# May God make innocent beings suffer?



## InSlaveryToChrist

I know it is my own foolishness, but I cannot seem to justify the imputation of Adam's guilt to myself. Of course, in the same way, I cannot justify the imputation of Christ's merit to myself. But actually it all comes down to the question: *Is it right (according to God's standard) for God to make His creation suffer, even if it has done no wrong (according to God's standard)?* Because that's seemingly what happened, when Adam made his posterity suffer with himself, for what _he_ did.

Since God defines right and wrong, then I'd gladly accept that He may do _anything_ He wants with His creation. I'd even approve of Him throwing innocent beings to a _temporal_ lake of fire. But then again, I'm not sure I would consider God good, if He threw His innocent creation to _everlasting_ lake of fire _not using it as a means to a better end_.

Those are just my thoughts right now, and I admit I may be blinded by wordly wisdom here, so that's why I'm asking for godly wisdom. Please, share your thoughts on this matter.


----------



## Philip

Samuel, maybe you should take it a step further: _Is it right for God, who is good, to suffer for His creation?_


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

P. F. Pugh said:


> Samuel, maybe you should take it a step further: _Is it right for God, who is good, to suffer for His creation?_



Wow, that was the fastest reply ever! And your question, indeed, is a better one!


----------



## Sviata Nich

A few things which jump to my mind is that God warned Adam and Eve not to sin or else they would die. When they sinned God would have been just to kill them right in that moment (thus ending the human race) but He showed mercy. I've also been under the impression (although the defense of such a claim is currently escaping my mind) that Adam and Eve were a perfect representative of the human race, so that we could not claim we would have done differently.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Sviata Nich said:


> A few things which jump to my mind is that God warned Adam and Eve not to sin or else they would die. *When they sinned God would have been just to kill them right in that moment (thus ending the human race) but He showed mercy.* I've also been under the impression (although the defense of such a claim is currently escaping my mind) that Adam and Eve were a perfect representative of the human race, so that we could not claim we would have done differently.



Actually, this is where we often go wrong. God would have been just to kill Adam and Eve, even if they didn't break His covenant with them. The covenant God made with Adam did not say, "If you disobey me, I will _be just to _kill you." No, it says, "If you disobey me, I will kill you."


----------



## NB3K

Look there's a passage of Paul in Romans that deals with this issue

m 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--


----------



## rookie

As Joshua mentioned, we are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

We look at it as "some men do some good, and there are some people that are suffering, and it's not fair that they should suffer in an eternal hell"

The question should be "With the 3X holiness of God, why does He ever even give us any mercy, compassion, and even offer any of us salvation". And when it comes to sin, we shouldn't look at grading different sins, and saying "that one should be 10000 yrs, and that one 100 000 yrs. 

Again for sin, we should look at who it's offending, God, which is 3X holy. And the ONLY just punishment against a 3x holy God, that is everlasting, is an everlasting punishment.

We always look at it from our perspective, we must look at it from God's.

The real question is not "why did He hate Esau", the real question should be "WHY did he love Jacob?"

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------

As Joshua mentioned, we are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

We look at it as "some men do some good, and there are some people that are suffering, and it's not fair that they should suffer in an eternal hell"

The question should be "With the 3X holiness of God, why does He ever even give us any mercy, compassion, and even offer any of us salvation". And when it comes to sin, we shouldn't look at grading different sins, and saying "that one should be 10000 yrs, and that one 100 000 yrs. 

Again for sin, we should look at who it's offending, God, which is 3X holy. And the ONLY just punishment against a 3x holy God, that is everlasting, is an everlasting punishment.

We always look at it from our perspective, we must look at it from God's.

The real question is not "why did He hate Esau", the real question should be "WHY did he love Jacob?"


----------



## MW

God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.


----------



## Skyler

Samuel,

Great question. Don't feel too bad about not "getting" it--many people, smarter than either you or myself, have struggled with the same problem.

The fact that you can accept temporal suffering for "innocent" beings is good. I think it puts us closer to a resolution. But I think that it's essentially the same phenomenon, albeit on a smaller scale. Because of one man's sin, the creation was thrown into turmoil. The Curse of thorns and thistles, pain and suffering, death and destruction applied not only to Adam, but to the whole world. Nature was pitted against Man rather than being provided for his benefit. All of that suffering is a result of the sin of one man, yet its scope was incredibly far-reaching.

But, if I'm not mistaken, you accept that, insofar as it is a means to a better end, right?

Let me suggest this--the same thing applies to the bigger picture of the eternal destinies of Adam's progeny.

God uses their destruction, in the eternal torment of Hell, as a means to a better end.

That better end is His glory.


----------



## Philip

> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.



Do animals suffer?


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do animals suffer?
Click to expand...

 
Not in the rational-moral sense required by the question.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I know it is my own foolishness, but I cannot seem to justify the imputation of Adam's guilt to myself. Of course, in the same way, I cannot justify the imputation of Christ's merit to myself. But actually it all comes down to the question: *Is it right (according to God's standard) for God to make His creation suffer, even if it has done no wrong (according to God's standard)?* Because that's seemingly what happened, when Adam made his posterity suffer with himself, for what _he_ did.
> 
> Since God defines right and wrong, then I'd gladly accept that He may do _anything_ He wants with His creation. I'd even approve of Him throwing innocent beings to a _temporal_ lake of fire. But then again, I'm not sure I would consider God good, if He threw His innocent creation to _everlasting_ lake of fire _not using it as a means to a better end_.
> 
> Those are just my thoughts right now, and I admit I may be blinded by wordly wisdom here, so that's why I'm asking for godly wisdom. Please, share your thoughts on this matter.


In other words, you view Adam as an inadequate choice as the Federal Head of all mankind? How could God have improved upon His choice?

AMR


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.



Another way to say this is: "_What_ innocent beings?"


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

bookslover said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another way to say this is: "_What_ innocent beings?"
Click to expand...


But was not creation innocent (i.e. sinless) before Adam's fall (except Satan and the fallen angels)?

---------- Post added at 03:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 AM ----------




Ask Mr. Religion said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it is my own foolishness, but I cannot seem to justify the imputation of Adam's guilt to myself. Of course, in the same way, I cannot justify the imputation of Christ's merit to myself. But actually it all comes down to the question: *Is it right (according to God's standard) for God to make His creation suffer, even if it has done no wrong (according to God's standard)?* Because that's seemingly what happened, when Adam made his posterity suffer with himself, for what _he_ did.
> 
> Since God defines right and wrong, then I'd gladly accept that He may do _anything_ He wants with His creation. I'd even approve of Him throwing innocent beings to a _temporal_ lake of fire. But then again, I'm not sure I would consider God good, if He threw His innocent creation to _everlasting_ lake of fire _not using it as a means to a better end_.
> 
> Those are just my thoughts right now, and I admit I may be blinded by wordly wisdom here, so that's why I'm asking for godly wisdom. Please, share your thoughts on this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you view Adam as an inadequate choice as the Federal Head of all mankind? How could God have improved upon His choice?
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


I think that is what I'm saying. Now that you asked, _I_ cannot know if Adam was an inadequate choice as the Federal Head of all mankind.

---------- Post added at 04:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 AM ----------




armourbearer said:


> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.



What is your basis for such assertion? Where does the Bible say God only makes suffer, _if_ He is sinned against? Or would you even suggest that it is unjust for God to make the innocent suffer? And then I must also ask, Was not creation _innocent_ (i.e. sinless) before Adam's fall (except Satan and the fallen angels)?

---------- Post added at 04:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 AM ----------




Skyler said:


> Samuel,
> 
> Great question. Don't feel too bad about not "getting" it--many people, smarter than either you or myself, have struggled with the same problem.
> 
> The fact that you can accept temporal suffering for "innocent" beings is good. I think it puts us closer to a resolution. But I think that it's essentially the same phenomenon, albeit on a smaller scale. Because of one man's sin, the creation was thrown into turmoil. The Curse of thorns and thistles, pain and suffering, death and destruction applied not only to Adam, but to the whole world. Nature was pitted against Man rather than being provided for his benefit. All of that suffering is a result of the sin of one man, yet its scope was incredibly far-reaching.
> 
> But, if I'm not mistaken, you accept that, insofar as it is a means to a better end, right?
> 
> Let me suggest this--the same thing applies to the bigger picture of the eternal destinies of Adam's progeny.
> 
> God uses their destruction, in the eternal torment of Hell, as a means to a better end.
> 
> That better end is His glory.



