultivating the ground and upkeeping it. These were responsibilities, but they were also privileges from the Creator of the universe. Even responsibility is a freedom and a privilege. I need to remember this when I’m paying my bills each month (you know you want to laugh here J)

Adam even gets the unique privilege of naming his companion: “She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:23). In the same way that the Lord names the sun, moon, stars, and day and night, He now allows man, bearing His image and likeness, to name some of creation himself – the animals and the human female. We find out that Adam names the gender, but he also gives the woman a specific name: Eve (Gen. 3:20), or “Zoe” in the greek (“Zoe,” Grk., means “living”).

As Genesis 2 shows us here, the “rule over the earth” becomes a bit more fleshed out for us to see exactly what ruling over the earth entailed. By Adam working to cultivate the ground, and naming the animals and his mate, Adam was “taking responsibility” for them. And, despite the Lord’s having created everything, he would make Adam “lord” (lowercase, not capital) of the earth. This will play a large role in the Lord’s punishment to Adam in Genesis 3.

In Genesis 2:16-17, we see that the Lord warns Adam that if he eats from the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, “in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” God speaks about death here, something that, from the text alone, doesn’t seem to have ever existed in the creation narrative until the Lord mentions it here. At the same time, however, God is aware of the concept of death – which explains why He gives this warning to Adam and uses death as a punishment to deter Adam from disobeying His command. And the fact that Eve mentions death to the serpent shows that she is aware of how terrible a consequence the couple would endure if they disobeyed God (Genesis 3:3).

The Fall and Its Consequences

We won’t cover the Fall here except to point out the Lord’s warning to Adam in Genesis 2 and the Lord’s response to sin. Adam and Eve believe the serpent’s lie that on the day they ate the fruit, “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5).

They eat, and their eyes are opened, and they realize they are naked. Once the Lord enters the Garden, Adam and Eve hide because of the knowledge that they have sinned.

The Lord confronts Adam and Eve about their sin, but starts with the serpent since, “The serpent deceived me and I ate,” Eve said (Gen. 3:13). The Lord tells the serpent that he will be “cursed...more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field. On your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:14). In other words, the serpent’s days are numbered and he will be the most humiliated creature on earth.

The woman is sentenced to painful childbirth (“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth,” Gen. 3:16), but she will still sexually desire her husband – even if it brings more and more children, and multiple painful childbirths. The husband will rule over her as a consequence of her “leading” her husband into sin.

As for the man, Adam, the Lord sentences him to 1) hard, sweaty labor (v.19), 2) physical death – “till you return to the ground” and “to dust you shall return,” Gen. 3:19). The Lord finally announces death for the human family, but notice that he doesn’t institute death for the animal kingdom. He simply tells the serpent about “all the days of his life,” a claim that some could use to make the case that animal death existed prior to the death sentence upon humanity.

Last but not least, the Lord tells Adam that “the ground is cursed because of you,” or, as some translations of Scripture read, “Cursed is the ground because of you” (Gen. 3:17). The Lord is even more descriptive of the ground’s curse when He says that “both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you” (v.18).” This statement tells us that the ground’s crop and food will be hard to come by because thistles and thorns (weeds) will also grow on the ground. Adam will now have to work by the sweat of his brow because of the intensity of labor required to bypass the weeds and see that a crop grows to fruition.

In my next post, I will tackle some important lessons we can learn from Genesis 3, and use the lessons learned to propel us into further discussion regarding divine sovereignty, omniscience, human responsibility, and evil. God bless.

Back to the Basics: Building Blocks for a Sound Theodicy, Pt. 3: The Sovereignty of God and Human Responsibility

You will note throughout this mini-series that I intend to use the terms “divine sovereignty” and “the sovereignty of God” interchangeably. If I do use them in this manner throughout my writing, do know that they are excellent equivalents.

I’m back to begin my work on the building blocks for a sound theodicy. First on the list is divine sovereignty, the sovereignty of God. God is sovereign, in control of all things, and the biblical record bears witness to this.

I’m about to provide scriptural proof, but I want you to understand that this series will not attempt to cover every verse in Scripture about the sovereignty of God. Instead, I intend to cover the basics surrounding this topic – from Genesis, the beginning of the biblical history as we’re told. Genesis is the beginning of it all for our revelation from God, so I intend to cover Genesis as it relates to our discussion.

