Finally, Christ the Redeemer. We will put under this heading harmatiology (the doctrine of sin), christology (Christ), soteriology (salvation), and ecclesiology (the church). Recall that our four major sections (Revealer, Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer) relate christology to every other major doctrine in systematic theology – it is a summary of systematic theology from a christological perspective. But now christology occupies a subsection by itself because it is here that we specifically relate the nature and work of Christ to the redemption of his chosen ones. And although it is possible to mention eschatology (last things) based on the passage, since it already suggests so many items for mention, we shall forego a discussion on the topic, except to note that Christ's redemption saves believers from the full measure of God's wrath that will be revealed against all non-Christians in the final judgment.

Beginning with the doctrine of sin, as mentioned, one of the greatest errors committed by otherwise sound theologians is the attempt to distance God from evil even on the metaphysical level, that is, on the level of causation. Instead of humbly and boldly applying the doctrine on divine sovereignty – a doctrine to which many of them pay lip service – they are held back by tradition and prejudice, and without argument call it blasphemy to affirm the Bible's own explicit and implicit teachings. They want a God that they can approve, and if the Bible teaches about a God who is greater than their conception, so as to transcend their cultural values and religious traditions, then he must be taken down to their own level. In effect, in refusing to accept God's revelation about himself, they betray their secret desire to replace him with an idol of their own making.

There is a great tension (or contradiction) in the work of these theologians. Contrary to their claim, this tension is not within divine revelation itself, but it is between divine revelation and their human rebellion. It is not that the Bible contradicts itself, but that it contradicts these theologians, so that it is a matter of truth against tradition, and not revelation against itself. They blame the contradiction on God, so as to excuse themselves, and then they call the contradiction a "mystery," so as to excuse God.

In this manner, they could persist in their rebellion against divine revelation, but at the same time preserve an appearance of faith and piety. However, in principle, they are no different than the atheists and heretics who allege that the Bible contradicts itself, only that these theologians make an excuse for God so as to keep their religion without having to agree with it. But it is impossible to forever hide this sinister method of doing theology. Along with the ridicule that it encourages from the unbelievers, and the disillusionment that it fosters in those who profess the faith, it has resulted in all kinds of perplexing theological formulations.

For example, in his discussion on the origin of sin, the famed Reformed theologian Donald Macleod writes:

How then does sin come in and how does it relate to the purpose of God? Sin, according to 1 John 3:4, is lawlessness. Sin has no meaning, no logic, no purpose, no fruit. Sin is the end of law. When we ask, Why sin? How sin? we are really forgetting that. We are assuming that there is some logic to sin. But at the point of sin logic collapses because sin is the Black Hole whence there is no light and for which there is no logic. There is no way of knowing how or why sin entered heaven. There is no answer to the query, How could Satan tempt Adam and Eve when they were perfect and holy and so close to God? There is no answer to the question, Why did God permit it? Because it is a Black Hole.

My jaw drops. I open my mouth, but no words come out. This is all so stupid. This is so wrong. Christians should not talk like this, should not make mistakes like this. But they do when they refuse to accept what God tells them, and they do when they wish to replace him with something that they made up, that they consider more worthy to receive worship than the God of the Bible.

We wish for some confirmation before we respond. Is he serious? Does he really mean what he says? And is this the doctrine of sin that a world-renowned professor is prepared to assert in the name of God and Scripture? Is this the best of the best? We hope against hope that we have misunderstood him. Some pages later, he writes:

There are four New Testament words which express vividly what sin is….The fourth word is anomia: "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). This is in many ways the most important definition of sin in the New Testament….This definition reminds us that sin in its very nature is anomalous. The English word "anomalous" comes from this same Greek word, anomia: without law. If something is an anomaly, that means it goes against all law and all reason, and that is a marvelous way of describing sin. Sin is the ultimate anomaly.