Thank you, Jonathan. I'm just laughing at myself that I had not considered the fact that Adam's fall, indeed, is a means to a better end. I would gladly accept my fall with Adam, if it meant an "opportunity" to a better end, than the neutral, innocent state of Adam and Eve in the beginning.

Edit: But in the end, I think the above is not necessary for my knowledge to accept my destiny with Adam. It is rather an encouragement. I only have to know that God is my creator (i.e. my wisdom cannot exceed His -- because God cannot create anything equal or higher Himself -- and my moral views don't matter, and again, cannot be higher than God's). In other words, I'm not in the position to question God's actions, will, etc.


----------



## NB3K

armourbearer said:


> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.



Yes God makes innocent beings suffer

2Co_5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 

But then again Christ suffered willingly. And right now God the Father is "longsuffering" Himself.

But I am with Josh. We are the creatures and GOd is the Creator. God can do what ever He wishes to do to us and it will always be righteous and just.


----------



## Scott1

Great questions, Samuel.

Let mine be e pluribus unum.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I know it is my own foolishness, but I cannot seem to justify the imputation of Adam's guilt to myself.
> 
> You know this truth, but for those following- God says that all men are sinners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 3:10
> As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
> 
> Romans 3:23
> For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
> 
> Jeremiah 17:9
> The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, in the same way, I cannot justify the imputation of Christ's merit to myself. But actually it all comes down to the question: *Is it right (according to God's standard) for God to make His creation suffer, even if it has done no wrong (according to God's standard)?* Because that's seemingly what happened, when Adam made his posterity suffer with himself, for what _he_ did.
> 
> When Adam, who was free not to sin, chose to sin, he fell, and that affected his nature. He lost something that as the progenitor of the human race is passed on to all of us, _by nature._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 5:12
> Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since God defines right and wrong, then I'd gladly accept that He may do _anything_ He wants with His creation. I'd even approve of Him throwing innocent beings to a _temporal_ lake of fire.
> 
> But, we're not innocent.
> 
> But then again, I'm not sure I would consider God good, if He threw His innocent creation to _everlasting_ lake of fire _not using it as a means to a better end_.
> 
> John Calvin used to quote the latin maxim, _Finitim non capax, infinitim, _ the finite (man's mind) cannot grasp, contain the infinite (God's ways). So, as creatures, we have no right to evaluate our Creator by our won standards and declare him unjust.
> 
> Here is Dr. Sproul illustrating this:
> http://fivebarleyloavestwofish.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/finitum-non-capax-infinitum/
> 
> He is good, not because we say He is good.
> 
> He is good because He defines what good is.
> 
> Those are just my thoughts right now, and I admit I may be blinded by wordly wisdom here, so that's why I'm asking for godly wisdom. Please, share your thoughts on this matter.
Click to expand...


----------



## Philip

I do think, Samuel, that whenever the problem of evil and suffering comes up, we have to view it in light of the larger narrative of Scripture: creation, fall, redemption, consummation. Suffering is the result of the fall, but Christ in His suffering redeemed that suffering so that when the Christian suffers for righteousness' sake (or like Job, for no apparent reason), we are united with Christ and our suffering makes us more like Him.

I think your concern is that we don't cast God as a sadist, and I agree---this is a mischaracterization of God. We must, therefore, understand why He allowed the fall, why He allows evil, and it is because He means to bring greater glory out of it. That's why it is key that we include consummation as the end of the creation-fall-redemption narrative.


----------



## CharlieJ

A couple ideas:

1. Reformed theology does not hold to extreme voluntarism. That is, although whatever God does is just, that does not mean that God could hypothetically do anything and still be just, simply by being God. That idea comes from medieval theology, in which some distinguished between the ordained power of God (_potentia Dei ordinata_) and the absolute power of God (_potentia Dei absoluta_). The absolute power is God's power or will considered abstractly from his other attributes, such as his intellect, goodness, and justice. Calvin and the other Reformed deny that this distinction, or at least the distinction used this way, is valid. So, we can never ask questions about God that drive a wedge between his attributes (See B.B. Warfield, _Calvin and Augustine_; Paul Helm, _John Calvin's Ideas_; David Steinmetz, _Calvin in Context_).

2. There is a real connection between Adam and the recipients of the curse. I think this is one of the major problems modern people have in developing a biblical mindset. We think only in terms of concrete individuals. In Scripture, identity is more organic. We can see that in the way that God reacts to just or wicked individual not only by rewarding or punishing them, but by including with them everything in their domains. For example, when Pharaoh takes Sarai as his wife in Gen 12, God visits plagues on him _and his house_. In Exodus, because of Pharaoh's hard heart, all Egypt suffers. When Achan takes the forbidden loot, his whole family is put to death. If you can grasp these examples, then seeing Adam as the head of all creation, and therefore all creation as fallen with him, makes more sense. 
There are no innocents.

3. Your phrase _not using it as a means to a better end_ is very important. That is what God is doing:

Romans 8:19-23 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

If the whole world falls in the first Adam, the precedent is established wherein all creation may be restored in the second Adam. His position as mediatorial ruler of the universe means that in his resurrection we find the firstfruits not only of individual human salvation, but also of the remaking of the cosmos.

I hope some of that has been helpful. I think you should pursue these lines of inquiry. God wants you to proceed reverently, of course, and by Scripture, but he doesn't discourage us from meditating on these difficult things.


----------



## NB3K

armourbearer said:


> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.



Please do not forget the book of Job.

Job 2:10 But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.


----------



## BobVigneault

Job did not sin with his lips and do what his wife suggested, however, the last portion of the book deals with the fact that Job tried to push his self-perceived "innocence" too far - he was not innocent.


----------



## NB3K

BobVigneault said:


> Job did not sin with his lips and do what his wife suggested, however, the last portion of the book deals with the fact that Job tried to push his self-perceived "innocence" too far - he was not innocent.



Oh Bob don't get me wrong I believe Job sinned towards the end of the Book, but before he sinned it was said of him:

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

NB3K said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Job did not sin with his lips and do what his wife suggested, however, the last portion of the book deals with the fact that Job tried to push his self-perceived "innocence" too far - he was not innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Bob don't get me wrong I believe Job sinned towards the end of the Book, but before he sinned it was said of him:
> 
> Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting Job was sinless just because he was called "blameless and upright?"


----------



## BobVigneault

Job was a cut above the rest but the only way he was 'blameless and upright' was in that he knew that his redeemer lived.


----------



## Philip

I think the key here is that Job is not being made to suffer because of his sin---the suffering of Job serves a different purpose than punishment---this is the point that Elihu made (that was the mistake of Job's three friends---thinking that God only lets people suffer for particular sins).


----------



## NB3K

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Job did not sin with his lips and do what his wife suggested, however, the last portion of the book deals with the fact that Job tried to push his self-perceived "innocence" too far - he was not innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Bob don't get me wrong I believe Job sinned towards the end of the Book, but before he sinned it was said of him:
> 
> Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting Job was sinless just because he was called "blameless and upright?"
Click to expand...




No, I never said he was sinless. But it was God that said this to satan

Job 1:8 And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?

God said he was blameless, an upright man, he feared God, and he turned away from evil, and yet God was pleased to bring evil upon Job. (Job must have been governed by the Holy Spirit.)


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

NB3K said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Job did not sin with his lips and do what his wife suggested, however, the last portion of the book deals with the fact that Job tried to push his self-perceived "innocence" too far - he was not innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Bob don't get me wrong I believe Job sinned towards the end of the Book, but before he sinned it was said of him:
> 
> Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting Job was sinless just because he was called "blameless and upright?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I never said he was sinless. But it was God that said this to satan
> 
> Job 1:8 And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?
> 
> God said he was blameless, an upright man, he feared God, and he turned away from evil, and yet God was pleased to bring evil upon Job. (Job must have been governed by the Holy Spirit.)
Click to expand...