This post covers the idea that God is in control, He’s the Lord of all creation, the God of the universe, and everything He does is out of His own free will. The Lord doesn’t have to do anything outside of 1) exist and 2) remain true to Himself (cf. 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 6:18). Human responsibility is a direct result of the sovereignty and free will of God -- and God's will can't conflict with His sovereignty. 

So, with that said, let’s take a look at God’s power and the divine will. Genesis 1:1 tells us that He created the universe. In Genesis 1:3 the Lord says, “Let there be light,” with the word “let” implying voluntarism. God decides to create the world because He wants to. It seemed right to Him. He was under no impulse to create the world. In every place in chapter 1 where we see “let,” we can rest assured that the Lord creates out of His own free will – with no one or thing forcing Him to do so.

In Genesis 1:26, we see God decides to create man: “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky...” We see that the Triune Godhead, the Trinity, God in three persons, makes man, gives man His image, and then allows him to “rule over...every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (v.26). This “man,” however, refers to both men and women (Gen. 1:27). In verse 28, God says the same thing to them again for emphasis: “rule over...every living thing that moves on the earth.”

God creates the sun, moon, stars, and even vegetation and animal kingdom, but He also has sovereignty over man, too – after all, He creates man and gives Him dominion over the earth. How could a God lacking in sovereignty do that?

When Sovereignty Meets Responsibility: God and Man in Relationship in Creation

What happens when God and man meet in creation? We’ve seen that God creates man in His image, after His likeness, and lets male and female (both genders) rule over the earth as agents made to bear the image of God. Now, however, we’re going to take a look at what happens when God creates man.

If you read works such as Most Moved Mover by Clark Pinnock, or The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence by John Sanders, you’ll find the statement “God limits His almightiness.” This phrase may seem harmless if one is talking about the fact that God doesn’t treat humans like robots and “order them around.” Unfortunately, Pinnock and Sanders do not refer to this idea when using the phrase “God limits His almightiness”; instead, these authors mean that God chooses to throw off His ability to foreknow man’s choices – thereby throwing off His foreknowledge and omniscience. Now, to be fair to the Open Theist position that these authors advocate, they do say that God does know the “possibilities of choices” you will make; it’s just that He doesn’t know which possibility you’ll choose. In their understanding, then, God foreknew that Adam and Eve could either 1) eat from the fruit or 2) not eat from the fruit, but He didn’t know whether they’d choose #1 or #2.

If God didn’t foreknow their exact choice, however, how could God have chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4)? To choose us in Christ implies that Christ was the only solution to reconcile us back to God; and, if God had a plan to reconcile mankind back to God, then God had to foreknow that man would sin and thus separate himself from God. After all, where there is no separation, there is no need for reconciliation.

What happens after God makes man? We see that man rules over the earth, a derived rule that comes with God’s permission and blessing (Genesis 1:28). Does the free agency of man negate or conflict with God’s sovereignty? Does the divine sovereignty fall in the face of human responsibility? No; in fact, the presence of divine sovereignty is the foundation for human responsibility (Genesis 1:28-30). God tells man in Genesis 1:28-30 that “I have given you every plant...and every tree,” after he tells man and woman to “fill the earth,” “subdue it,” and “rule over” all of the animal and plant kingdoms.

If you read Genesis 1, you’ll be struck by the Lord’s imperatives in verse 28: “be fruitful,” “multiply,” “fill the earth,” “subdue it” (the earth), “and rule over.” Imperatives, as we’ve learned by way of the English language, are commands. And commands only come from a superior – in this case, God. So, the divine sovereignty remains after He creates rational man in that God commands the man to do certain things that He, God, wants him to do (rule over the earth).

A word regarding human responsibility

If we were to stop here, we’d be giving the Calvinists too much room in theology and their theodicy – and declaring them the winner. The problem with the Calvinist is that he or she only sees one side of the coin, that is, the divine perspective (God commanding man). He doesn’t stop much to consider the other side: that is, what God’s commands mean for man. This is where Open Theists and Process Theists would applaud.