We are always reluctant to accept that sin cannot be understood. We want to ask, How? and, Why? How did it come? Why did God permit it? We want to reason through all those questions. But we have to come back to this: Sin is the end of law. Sin is an anomaly, and an anomaly by definition is what is beyond reason and what cannot be understood. How can we understand or explain how sin came into heaven? There was this great, brilliant angel, now known as Satan, but also known as Lucifer, the Light-bearer. He was perfectly blessed, magnificently intelligent, morally upright and totally integrated. Why should he choose to sin? How can I explain the Luciferian decision to rebel against God? How can I explain the lawlessness of the Light-bearer? Why did the Light-bearer choose darkness? I have no answer to that at all.

Nor do I have any answer to the question, Why did Adam choose to sin? There was no need, no defect, no pressure, no threat, no danger, nothing to be gained. The Satanic arguments look so absurd and yet the first man freely chose to sin.

This is indeed his position – sin cannot be understood because sin is lawlessness, so that there is no law and no logic by which it could be explained. So when it comes to the origin of sin, the turning of creatures from good to evil, a Christian must say, "I have no answer to that at all." We quiver with indignation and disappointment, that a top theologian can be so stupid, so confused, and so slanderous toward Scripture. And now, lest some readers fail to perceive the extent of the problems with his statements, we must address them.

Since almost every phrase contains several errors, and every error is related to several others, it would be difficult to produce an exhaustive yet orderly response. Therefore, we will organize the response by topic, and hope that readers will gain enough from it to see through the many other errors that we have no time to mention.

The central idea on which he bases all this nonsense is that sin is lawlessness, so that it cannot be understood. He claims to derive this idea from 1 John 3:4, which says, "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). However, his explanation contains one equivocation after another – that is, the meanings of his terms change back and forth, so that the premises do not in fact lead to his conclusion. Sometimes he uses the word "law" as if it refers to moral precepts, which is the correct meaning for this context, but sometimes he uses it as if it refers to metaphysical principles, laws that describe causation and so on. And sometimes he equates law with logic, so that if sin is lawlessness, then there is "no logic" to explain it.

This equivocation with the term "law" is then combined with equivocation on the "less" in lawlessness. That is, whereas in the Bible lawlessness means a transgression of the moral law, so that John says, "Everyone who sins breaks the law," Macleod changes the idea to an absence of law. To paraphrase, the Bible teaches that sin is a transgression of moral precepts, but Macleod changes this to say that sin is an absence of principles of operation, so that it cannot be understood. By "law," the Bible is talking about ethical precept, but Macleod makes the word refer to metaphysical principle. This outrageous and inexcusable error is possible only when working with certain languages, for in others there are specific words for law that carry with them legal and moral connotations, so that they cannot be so easily confused with metaphysical principles.

To illustrate the baffling idiocy of this spectacular display of equivocation, take the word "godless." Jude 4 says, "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." Other translations say "ungodly," which already demonstrates the point that I am about to make, but for the purpose of our illustration we can use the English NIV.

If we do to the word "godless" what Macleod does to the word "lawless," then we will have to say that God is metaphysically absent to "godless men." That is, although God is omnipotent and omnipresent, somehow he does not apply to these men because they are "godless." This would also mean that these men will not be punished for their wickedness, since God himself cannot reach them. But the same verse says that their "condemnation was written about long ago."

Of course, the truth is that "godless" refers to their wickedness. It does not mean that God is metaphysically absent from their lives, or that God does not apply to them, but that their thoughts and actions are in violation of God's moral precepts. They do not order their lives to grow in knowledge of him or to follow his commands, and thus they are "godless." In the same way, some men are "lawless" because they think and behave against a very present and active law. It does not mean that the law has become absent or inapplicable to them. And the meaning of "law" here refers to moral precept, not metaphysical principle.

In another place, Macleod writes, "There is no law to sin….There cannot be love where there is lawlessness, because love is the fulfilling of the law." Again, notice the equivocation. When he says that there is "no law to sin," does he mean that there is no metaphysical principle that applies to sin, or no moral principle that applies to sin? Or, does he mean that sin acts against the law, in which case the law is in fact present? If he means the first, then he has changed the word "law" back to moral precept by the time he says, "love is the fulfilling of the law" – love fulfills God's moral commands. If he means the second, that no moral principle applies to sin, then neither can sin be judged as wrong. If no moral law applies to sin, then sin does not violate any moral law, so that there is in fact no such thing as sin. The third option takes the biblical meaning of law, and affirms that sin acts against a law that is very much present. But then this destroys Macleod's equivocation and also his point about why sin cannot be understood.