Job was not any more blameless or upright than Noah was, of whom God Himself said,

"Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." (Genesis 7:1)

And yet he was a sinner in and of himself, the righteousness of whom was not his own, but Christ's:

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness _which is by faith_." (Hebrews 11:7)

There is no denying Job was an unique man of God, very righteous and very separate from the sinners of the world. Indeed, he was the most righteous human being on the planet in his era -- but yet he was a sinner in need of a Saviour. He was not innocent.


----------



## BobVigneault

These answers are not bad, the problem is that the question isn't exactly precise. It begins with "May God....", well of course, God may do anything he wants, he is above all moral laws. The question should begin with "Can God...", and of course, God is all powerful but can't go against his nature or logic (a necessary property of His nature). The word "innocent' is really defined by the context. No one is innocent, no not one and yet all those in Christ are blameless as he is blameless. Add a bit more precision to the question and it will answer itself.


----------



## NB3K

Yes God can. He did it to His one and only Son for our sake.


----------



## MW

NB3K said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes God makes innocent beings suffer
> 
> 2Co_5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God
> Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
Click to expand...


Please read John 10, especially verses 17, 18. Or Ephesians 5:1, 2. Christ voluntarily offered Himself. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 states, "He was made sin," i.e., imputed with our sin, and it was on this legal basis that He suffered and died.


----------



## MW

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your basis for such assertion? Where does the Bible say God only makes suffer, _if_ He is sinned against? Or would you even suggest that it is unjust for God to make the innocent suffer? And then I must also ask, Was not creation _innocent_ (i.e. sinless) before Adam's fall (except Satan and the fallen angels)?
Click to expand...


The whole Bible is my basis for this assertion. In the words of the Shorter Catechism, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever." The idea that God might make an innocent person to suffer destroys "the end of the Lord," and the end of the Lord is a consideration which inspires endurance.


----------



## Philip

> Christ voluntarily offered Himself.



Yet in doing so he was being obedient to the Father's will:

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt [Isaiah 53:10]

Ephesians also says that Christ was "obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." It was a willing obedience, but an obedience nonetheless.


----------



## Skyler

Rev. Winzer,

Wasn't Jesus suffering throughout His whole life, before the burden of our guilt was laid upon Him in the Garden?


----------



## MW

Skyler said:


> Wasn't Jesus suffering throughout His whole life, before the burden of our guilt was laid upon Him in the Garden?


 
He suffered throughout His life just as He was obedient throughout His life. He was made of a woman, made under the law. Both His suffering and obedience served the purpose of redemption -- to redeem them that were under the law. All of what Christ did throughout His life in the way of suffering and obedience was redemptive. In other words, the burden of our guilt was laid upon Him the moment He was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin. His suffering does not serve in any way to support the notion that God makes the innocent suffer. If Christ did not willingly give Himself to be numbered with the transgressors He would not have received their "just recompence of reward."


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> It was a willing obedience, but an obedience nonetheless.



The fact is, it was voluntary submission to satisfy the just demands of the law in the place of others. God did not make the innocent suffer.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

AMEN Rev. Winzer. 

I have a question though. Is it a sin to question God when we suffer sometimes? I have heard that said a lot lately. I consider it might be sin to demand an answer from God but I don't think it is a bad thing to ask God why so that we may endure tribulation. As an example, I went through the book of Job during a hard time and I was asking God why I was being inflicted. I wondered if it was for sin or for some other purpose. It never really became clear to me. I did, in fact, believe I came to some kind of answer. When God put Job up before Satan God was proving to Satan how little minded and prideful he was. A mere man who was in a fallen but redeemed state showed him up and put even more shame upon the devil. That is just plain coolness when God is proven worthy by a mere man. That man Job put the devil to shame. That devil was an angelic being who shared in God's immediate presence at one time and he despised what this mere man loved. That is just plain glorifying God. 

Anyways, I have been taught and heard others teach it is always wrong to question God. I am not of that conviction as long as we don't demand an answer from God. Am I wrong here?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dear Mr. Snyder, 

I believe the answer to your question lies in the ambiguity of the term "question God." If we follow the Psalmist, if we sing the Psalms, if we sing with understanding, we will "question God". See Psalm 10.1 among many others. The difficulty is not questioning God in this manner. It is when we begin to pass judgment upon God's actions, and questioning His authority that we transgress the limits the Lord has set. To cry to the Lord, "how long?" or, "why standest Thou afar off?" is not sin--but to bring God into the judgment seat, placing ourselves as judges over Him, to doubt of His mercy and goodness, to question His veracity, faithfulness, grace, forgiveness, etc. is going too far. We may not say to God without sinning, "What doest thou?" (Daniel 4.25)


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

I have heard many pastors say that ascribing suffering to specific sins you've lately committed is not helpful.

---------- Post added at 05:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 AM ----------




armourbearer said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your basis for such assertion? Where does the Bible say God only makes suffer, _if_ He is sinned against? Or would you even suggest that it is unjust for God to make the innocent suffer? And then I must also ask, Was not creation _innocent_ (i.e. sinless) before Adam's fall (except Satan and the fallen angels)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole Bible is my basis for this assertion. In the words of the Shorter Catechism, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever." The idea that God might make an innocent person to suffer destroys "the end of the Lord," and the end of the Lord is a consideration which inspires endurance.
Click to expand...


So, are you in effect saying God would be unjust (or not God at all), if He made the innocent suffer?


----------



## NB3K

armourbearer said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does not make innocent beings suffer. The question is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your basis for such assertion? Where does the Bible say God only makes suffer, _if_ He is sinned against? Or would you even suggest that it is unjust for God to make the innocent suffer? And then I must also ask, Was not creation _innocent_ (i.e. sinless) before Adam's fall (except Satan and the fallen angels)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole Bible is my basis for this assertion. In the words of the Shorter Catechism, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever." The idea that God might make an innocent person to suffer destroys "the end of the Lord," and the end of the Lord is a consideration which inspires endurance.
Click to expand...


Yes I know Christ said that no one takes His life, but He has power to lay it down and take it back up again, but the purpose and end of Christ on this earth while He was clothed in the flesh was to suffer at the hand of His Father for the sake of the Elect. And in doing so He glorified His Father. 

Let's not forget that Jesus sweat drops of blood knowing that the wrath of God was to abide on Him.


----------



## JBaldwin

> Since God defines right and wrong, then I'd gladly accept that He may do anything He wants with His creation. I'd even approve of Him throwing innocent beings to a temporal lake of fire. But then again, I'm not sure I would consider God good, if He threw His innocent creation to everlasting lake of fire not using it as a means to a better end.



Perhaps I misunderstand who God is, but from what I understand of His character as laid down in Scripture, I don't believe that God could (by His very nature) throw an innocent being into the lake of fire unless the individiual went willingly (which was mentioned above), that is Christ Himself. 

Neither Adam nor his offspring are innocent. I have never yet met someone who was completely innocent. Only Christ is perfect and innocent and He suffered willingly. 


For some reason, I see this whole question even larger than the question of innocence. As I see it, to glorify Himself, so that we could understand and see His mercy, justice, grace and love. All that happened in the fall of His creation and the life, death, burial and ressurection of His Son serves to allow us to bring glory to God and to allow us to see a side of Him that would never be seen apart from His work of redemption.


----------



## KMK

> Isa 53:10,11 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.i *11*He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied*:



'It pleased the Lord to bruise Him' because God is always pleased to exact payment for sin, but God did not take any pleasure in the suffering of His Son. The suffering of His Son was a necessary step in procuring His Son's desire: the redemption of His seed. Can a Father be accused of making his innocent son suffer when he digs a splinter out of his hand, or yanks a loose tooth out of his mouth?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

God does all things for His glory. The question then becomes: *Can God act for His glory by killing innocent beings *(say, kill Adam before he violated the CoW)*?* *Would not such an act demonstrate God's authority over His creation?* So, I still don't see how God would not be justified to make the innocent suffer.

On the other hand, I realized that my objection to Adam's fall was irrational. Because if Adam's guilt was imputed to us, when we still were innocent/sinless, it does not follow that innocent beings were made to suffer. We were found guilty in Adam before any suffering befell us! We are rightly made to suffer, because we are guilty of what Adam did.