What are the implications of God commanding man to do certain things? First off, we know from Genesis that man is not a robot or an automaton: rather, man is able to make choices because God commands. Why would God command man to do anything if man had no say in the matter? Why would God tell man to “rule over the earth” if man could only lift a finger because God lifted it for him?

The sheer fact that God tells man what to do with his freedom lets us know that man is not autonomous, nor an automaton. In Genesis 1:28, as I’ve said, the Lord tells man to “be fruitful,” “multiply,” and “rule over” the earth. In Genesis chapter 2, God places man and woman in the garden “to cultivate it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). In other words, man has freedom but, contrary to the views of Open Theists, man’s freedom is not autonomous. First, man has limited freedom in that he can’t be God, he can’t choose not to answer to God (he must answer to God, necessarily so, as the commands illustrate), and he can’t get away with wrongdoing – as Genesis chapter 3 shows us.

For now, this information will suffice. We’ll take a look at divine sovereignty and human responsibility in Genesis chapter 3 in my next post. God bless.

When Philosophy Drives Theology: Todd Mangum and the Inclusivist Possibility

“Inclusivist arguments commonly go too far, in my judgment, in their sentimental appeals on behalf of depraved human beings. We know that the God of the Bible is capable of raining down His wrath on whole segments of depraved humanity...that having been said, I do believe that there is a Reformed way of raising the question with which inclusivists have been so concerned. Instead of asking, ‘Would it be truly fair of God to damn human beings for rejecting a gospel they never heard?’...we might ask the question this way: ‘If God has his elect in remote portions of the world, could he use general revelation to reach them?’ Put this way, it seems to me that a Reformed thinker’s answer would have to be more ambivalent” [Todd Mangum, “Is There a Reformed Way To Get The Benefits of The Atonement To ‘Those Who Have Never Heard?’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 1 (March 2004): 127].

Here at the Center for Theological Studies, I have always made it known that theology and philosophy should work together. I believe in having a philosophical theology where philosophy supports theology, not drives it. Philosophy from the very beginning was made to be “the handmaiden of theology,” and I am committed to theological research that places philosophy back where it belongs (“on the passenger’s side”)...and out of the driver’s seat.

Today’s quote comes from Todd Mangum, one who clearly has no problems boldly announcing his Calvinist presuppositions:

“Let me go on record as affirming a classically Reformed soteriology, including a particular (rather than universal) design of the atonement...it should come as no surprise that I remain unfazed by any number of stock inclusivist-Arminian arguments” (Todd Mangum, “Is There a Reformed Way...?”, page 123).

Mangum is a five-point Calvinist and argues for all five points, including “particular” (limited) atonement. No Arminian argument can or will win him over because his starting presuppositions are very different from those of the Arminian.

Having said this, Mangum clearly allows his Calvinist philosophy to drive his thoughts on theology, particularly when it comes to the issue of inclusivism and the unevangelized from the starting quote above. Here, once more, is Mangum’s question:

“If God has his elect in remote portions of the world, could he use general revelation to reach them?’”

I would never in any way desire to limit the sovereignty of God. God is sovereign and in control, and “He does whatever He pleases.” In that respect, I agree with Mangum and Calvinists everywhere. God does not “have” to do anything; He is not bound or obligated to do things the way I want Him to. Because He is God, it is His prerogative to call the shots. I am the creature, not the Creator, and I humbly acknowledge that I am the lesser and that God is the greater.

However...my problem with Mangum’s quote is not that there’s something wrong with the quote (at least on the surface, anyway). I mean, is it possible that God could save via general revelation? Yes! There are a lot of things that God could do that He chooses not to do. But this does not mean that because God “can” do it (it is possible), that He actually WILL do it! “Can” suggests possibility, while “will” suggests probability. Possibility does not necessarily entail probability. For instance, it may be “possible” for me to get the job promotion, but the mere possibility of it does not make it so. In the same way, Mangum’s presupposition that God’s sovereignty means He “can” do something does not necessitate that God actually will do something. “Can” and “will” are two different suggestions altogether.