He says that "Sin is the end of law," but the Bible says that sin transgresses the law, and not that it terminates the law. If sin ends the law in the sense that it terminates the law, this would mean that once sin occurs, the law is destroyed, and there is no longer a law by which to judge sin as morally wrong. In other words, sin in fact neutralizes the condemnation against itself by doing what it does. Once sin is committed, there is no longer any sin. If so, neither can there be any judgment against sin. This is the result of his equivocation.

What we are presenting here is not some deep biblical truth or theological argument. This is more like a simple English lesson to address an error that even a child in elementary school should be able to avoid.

There is more. From the premise that "lawlessness" means an absence of metaphysical principle, Macleod asserts that there is "no logic" to sin. Sometimes he appears to say that sin is illogical – that is, every decision to sin is an irrational decision. So far this is correct. However, he equates the idea that sin is illogical with the idea that it is impossible to obtain a logical understanding about this illogical thing. In other words, not only does he say that there is no rational justification for a decision to sin, but he also says that it is impossible to have even a rational description or explanation of sin. But these are two very different things, and the former does not imply the latter.

He does not even say that sin is such a complex matter that the human mind cannot fathom it. This would indeed be false, since sin is rather easy to understand, but at least he would be leaving open the possibility for someone to understand it, at least in principle. However, he asserts that sin itself is something that cannot be understood. But if sin is in itself something that cannot be understood because there is "no logic" to it, then the necessary implication is that even God cannot have a logical understanding of this illogical thing. This means that Macleod's doctrine, as an attempt to preserve both the biblical doctrine that God possesses absolute sovereignty and the traditional doctrine that God is not the author of sin, is in fact a blasphemy that strips God of his omniscience, and like other similar efforts, destroys even simple theism.

If anything that is illogical cannot be logically understood, then logic ceases to apply once it is violated. Thus once a logical fallacy is committed, it is no longer a fallacy, since logic then ceases to apply. Again, this is a very simple and therefore inexcusable error. The truth is that every illogical thought or argument can be logically described and explained. The irrational process can be logically traced and the errors logically identified. God possesses a complete and perfect logical understanding of sin, and because he has provided a extensive explanation of it in Scripture, we can also possess a logical understanding of sin. In fact, if God is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign, who is before all things and who is over all things, then he is the one who has conceived and ordained sin. Because he has a perfect understanding of it, he can control it and condemn it. And because we understand what he has revealed to us about it, we can preach about it, teach against it, and order our lives to overcome it.

Then, Macleod makes the point that sin cannot be understood because it is an anomaly. His reasoning process is as follows: Sin is lawlessness; the Greek word for lawlessness is anomia; the Greek word anomia produced the English word "anomalous"; therefore, sin is an "anomaly"; and an anomaly "by definition is what is beyond reason and what cannot be understood." My jaw drops again. At the moment I cannot come up with an insult strong enough for this, so let me just point out the errors in his reasoning.

Scripture indeed teaches that "sin is lawlessness," and we have already considered Macleod's equivocations regarding the English word. This time he also equivocates, but he takes another path so that he can abuse another English word at the same time. The Greek word for lawlessness is indeed anomia, and we might as well agree that the English words like "anomalous" and "anomaly" have been derived from it. However, anomia does not mean what we mean by the English word "anomaly." It refers to and has been translated as "iniquity," "unrighteousness," and "transgression of the law," whereas the English word refers to an irregularity or exception.

This means that by the time Macleod arrives at the English word, he has already changed the meaning of anomia. Then, he imposes it back to his theology as if this is the Bible's definition of sin – that is, as if the Bible teaches that sin is an anomaly. But the Bible says that sin is lawlessness in the sense that it is a transgression of the law, defiance against the law, and not an irregularity of some kind, or an exception to the norm. And after this, when he says that an anomaly "by definition is what is beyond reason and what cannot be understood," even the English definitions are against him, since no ordinary definition gives such a meaning. The entire point about sin as anomaly is his invention, which has no actual connection with Scripture, with the Greek, or with the English. He made up the whole thing.