But then again, let me remind you that although the making of innocent beings suffer was not the case in Adam's fall, it does not follow that God is unjust to do so, since He can clearly act for His glory regardless. Inevitably, why He didn't was because it glorified His name more. God chose to show His mercifulness instead of showing the Potter's authority over the clay. But of course, there is a way God demonstrates that to us also, although it may not be by making the innocent suffer.


----------



## Peairtach

God is righteous. It would be unrighteous of Him to make innocent creatures suffer. Therefore He doesn't make innocent creatures suffer.

Christ's suffering is on behalf of His people who aren't innocent.

There is a unique relationship, also, between Adam and his offspring, such that the name "adam" was given both to him and his offspring (Genesis 5:2) - in the original language. This meant that it was suitable and just that Adam should represent his offspring in the of the Covenant of Works. If he'd passed the test there would still be a question as to how he could do that _on our behalf._

Studying how it was possible for Christ to represent His people may shed light on how it was possible for Adam to represent the race.

The case of the animals is peculiar, but they are not moral creatures and so cannot be called innocent or guilty. The Bible indicates that their suffering is because the creation was spoiled as God's response to Man's sin - but one day this Curse will be lifted.

The whole of the creation was headed by Adam as Prophet, Priest and King.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> On the other hand, I realized that my objection to Adam's fall was irrational. Because if Adam's guilt was imputed to us, *when we still were innocent/sinless*, it does not follow that innocent beings were made to suffer. We were found guilty in Adam before any suffering befell us! We are rightly made to suffer, because we are guilty of what Adam did.


What does that portion I set to *boldface *mean? Are you speaking of temporal matters sans the eternity of God? Is your theodicy supralapsarian?

AMR


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I realized that my objection to Adam's fall was irrational. Because if Adam's guilt was imputed to us, *when we still were innocent/sinless*, it does not follow that innocent beings were made to suffer. We were found guilty in Adam before any suffering befell us! We are rightly made to suffer, because we are guilty of what Adam did.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that portion I set to *boldface *mean? Are you speaking of temporal matters sans the eternity of God? Is your theodicy supralapsarian?
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


I was talking about us existing in Adam [before his fall]. But now that you asked, I would rather take back my words and just conclude: we, the posterity of Adam, were _never_ innocent/sinless. Oh, and yes, I'm supralapsarian.

---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------




Peairtach said:


> God is righteous. It would be unrighteous of Him to make innocent creatures suffer. Therefore He doesn't make innocent creatures suffer.



That God is righteous means simply that God defines right and always acts according to what is right in His own eyes. That doesn't indicate it is wrong for God to make the innocent suffer (unless God expressly says so in His Word).


----------



## Peairtach

> That God is righteous means simply that God defines right and always acts according to what is right in His own eyes. That doesn't indicate it is wrong for God to make the innocent suffer (unless God expressly says so in His Word).



Well He'd have to have a righteous, i.e. just, reason for making the innocent suffer. 

Casting unfallen Adam, the unfallen angels, or the redeemed saints into Hell aren't righteous acts.

If God isn't righteous, He's pernicious. 

Bless God that He's righteous and the foundation of righteousness.

That's why He must redeem us in Christ in the way He did.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Peairtach said:


> That God is righteous means simply that God defines right and always acts according to what is right in His own eyes. That doesn't indicate it is wrong for God to make the innocent suffer (unless God expressly says so in His Word).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well He'd have to have a righteous, i.e. just, reason for making the innocent suffer.
> 
> Casting unfallen Adam, the unfallen angels, or the redeemed saints into Hell aren't righteous acts.
Click to expand...


Casting the redeemed saints into Hell would be unrighteous, because then God would contradict His own promises. But God is not bound by anything to not let the unfallen Adam or the unfallen angels suffer, as long as He acts for His own glory. And as I've reasoned before, it would serve God's glory to make innocent beings suffer, for it manifests the authority of the Creator over the creation. And it is always most righteous of God to serve His own glory. I would even go as far as to say that it were righteous of God to cast innocent beings into _eternal_ hell, because although it wouldn't work as a means to the well-being of the _creature_, it still would glorify _God_ (which is the main thing).


----------



## Peairtach

> Casting the redeemed saints into Hell would be unrighteous, because then God would contradict His own promises. But God is not bound by anything to not let the unfallen Adam or the unfallen angels suffer, as long as He acts for His own glory. And as I've reasoned before, it would serve God's glory to make innocent beings suffer, for it manifests the authority of the Creator over the creation. And it is always most righteous of God to serve His own glory. I would even go as far as to say that it were righteous of God to cast innocent beings into eternal hell, because although it wouldn't work as a means to the well-being of the creature, it still would glorify God (which is the main thing).



It wouldn't glorify God because it would demonstrate that He was unrighteous and pernicious and capricious.

Have you examined the biblical revelation of what righteousness is?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Peairtach said:


> Casting the redeemed saints into Hell would be unrighteous, because then God would contradict His own promises. But God is not bound by anything to not let the unfallen Adam or the unfallen angels suffer, as long as He acts for His own glory. And as I've reasoned before, it would serve God's glory to make innocent beings suffer, for it manifests the authority of the Creator over the creation. And it is always most righteous of God to serve His own glory. I would even go as far as to say that it were righteous of God to cast innocent beings into eternal hell, because although it wouldn't work as a means to the well-being of the creature, it still would glorify God (which is the main thing).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't glorify God because it would demonstrate that He was unrighteous and pernicious.
> 
> Have you examined the biblical revelation of what righteousness is?
Click to expand...


Where in the Bible do you find a definition of righteousness that forbids the suffering of innocent beings. Please, cite Scripture.

Edit: No need, I already found one:

"Far be it from You to do such a thing--to kill the righteous with the wicked, _treating the righteous and the wicked alike_. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do _right_?" (Genesis 18:25)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> But then again, let me remind you that although the making of innocent beings suffer was not the case in Adam's fall, it does not follow that God is unjust to do so, since He can clearly act for His glory regardless. Inevitably, why He didn't was because it glorified His name more. God chose to show His mercifulness instead of showing the Potter's authority over the clay. But of course, there is a way God demonstrates that to us also, although it may not be by making the innocent suffer.



Calvin:



> For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus manifest that *God*, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair form of the universe, *has given the assistance of his Word* to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, *we, too, must pursue this straight path, if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God*; - we must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth. *If, as I lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the speed with which we move, we shall never reach the goal, because we are off the course. We should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible, (1Ti 6: 16) is a kind of labyrinth, - a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it.*



The only way to extricate yourself from the labyrinth you find yourself is to stop speculating about God's nature apart from His Word.


----------



## Pergamum

I have heard even several calvinistic pastors say that God does not punish on the basis of hereditary sin (original sin) but on the basis of real, committed sin only. This is used as a basis of contending for infant salvation of all who die in infancy. Thus, an infant has a sin nature but no actual sins according to these pastors. 

However, if this were the case and infants were, in fact, innocent, and God cannot make the innocent suffer, we have the problem of the high rate of infant mortality in the world.


----------



## athanatos

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it is my own foolishness, but I cannot seem to justify the imputation of Adam's guilt to myself. Of course, in the same way, I cannot justify the imputation of Christ's merit to myself. But actually it all comes down to the question: *Is it right (according to God's standard) for God to make His creation suffer, even if it has done no wrong (according to God's standard)?* Because that's seemingly what happened, when Adam made his posterity suffer with himself, for what _he_ did.
> 
> Since God defines right and wrong, then I'd gladly accept that He may do _anything_ He wants with His creation. I'd even approve of Him throwing innocent beings to a _temporal_ lake of fire. But then again, I'm not sure I would consider God good, if He threw His innocent creation to _everlasting_ lake of fire _not using it as a means to a better end_.
> 
> Those are just my thoughts right now, and I admit I may be blinded by wordly wisdom here, so that's why I'm asking for godly wisdom. Please, share your thoughts on this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you view Adam as an inadequate choice as the Federal Head of all mankind? How could God have improved upon His choice?
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...