Secondly, let me also add that Mangum’s Calvinist philosophy drives him away from reading Scripture. We clearly see this when he discusses the use of Psalm 19 in Romans 10:

“Paul’s quotation of Psalm 19 in the closing portion of his argument in Romans 10 has intriguing implications. Reformed interpreters have too often closed their consideration of the argument of Romans 10 at verses 13-15. Granted, the rhetorical nature of these questions seems, at first, to close off consideration of God’s reaching his elect through any means other than a human agent-borne presentation of the gospel message. But it is Paul himself who reopens the question in verse 18, when he says, ‘But have they never heard?’---deliberately undermining, in part, his earlier rhetorical question, ‘How shall they hear without a preacher?’ they may hear, apparently (and extraordinarily), through the constant testimony of general revelation (v.18)” (129).

When writing on verses 13-15, Mangum says (paraphrase), “It seems as if Paul’s special revelation...but then, he turns around and confirms general revelation in the very next verses.” But is this actually what Paul does? To find out, we’ll have to examine Romans 10 ourselves.

In verses 13-15, Paul has argued that salvation comes for “whoever calls on the name of the Lord” (Rom. 10:13, NKJV). One must confess the Lord’s name to be saved. In verse 14, Paul uses a series of questions to make the case that one cannot confess the Lord’s name if he or she has not believed; and they cannot believe in something they have never heard; and they cannot hear it without a preacher coming to them who is sent on his evangelistic mission by God Himself (vv. 14-15). In verse 16, Paul says “but they have not all obeyed the gospel,” quoting from Isaiah 53:1 as proof. All of the material used in these few verses is to make his case: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” In other words, the only way one can believe on the name of the Lord is to hear the word preached. The gospel (the subject of verse 16) must be preached in order for belief and confession to take place.

In verse 18, Paul asks, “have they not heard?” Now, at this point, what is it that the Jews (the subject of Romans chapters 9-11) are supposed to have heard? If the context of Romans 10 can be trusted, it’s the gospel that the Jews are supposed to have heard (Rom. 10:16). And this is where Mangum’s exegesis falters. The reference from Psalm 19 does refer (within the Psalm itself) to general revelation (“the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork,” etc.); however, one cannot take Paul seriously if he or she does not read Paul’s context of Romans 10 and interpret Psalm 19 in light of that. In Psalm 19, the words used in Rom. 10 refer to general revelation (although special revelation is mentioned there, too); however, in Romans 10, the subject is the gospel, not general revelation.

In Rom. 10:3-4, Paul says that the righteousness of God is found in Christ: “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” The reason why the Jews have not yet come to faith (Paul says) is because they have not believed the gospel, they have not professed faith in Christ. In verses 5-6, Paul contrasts the “righteousness of the law” (Mosaic) with “the righteousness of faith.” Notice that in verse 8, the message which Paul and others preach is called “the word of faith.” In verses 9 and 10, salvation is said to come through confession by mouth and belief of the heart in two things: first, that Jesus is Lord; and secondly, that God raised Jesus from the dead. In other words, to be saved, one must confess that Jesus is Lord and that he or she believes Christ died for their sins and rose for their justification (see Romans 5). In verse 11, Paul provides biblical support for the word of faith he preaches, stating that the plan of salvation he advocates is actually contained within the Old Testament (specifically, Isaiah 28:16). If one goes back to Romans 10:17, the subject is “the word of God” or “the word of Christ,” which is the “word of faith” of Romans 10:8).

The context of Romans 10 makes it obvious that it is the gospel that Paul states the Jews have received. If the Jews were responsible for general revelation, that would be a retreat from their position as God’s people, not a progression: after all, did God not provide special revelation for them in the Mosaic Law (was the Law not written on tablets by God Himself? See Exodus 20)? If the Mosaic Law is inadequate for salvation, how then, could general revelation be more adequate (since special revelation is greater than general revelation)? Even in Psalm 19, David distinguishes between general and special revelation. While the “words” of general revelation have gone to the ends of the earth (Ps. 19:4), it is only “the law of the Lord” that “converts the soul” (v.7), “enlightens the eyes” (v.8), and brings great reward (v.11). General revelation itself only “reveals knowledge” (v.2)...and this knowledge, as Paul writes in Romans 1:18, is “suppressed in unrighteousness” and makes mankind “without excuse.”

Stay tuned...more on Todd Mangum to come.