This has similarities with one popular abuse of the Greek word dunamis (dynamis), or power (see Acts 1:8), from which we probably obtained the English "dynamite." The error is in applying the English meaning back to the Greek, and thinking that dunamis must therefore refer to an "explosive" power, when this idea might be completely absent from the word. This false teaching is sometimes heard from charismatic preachers who have access to nothing more than a Strong's Concordance.

But Macleod's mistake is even worse than the uneducated and anti-intellectual charismatics. At least dynamite is explosive, so that they are using good English to make bad Greek, but Macleod does not even abuse the Greek with the correct English definition of anomaly. The Greek does not say that sin is an anomaly (in the sense of irregularity), and the English does not say that an anomaly "by definition is what is beyond reason and what cannot be understood." Of course, if he employs this invented meaning for anomaly, and applies it to the idea of sin, then by definition – by his definition – even God cannot understand sin, so again we charge Macleod with the sin of blasphemy.

And, there is more. Macleod proposes the concept of a "Black Hole," and throws everything that he rejects from Scripture into it so that he does not have to provide an alternative anti-Christian explanation. He writes, "Hell is a Black Hole, to which and in which no law applies." But hell is ordained, designed, approved, created, and sustained by God to manifest his wrath and justice. So while Macleod thinks he is being clever and poetic, he is in fact calling the wrath and justice of God lawless and nonsensical. He continues:

Sin is impossible. It is impossible that man should sin. It is impossible that God should feel pain. It is impossible that God's Son should have to become incarnate and die. Yet in the Fall the impossible happened. Sin is the impossible that happened. And when sin happened the even more fundamentally impossible happened: God felt pain. There is no law to any of this. There is no law to sin. There is no law to God's pain. There is no law to hell. Both sin and hell are outside the sphere of the possible.

Pious nonsense. So are these things possible or not? We understand that sometimes a writer may use hyperbole for effect, and when we perceive that this is what he is doing, we should read the text with this in mind so that we do not misinterpret it. However, it is rather clear that Macleod is not using the word "impossible" as a hyperbole – he really means that sin, hell, and even the incarnation and atonement are impossible. This is reinforced when he rephrases "impossible" into "outside the sphere of the possible."

Since he is not using the word "impossible" merely for effect, then unless the Bible itself says that these things are impossible, then Macleod has invented these impossibilities in order to generate contradictions in Scripture. These contradictions in turn provide the nonsense and confusion that he needs to assert his anti-Christian theory, that sin cannot be understood.

The Bible does not say that sin, hell, the incarnation, and so on are impossible. Nowhere does it say this. Macleod made it up. In fact, since these things were ordained by God to happen, not only are they possible, but it is impossible that they should have failed to happened. In a relative sense – that is, relative to the moral law and man's natural constitution – it was indeed possible for Adam to abstain from sin. However, in the absolute sense – that is, relative to God's absolute and sovereign ordination – it was impossible for Adam not to sin. He was predestined to sin by God's active and immutable decree.

In other words, there was nothing inherent in God's moral law or in Adam's constitution that necessitated sin. Speaking on this level, it was possible for him to sin, and possible for him not to sin. But God's decree did necessitate sin, so that from this absolute reference point, it was impossible for Adam not to sin. If sin and hell are inherently impossible, then even God cannot ordain or control them. But God is the standard of what is possible and not possible, and not sin and hell. As for God's pain, there is nothing in the Bible that says God felt pain in the sense that Macleod seems to mean. He made it up again.

Moreover, even if there is "no law" to sin, there is still a consistency, a principle, a rationality to God's nature, so that when Macleod applies the same "lawlessness" to God's pain, he blasphemes again. That is, even if there is no "law" to the sin that caused God's pain, there is still a "law" in God who experienced the pain. But what Macleod says would deny this "law" in God's nature. Anyway, we deny that God felt pain in the sense that Macleod seems to intend.