I don't understand. How come Adam is a Federal Head? It is okay if God makes that choice, but where does it say so in Scripture? Rom 5 has some hints as to the symmetry of Christ and Adam for salvation and sinfulness... but not sure how that makes him federal head. Or what makes him one. Or how that is implied from God making a covenant of works?


----------



## toddpedlar

athanatos said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it is my own foolishness, but I cannot seem to justify the imputation of Adam's guilt to myself. Of course, in the same way, I cannot justify the imputation of Christ's merit to myself. But actually it all comes down to the question: *Is it right (according to God's standard) for God to make His creation suffer, even if it has done no wrong (according to God's standard)?* Because that's seemingly what happened, when Adam made his posterity suffer with himself, for what _he_ did.
> 
> Since God defines right and wrong, then I'd gladly accept that He may do _anything_ He wants with His creation. I'd even approve of Him throwing innocent beings to a _temporal_ lake of fire. But then again, I'm not sure I would consider God good, if He threw His innocent creation to _everlasting_ lake of fire _not using it as a means to a better end_.
> 
> Those are just my thoughts right now, and I admit I may be blinded by wordly wisdom here, so that's why I'm asking for godly wisdom. Please, share your thoughts on this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you view Adam as an inadequate choice as the Federal Head of all mankind? How could God have improved upon His choice?
> 
> AMR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand. How come Adam is a Federal Head? It is okay if God makes that choice, but where does it say so in Scripture? Rom 5 has some hints as to the symmetry of Christ and Adam for salvation and sinfulness... but not sure how that makes him federal head. Or what makes him one. Or how that is implied from God making a covenant of works?
Click to expand...


Romans 5 has FAR more than "hints" as to the federal headship of Adam.

By the way, have you read the WCF, with which you say you agree? Perhaps you've not read the sections on covenant, or those in the LBCF, also, which equally claim Adam as the federal head of the human race.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Semper Fidelis said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then again, let me remind you that although the making of innocent beings suffer was not the case in Adam's fall, it does not follow that God is unjust to do so, since He can clearly act for His glory regardless. Inevitably, why He didn't was because it glorified His name more. God chose to show His mercifulness instead of showing the Potter's authority over the clay. But of course, there is a way God demonstrates that to us also, although it may not be by making the innocent suffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus manifest that *God*, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair form of the universe, *has given the assistance of his Word* to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, *we, too, must pursue this straight path, if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God*; - we must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth. *If, as I lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the speed with which we move, we shall never reach the goal, because we are off the course. We should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible, (1Ti 6: 16) is a kind of labyrinth, - a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to extricate yourself from the labyrinth you find yourself is to stop speculating about God's nature apart from His Word.
Click to expand...


I was not speculating "apart from the Bible," or at least it was not intentional. I was using the Bible as my authority in the matter all the time, but I only failed to see that God has defined/limited righteousness to mean the innocent shall not be treated as the wicked (Genesis 18:25 -- see my earlier post).


----------



## NB3K

Ok Adam fell and God not only cursed Adam, but God also cursed the ground because of Adam. Therefore creation suffers innocently because of Adams fall. At this moment the creation has continued to obey God even while subjected to it's curse because of Adam's willful disobedience. On the other hand, man continues to rage against God.

So is not creation suffering while maintaining absolute innocence? The creation doesn't even demand to be heard from by God, but yet we would all hold God on trial if he were to do that to us. We are wicked people.



Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 

Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.


----------



## Peairtach

> So is not creation suffering while maintaining absolute innocence?



Only those parts of creation that are sentient suffer.

The Apostle is personifying the creation in Romans 8. Rocks and trees don't suffer.

Animals suffer - although it is questionable how much the lower animals _do_ suffer e.g. insects. Maybe we as human beings are ascribing suffering to them.

Animals aren't innocent or guilty because they are not moral creatures like human beings and angels. It is true that they haven't sinned, as rocks or trees haven't sinned.

I haven't come accross much theological reflection on animal suffering apart from C.S. Lewis's "The Problem of Pain". It would be interesting to know what any Reformed theologians had to say about it.


----------



## NB3K

Peairtach said:


> So is not creation suffering while maintaining absolute innocence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only those parts of creation that are sentient suffer.
> 
> The Apostle is personifying the creation in Romans 8. Rocks and trees don't suffer.
> 
> Animals suffer - although it is questionable how much the lower animals _do_ suffer e.g. insects. Maybe we as human beings are ascribing suffering to them.
> 
> Animals aren't innocent or guilty because they are not moral creatures like human beings and angels. It is true that they haven't sinned, as rocks or trees haven't sinned.
> 
> I haven't come accross much theological reflection on animal suffering apart from C.S. Lewis's "The Problem of Pain". It would be interesting to know what any Reformed theologians had to say about it.
Click to expand...


The creation is suffering under the unwilling corruption of the curse God placed upon it because of Adam's fall. Animal's die, they get cancer like humans do. Remember what Jesus says about the rocks, he can make them cry out to Him.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

I think it is a questionable assertion that animals would suffer like we do. Where do we find Scriptural basis for that? God's righteousness is that He will not "[treat] _the righteous_ and _the wicked_ alike" (Gen. 18:25). Animals are neither righteous/innocent nor wicked. Therefore, God is not unrighteous however He may treat them.


----------



## Peairtach

*Jason*


> Animals die, they get cancer like humans do.



It seems fairly clear that some "higher" animals suffer pain, but since they don't have a sense of righteousness and unrighteousness it's difficult to see a future life for them in the New Heavens and New Earth as being some kind of compensation. C.S. Lewis discusses this in greater detail.



> Remember what Jesus says about the rocks, he can make them cry out to Him.



Stones don't suffer pain, although they may suffer damage e.g. from earthquakes. The whole creation may suffer - in the broader sense of the term - because of the curse, but only a (small) part of the creation suffers _pain, discomfort and distress _i.e. human beings and animals i.e. sentient beings.


----------



## NB3K

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I think it is a questionable assertion that animals would suffer like we do. Where do we find Scriptural basis for that? God's righteousness is that He will not "[treat] _the righteous_ and _the wicked_ alike" (Gen. 18:25). Animals are neither righteous/innocent nor wicked. Therefore, God is not unrighteous however He may treat them.



The title of this thread is "May God make innocent beings suffer?"



> Being
> BE'ING, ppr. [See Be.] Existing in a certain state.
> 
> Man, being in honor, abideth not. Psa 49.
> 
> BE'ING,n. Existence; as, God is the author of our being.
> 
> In God we live, and move, and have our being. Acts 17.
> 
> 1. A particular state or condition. [This is hardly a different sense.]
> 
> 2. A person existing; applied to the human race.
> 
> 3. An immaterial, intelligent existence, or spirit.
> 
> Superior beings, when of late they saw.
> 
> A mortal man unfold all nature's law--
> 
> 4. An animal; any living creature.
> 
> Animals are such beings, as are endowed with sensation and spontaneous motion. [Webster 1828]



With that said word "being" defined I think I have answered correctly. The question was not may God allow innocent moral agents suffer, but innocent beings. Creation suffers on behalf of man not because of anything creation did. Therefore creation which is innocent suffers because of Adam's fall. If we want to argue over whether or not God may make innocent moral agents suffer then the question needs to be framed in that respect.

---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------




InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I think it is a questionable assertion that animals would suffer like we do. Where do we find Scriptural basis for that? God's righteousness is that He will not "[treat] the righteous and the wicked alike" (Gen. 18:25). Animals are neither righteous/innocent nor wicked. Therefore, God is not unrighteous however He may treat them.



The creation suffers because of us. We should suffer even more. We are the offending parties against our Creator. Like I said before, creation suffers the corruption of Adam's fall without calling God into account for the curse, but even Job wished to be heard from God for the suffering that he endured. So sinful are we!


----------



## Philip

NB3K said:


> The question was not may God allow innocent moral agents suffer, but innocent beings. Creation suffers on behalf of man not because of anything creation did.



Actually, that's a good distinction to make.


----------



## NB3K

Peairtach said:


> Stones don't suffer pain,



we do not know that.... I know it sounds ridiculous of a claim to say that, but I am sure that we are retarded to the endless abilities that God has put into His creation.

Luk_19:40 He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.

How would the stones cry out without a mouth?


----------



## Philip

NB3K said:


> How would the stones cry out without a mouth?



I believe this is called metaphorical language.


----------



## NB3K

P. F. Pugh said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would the stones cry out without a mouth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is called metaphorical language.
Click to expand...


Yes I know, but at the same time did not God make water spring from a rock? Was that also metaphorical language? I am just saying that we are so blind, retarded, stupid, or however you want to say it, to the things of God and His creation.


----------



## Peairtach

I don't see the Bible teaching that, e.g., stones, trees and rivers suffer pain. There'd be more in Scripture about caring for such entities if that was the case. 

On the other hand Scripture indicates that we should have a reasonable care for animals:

*E.g.*


> Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel. (Prov 12:10)



There are also plenty indications that God cares for the animals. 
*E.g:*


> And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?(Jonah 4:11)



The fact that animals - who are not sinners, and are incapable of sin - suffer pain because of the curse is an indication of how Adam's representative headship encompassed not only his offspring, in one way, but also the whole creation, in another way, and is an ongoing reminder to us of the terrible consequences of sin and the injustices which it can unleash in its wake, some of them unintended.


----------



## Philip

NB3K said:


> Yes I know, but at the same time did not God make water spring from a rock? Was that also metaphorical language? I am just saying that we are so blind, retarded, stupid, or however you want to say it, to the things of God and His creation.



The difference between historical narrative and rhetorical device, on the other hand, is plain to anyone with common sense. Water from the rock is historical narrative. Rocks making music is a rhetorical metaphor.


----------



## Peairtach

Rock 'n' roll.


----------



## py3ak

I am not sure it is appropriate to apply the term "innocent" to a non-moral being, because "innocent" is a moral term.


----------



## Prufrock

Jason, please note that guilt and innocence are categories only applicable to moral-rational agents, not to amoral creations. Man is that creature which is created in the imago Dei, and as such is the terrestrial creature endowed with reason and morality - not rocks or ducks. To say that "the ground" is innocent because it isn't guilty is a mistake of categories. It is neither innocent nor guilty: it is amoral.

Also, I think it would behoove us all to note a previous poster's careful citing of the first question of the shorter catechism as explanatory of the Reformed position on such forms of questioning. Rich's subsequent citation of Calvin may elucidate why that answer is relevant if it is yet unclear to anyone. The Reformed system is voluntaristic _not_ so that it can address hypotheticals of what the Creator _could have_ done (which would take theology into the realm of the speculative), but to remove the intellectualist tendency to speak of what God _must_ do or be on account of how the world works or what he already has done (which is simply speculation working in the opposite direction). In other words, Reformed theology is voluntaristic precisely to remove speculation and abstraction from theology - quite ironic in light of the strong misconception that voluntarism lends itself to speculation. In the Reformed understanding, the chief end of man (that is, the moral-rational creature) is twofold and connected: 1.) to glorify God, and 2.) to enjoy him forever. These cannot be separated. Not because of some necessary, ontological connection, but because of God's established order as revealed in his word. So for us to separate righteousness and innocence from the enjoyment of God is to go beyond the bounds of the guide which God has left for us, and to enter into the world of speculation. We do not say, "God had to do it this way," or "God's nature required this pattern;" we leave God to his freedom; but we also do not say, "This other possibility is the/a way God could have done it." Both are to be avoided.

*Edit*
Had I waited two minutes to respond, I would have seen that Ruben said it far more succinctly while I was typing.


----------



## py3ak

Prufrock said:


> Had I waited two minutes to respond, I would have seen that Ruben said it far more succinctly while I was typing.



I was just thinking that if I had known you were typing, I wouldn't have bothered to say anything.


----------



## NB3K

Prufrock said:


> Jason, please note that guilt and innocence are categories only applicable to moral-rational agents, not to amoral creations.



Says who? Man?? Paul says that the creation was subjected to futility and corrpution unwillingly and it stems from the fall of Adam. God's creation to this day has not broken any commands, but man has. God has made his creation suffer not because the creation sinned but because Adam sinned. Now if God made man cursed because creation sinned, man would be the first to hold a tribunal against God. 

Rom_8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

Why is the whole creation groaning together??? 

Why should God see it fit to punish creation because of the sin of Adam?

If inocence only applies to "moral agents" why does not curses also only apply to "moral agents"?


----------



## py3ak

Prufrock said:


> Jason, please note that guilt and innocence are categories only applicable to moral-rational agents, not to amoral creations.





NB3K said:


> Says who? Man??


What does "innocent" mean?



NB3K said:


> Paul says that the creation was subjected to futility and corrpution unwillingly and it stems from the fall of Adam.


Yes, he does; but that doesn't mean that rocks or animals are properly spoken of as innocent or guilty.



NB3K said:


> God's creation to this day has not broken any commands, but man has. God has made his creation suffer not because the creation sinned but because Adam sinned.


God's non-moral creation was not given any precepts.



NB3K said:


> Now if God made man cursed because creation sinned, man would be the first to hold a tribunal against God.


This doesn't support your position. 



NB3K said:


> Rom_8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
> 
> Why is the whole creation groaning together???


Because God will not have creation restored until the manifestation of the children of God, Romans 8:19-24. 



NB3K said:


> Why should God see it fit to punish creation because of the sin of Adam?


The curse on creation is part of Adam's punishment: man is the head of the material creation, and his own fall into sin involved his whole kingdom in disaster.



NB3K said:


> If inocence only applies to "moral agents" why does not curses also only apply to "moral agents"?


Curse is opposed to bless; innocent is opposed to guilty. Each speaks in its own area, and they are not necessarily connected. Is a day a moral creature? And yet God blessed the seventh day. The fact that the ground is cursed does absolutely nothing to suggest that "innocent" is appropriately applied to it.

Jason it seems like you are either being careless in your thinking, or you're plunging into an area without having learned much about it first. It would probably be better for you to spend some time digesting the Reformed doctrine of creation and man in the image of God. I know you enjoy reading Calvin, so perusing him on Genesis 1,2 and Romans 8 would be a good and pleasant place to begin; and if you pay attention to his interpretations, you will notice that he is concerned not to press expressions beyond what they will bear. That is also a good lesson.


----------



## NB3K

py3ak said:


> Jason it seems like you are either being careless in your thinking, or you're plunging into an area without having learned much about it first. It would probably be better for you to spend some time digesting the Reformed doctrine of creation and man in the image of God.



I am reading through John Calvin's Sermon's on Genesis as we speak. Most of the things I say were penned already by Calvin himself. I just don't want to be considered being Calvin's puppet.

So speaking of "reformed" how reformed must I go?

Besides that, I do not contradict the Scriptures or the Confessional when I say that God can make the innocent suffer. The human mind cannot comprehend what it means to be innocent in the first place. I just stand with Paul when he says:

Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 
Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 
Rom 11:34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" 
Rom 11:35 "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" 
Rom 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. 


I believe along with Augustine that God can make good come out of evil. I cannot comprehend it, but God made in me a heart of flesh where there was only a heart of stone.

XXVI. The Triumph of God's Sovereign Good Will 100. These are "the great works of the Lord, well-considered in all his acts of will"218 --and so wisely well-considered that when his angelic and human creation sinned (that is, did not do what he willed, but what it willed) he could still accomplish what he himself had willed and this through the same creaturely will by which the first act contrary to the Creator's will had been done. As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace. For, as far as they were concerned, they did what God did not will that they do, but as far as God's omnipotence is concerned, they were quite unable to achieve their purpose. In their very act of going against his will, his will was thereby accomplished. This is the meaning of the statement, "The works of the Lord are great, well-considered in all his acts of will"--that in a strange and ineffable fashion even that which is done against his will is not done without his will. For it would not be done without his allowing it--and surely his permission is not unwilling but willing--nor would he who is good allow the evil to be done, unless in his omnipotence he could bring good even out of evil.

St Augustine (2010-03-24). Enchiridion On Faith, Hope, and Love (Kindle Locations 1260-1271). Kindle Edition.

---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------

Pro 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD. 

2Co_5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God


God the Father made Christ(who happens to be His Son) who was innocent, to suffer for the sake of the wicked (the elect). God the Father justified the wicked by making His Son suffer the just judgment that belongs to us. And we cannot agree without question that God can make the innocent suffer? If the suffering of the innocent served to bring God glory, than Praise God! Because God made the innocent suffer so we may enjoy Him and Love Him.


----------



## toddpedlar

NB3K said:


> The human mind cannot comprehend what it means to be innocent in the first place.



I don't think I've seen a more absurd statement in years. What in the world do you mean by this?

If we cannot understand "innocence" then we can understand nothing. Thankfully you are not correct in your statement. The concept of innocence is clearly displayed in God's word such that we can arrive at a clear understanding of it through diligent study. A rock cannot be innocent, since it cannot be guilty - it's that simple, as it is not a moral agent! Anything that can be called "innocent" by some measure must also possibly be called "guilty" by the same measure. They must be one or the other. To apply the label "innocent" to rocks is to make an elementary category error. Similarly, your appeal to the "rocks cry out" passage is ill-placed. To claim that it shows agency, i.e. that they must truly be able to express moral decision-making by crying out is to make a most basic hermeneutical error. The most conservative and sound Bible scholars recognize as they should that Christ there is using metaphorical language. One can understand that passage metaphorically without falling into the gross liberalism of interpretation that you've insinuated they might. Rocks are not moral agents - they simply cannot be properly termed "innocent".

Todd


----------



## Herald

Jason,

Ruben gave you some excellent counsel. I hope you accept my advice in the spirit in which it is intended. You would do well to step back from making uniformed and dogmatic statements and learn from those who have studied in the Reformed tradition. I am not suggesting this to insult you but to help you. 

I joined this board back in 2005. At the time I remember starting a thread asking the following question: "Is God the author of sin?" I look back on that thread with a bit of embarrassment. I was 44 years old, a Christian for 25 years, and had hardly any idea of what Reformed theology was. I was a fairly new Calvinist and viewed every theological issue through the Calvinist lens. I was locked in what's commonly called a "cage stage." God was gracious to me by granting me a teachable spirit. I took in many threads and learned from men that I still consider to be my better. I asked many questions and stumbled along the way. This month marks six years in my Reformed journey. I make no claims about being accomplished in the Reformed faith. I've been a quick learner, but that's due to the transforming work of God in my life. I pray you learn from my experience. Be quick to hear. Be quick to listen. Be slow to become a teacher. Certainly ask questions, but be ready to receive correction meekly; humbly. You don't have to agree, but you would be unwise as to assume that those who are mature in the Reformed faith are so myopic so as not to see the theological forest for the trees.


----------



## NB3K

Herald said:


> At the time I remember starting a thread asking the following question: "Is God the author of sin?" I look back on that thread with a bit of embarrassment



Well thank you for the encouragment. 

But I never said God was the author of Sin. It only seems that way from our perspective. It's like Augustine's description of an oar in the water. When we veiw the oar in the water is seems to our vision that the oar is bent, but when we take the oar out of the water we see that it is not infact bent. What seems to be from one perspective is not from another.


----------



## py3ak

NB3K said:


> I am reading through John Calvin's Sermon's on Genesis as we speak. Most of the things I say were penned already by Calvin himself. I just don't want to be considered being Calvin's puppet.



I don't think there's any immediate danger of that.



NB3K said:


> So speaking of "reformed" how reformed must I go?
> 
> Besides that, I do not contradict the Scriptures or the Confessional when I say that God can make the innocent suffer. The human mind cannot comprehend what it means to be innocent in the first place.



The discussion has developed since it started. Where we are now is only indirectly related to the question that started this thread. It is being pointed out to you that it is hermeneutically unsustainable and theologically inept to use the curse on the ground for man's sake as proof that God makes the innocent suffer.

I don't believe anyone disagrees with your Augustine quote - certainly I don't. But it is not to the purpose.



NB3K said:


> God the Father made Christ(who happens to be His Son) who was innocent, to suffer for the sake of the wicked (the elect). God the Father justified the wicked by making His Son suffer the just judgment that belongs to us. And we cannot agree without question that God can make the innocent suffer? If the suffering of the innocent served to bring God glory, than Praise God! Because God made the innocent suffer so we may enjoy Him and Love Him.



This is still confused. Christ did suffer; but why? Because He volunteered to be laden with the guilt of our sin. The suffering was still related to sin, though it was sin imputed, rather than committed.


----------



## Philip

NB3K said:


> The human mind cannot comprehend what it means to be innocent in the first place.



So our language about innocence is equivocal? Calling rocks or animals "moral agents" is a category mistake. You can argue that animals are innocent, but you will be talking nonsense (literally) just as if you argued that a sleeping chair dreams of sofas. We cannot argue over the moral states of non-moral entities any more than we can speak of the unconscious thoughts of things that have neither consciousness nor thought.

Jason, we have to affirm that God is not the author of sin. If God is the author of sin, then God is not good. Jesus, when He suffered, was not innocent, for He bore the burden of all our sin.


----------



## NB3K

Again I never said God is the author of sin. We are just incapable of understanding the works of God.


----------



## Herald

NB3K said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time I remember starting a thread asking the following question: "Is God the author of sin?" I look back on that thread with a bit of embarrassment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for the encouragment.
> 
> But I never said God was the author of Sin. It only seems that way from our perspective. It's like Augustine's description of an oar in the water. When we veiw the oar in the water is seems to our vision that the oar is bent, but when we take the oar out of the water we see that it is not infact bent. What seems to be from one perspective is not from another.
Click to expand...


Jason, I never said you called God the author of sin. I was using my own experience to make a point about diving into deep waters before we've learned to swim.


----------



## Dennis1963

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I know it is my own foolishness, but I cannot seem to justify the imputation of Adam's guilt to myself. Of course, in the same way, I cannot justify the imputation of Christ's merit to myself. But actually it all comes down to the question: *Is it right (according to God's standard) for God to make His creation suffer, even if it has done no wrong (according to God's standard)?* Because that's seemingly what happened, when Adam made his posterity suffer with himself, for what _he_ did.


I don't understand it as God making anyone suffer. God said to Adam Gen 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
Adam did it to himself, and it is because of that, he suffers. 



> Since God defines right and wrong, then I'd gladly accept that He may do _anything_ He wants with His creation.


Amen, and God is holy and good! 



> I'd even approve of Him throwing innocent beings to a _temporal_ lake of fire. But then again, I'm not sure I would consider God good, if He threw His innocent creation to _everlasting_ lake of fire _not using it as a means to a better end_.


No one who is innocent will suffer in the lake of fire.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------




JBaldwin said:


> Perhaps I misunderstand who God is, but from what I understand of His character as laid down in Scripture, I don't believe that God could (by His very nature) throw an innocent being into the lake of fire unless the individiual went willingly (which was mentioned above), that is Christ Himself.


You can be sure of it, God will never throw the redeemed (innocent) in the lake of fire. 

I'm sure you agree. 

---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------




InSlaveryToChrist said:


> God does all things for His glory. The question then becomes: *Can God act for His glory by killing innocent beings *(say, kill Adam before he violated the CoW)*?* *Would not such an act demonstrate God's authority over His creation?* So, I still don't see how God would not be justified to make the innocent suffer.



Who would God have to show His authority to?

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 PM ----------

I think we have to remember the only people who are innocent are those saved by the blood of Christ. We, the elect, will suffer in this life, that we cannot escape. But that's it, after this life, no more suffering.

Phil 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake


----------



## Philip

NB3K said:


> Again I never said God is the author of sin. We are just incapable of understanding the works of God.



If we are incapable of understanding the works of God, then we are incapable of knowing God. To say that we are utterly incapable of understanding the works of God _sounds_ really deep, but it undermines the practice of theology, not to mention Scripture itself (wow, I'm sounding like a Clarkian tonight!).



> But I never said God was the author of Sin. It only seems that way from our perspective.



Not to me. I begin the discussion with "God is not the author of sin" as a premise, not a conclusion.


----------



## Mushroom

Herald said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time I remember starting a thread asking the following question: "Is God the author of sin?" I look back on that thread with a bit of embarrassment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for the encouragment.
> 
> But I never said God was the author of Sin. It only seems that way from our perspective. It's like Augustine's description of an oar in the water. When we veiw the oar in the water is seems to our vision that the oar is bent, but when we take the oar out of the water we see that it is not infact bent. What seems to be from one perspective is not from another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jason, I never said you called God the author of sin. I was using my own experience to make a point about diving into deep waters before we've learned to swim.
Click to expand...

The Ted Williams quote I heard the other day is becoming more and more my favorite extrabiblical quotation, especially for myself:


> If you don't think too good, don't think too much.


This is my new motto.


----------



## Herald

Well, Ted Williams didn't need to think "too good." All he had to do was swing the bat.


----------



## Dennis1963

P. F. Pugh said:


> If we are incapable of understanding the works of God, then we are incapable of knowing God. To say that we are utterly incapable of understanding the works of God _sounds_ really deep, but it undermines the practice of theology, not to mention Scripture itself (wow, I'm sounding like a Clarkian tonight!).


We can know within the bounds of God's written word. Other then that it is just man's ideas, mere speculation. For example the Trinity. It is taught in scripture, but I no not believe there is a man who can give a good clear explanation of it. Considering also the fall, by the simple fact God told them not to eat of a certain tree and Satan being in the garden, makes it obvious that the fall was in God's plan. In Genesis Ch 2, the firmament God created above the earth, makes it obvious after the flood it was there for a reason. 

Yes, there are many things we can know since God has revealed His will in scripture. 

However, man has to come to the safe conclusion that there are things we cannot understand, explain or know. 
We have to agree with the Psalmist that, Some things are just to wonderful for me, I cannot attain to it.


----------



## Philip

Dennis1963 said:


> We can know withing the bounds of God's written word



And within the bounds of general revelation.



Dennis1963 said:


> For example the Trinity. It is taught in scripture, but I no not believe there is a man who can give a good clear explanation of it.



Indeed---that which is revealed is shown to be even more mysterious than when it was hidden. At any rate, a discussion of the epistemology of revelation is tangential to the real discussion.


----------



## Dennis1963

P. F. Pugh said:


> And within the bounds of general revelation.


Yes, judged by scripture. 



> Indeed---that which is revealed is shown to be even more mysterious than when it was hidden.


Yes, I agree. 


> At any rate, a discussion of the epistemology of revelation is tangential to the real discussion.


Agreed.


----------



## a mere housewife

I just wanted to add Lamentations 3 

32 But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.

33 For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.

34 To crush under his feet all the prisoners of the earth,

35 To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High,

36 To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not.

God loves freely; His mercy is unfailing and new every morning; but He does not _afflict_ willingly. If we didn't know this, as Rev. Winzer said earlier (which has been a comfort), we would have no hope in life to endure; and seeing Him who is invisible would provide no strength at all. But we do know this, not only because He teaches it to us in our experience, but because when all else fails, we know what He told us.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Moderators,

As for my own questions, this thread has long since served it's purpose. If someone still wants to discuss the topic given on this thread, be my guest, but please don't address your comments to me anymore, because I'm not interested in further discussion.

Thanks.


----------



## Peairtach

Animals aren't innocent or guilty, but it is true that they haven't done anything morally wrong, being incapable of it, and yet they suffer pain, distress and discomfort because of Man's sin.

God is also concerned about animals suffering gratuitously at Man's hand, within reasonable bounds - e.g. purposelessly torturing animals - although He imposed animal suffering on the creation because of Man's sin.

If God is even somewhat concerned about the suffering of animals in both His decretive and preceptive wills, as the Bible indicates, He does not impose suffering on them without good reason.

The whole of the natural creation - including the animal kingdom - is spoiled and yet shines with God's glory 

There may be a degree of mystery in this until the New Heavens and New Earth, as C.S. Lewis indicates.



> Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. (Luke 12:6, ESV)


----------



## a mere housewife

Samuel, I hope it's okay to address to you just that I am very grateful you started the thread. Reading Lamentations 3 in light of this question was incredibly helpful to me. One can see our Saviour there identifying with His judged people, 'I am the man who has seen affliction', and understand the hope that sustained Him in the depth of His afflictions. Christ knew God better than anyone; and this question bears so much on what He knew about God that gave Him hope -- it has been a tremendous help to my faith, in union with Him. I'm sure I'm saying all of that badly; but it was a good thread.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

a mere housewife said:


> Samuel, I hope it's okay to address to you just that I am very grateful you started the thread. Reading Lamentations 3 in light of this question was incredibly helpful to me. One can see our Saviour there identifying with His judged people, 'I am the man who has seen affliction', and understand the hope that sustained Him in the depth of His afflictions. Christ knew God better than anyone; and this question bears so much on what He knew about God that gave Him hope -- it has been a tremendous help to my faith, in union with Him. I'm sure I'm saying all of that badly; but it was a good thread.



I'm glad the thread was helpful to you. But that doesn't change the fact that my question was very foolish.


----------



## NB3K

Peairtach said:


> Animals aren't innocent or guilty because they are not moral creatures like human beings and angels.





InSlaveryToChrist said:


> ). Animals are neither righteous/innocent nor wicked.





py3ak said:


> I am not sure it is appropriate to apply the term "innocent" to a non-moral being, because "innocent" is a moral term.





Prufrock said:


> Jason, please note that guilt and innocence are categories only applicable to moral-rational agents, not to amoral creations.



Well Calvin seems to think that the creation suffers innocently.



> Nor ought it to seem absurd, that, through the sin of man, punishment should overflow the earth, though innocent. [Calvin's Commentary on Genesis 3:17]


----------



## Peairtach

Well Calvin may be using the word "innocent" in the popular sense of not having sin even if incapable of moral choice, rather than in the ethically accurate sense of being a moral creature who hasn't sinned.

Animals and rocks aren't guilty or innocent, and only (some?) animals can suffer _pain_.

Animals aren't innocent like the unfallen angels.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Jesus was innocent of all charges, was perfectly sinless, and yet suffered on the Cross.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## VictorBravo

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Jesus was innocent of all charges, was perfectly sinless, and yet suffered on the Cross.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob



Because he was made sin for us. 2 Corinth. 5:21 Our guilt was imputed to him. He bore the awful load of all our sins.

Otherwise, the suffering of Christ would be a travesty.


----------



## Prufrock

NB3K said:


> Well Calvin seems to think that the creation suffers innocently.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor ought it to seem absurd, that, through the sin of man, punishment should overflow the earth, though innocent. [Calvin's Commentary on Genesis 3:17]
Click to expand...


Jason, this would be a good time to slow down. Yes, Calvin uses those words, but two people can use the same words and mean entirely different things by them. Such is the case in this situation. For example, you might consider reading Calvin's comments on Rom. 8:19-22 if you wish to understand what you quoted in terms of Calvin's own thought. In this passage, Calvin explicitly qualifies his own language, clarifying that when he attributes things such as reason, hope and will to "creation" in the context of suffering and punishment, he does so "by a sort of personification...and he [the apostle Paul] does this in order to shame our stupidity, when the uncertain fluctuations of this world, which we see, does not raise our minds to higher things." When he speaks of "creation" being punished, he qualifies this: it is not actually "suffering" as man can, or experiencing "punishment," but rather "since there is no reason in such creatures, their will is to be taken no doubt for their natural inclination, according to which the whole nature of things tends to its own preservation and perfection: whatever then is detained under corruption suffers violence, nature being unwilling and repugnant." Calvin proceeds to personify the earth's "obedience" in such things as bringing forth fruit, the flow of the air and water, etc., whereby the earth is shown "obediently" carrying out its "charges" in "hope." He personifies creation, attributing to it that which he overtly maintains cannot actually belong to it. Calvin does not say the earth can be "innocent" or "guilty," but rather through personification (figuratively attributing things like innocence and guilt to it), states that there was nothing wrong or defective in the earth: it was created and it was good; and did and was exactly as it should be: all of the decay and death that is in nature, is not from defect within itself, but is on account of man's sin. This is all he is saying. In fact, within the Genesis commentary which you quoted, if you jump down a few lines, you will find him state, "We may add, that, properly speaking, this whole punishment is exacted, not from the earth itself, but from man alone."

Always remember that, while it is important to know what words an author uses, it's even more important to understand *how* and *why* the author is using them.


----------