But there is still more. First, keep in mind that he does not say that sin is incomprehensible because of our human limitations, which would be wrong enough since sin is easy to understand, but he says that sin is inherently incomprehensible. As mentioned, this necessarily implies that even God himself cannot understand sin. And if no law (no metaphysical principle) applies to sin, it necessarily implies that God himself cannot ordain or control it. Then, along with this first point, in one place Macleod asserts that sin is not "a mere defect"; instead, he writes, "It is a rampant, productive, energetic, multiplying, self-propagating entity. It is fierce. It is fire. It is living. It is a force, a tremendously powerful force."

So Macleod thinks that sin is inherently immune from comprehension by the intellect and from regulation by law, and that it is at the same time a living entity. Again, to him, sin is an incomprehensible, untouchable, active and living "entity." This can mean only one thing – he thinks that sin has the status of deity. To Macleod, sin is a god. So, in his view, there are two competing deities – the God of the Bible (in a diminished form), and Sin (the Black Hole, the Impossible, the Incomprehensible). Macleod's confusing and cowardly anti-explanation to sin, as an attempt to protect tradition and neutralize revelation, and to metaphysically distance God from evil and from being the author of sin, has resulted in a form of dualism. This is not Christianity.

At this point, the reader might ask, "Why must I waste my time with this blasphemous idiot?" The answer is that although it may appear a waste of time to study this nonsense, when nonsense pervades the church, and when it is blasphemous in nature, then it is necessary to confront it. The above serves as another illustration that every attempt to distance God from evil, that is, to remove him as the ultimate and immediate cause of evil, and to demonstrate that he is not the author of sin, has resulted in ridiculous and blasphemous theological formulations that cannot withstand any kind of biblical or rational scrutiny. This time it cannot survive even a quick reference to the English dictionary.

The truth is that these attempts have nothing to do with defending God's honor or promoting true piety. Rather, it is first insisted that God, in order to be righteous, must adhere to certain moral principles that men have imposed upon him, principles that God never declared for himself. These principles are then held constant, while everything else in the system is adjusted to conform, and failing that, it is relegated to the venerable status of a "mystery." These principles and their implications, regardless of their independence from and contradictions against Scripture, are then codified into creeds, which even in the Reformed tradition, are often subservient to Scripture only on paper. This tradition is then assumed to be sound doctrine, and in turn is used to interpret Scripture and to persecute those who oppose it, whether or not the opposition has a biblical and rational basis. And this is when "orthodoxy" becomes blasphemy, and an abomination against God and Christianity.

As if we have not read enough to illustrate this, in another place Macleod writes, "Apart from any other argument in its favour, the doctrine of the Fall relieves God of the guilt of creating a sinner." We affirm that God created Satan and Adam as good and not evil creatures, but we deny that they turned evil by themselves without God's deliberate and immediate causation.

Now notice Macleod's assumption. He presupposes a moral principle by which he holds God accountable – that is, he thinks that God would be guilty of wrongdoing if he had created a sinner, or if he had created Satan or Adam as evil in the beginning. However, this principle – that God would be guilty of wrongdoing if he were to directly create an evil creature – is not a moral principle that God has declared about himself or imposed upon himself. Rather, Macleod is the one who imposes it on God, and then he takes it upon himself to rescue God from its condemnation. This is the supreme presumption and arrogance behind the attempt to distance God from the origin of evil – it is nothing more than an attempt to deliver divine majesty from human condemnation, even though this condemnation often comes from those who seek to rescue God in the first place. The entire enterprise is sinister to the core.

Unless God himself declares it, it is not up to me to say that God would be guilty of wrongdoing if he had created an evil creature, which I say that he does with the conception of every human person after Adam, although Macleod thinks that it is up to him to say so. Instead, I affirm that God is completely sovereign – yes, really sovereign – and that he is righteous in all that he does. He defines good and evil. It is not up to a man to define them for him. And if God has in fact performed what Macleod calls evil, as we affirm that he has, then his defense of God is in reality an accusation and condemnation against God.

Lest the reader thinks that Macleod is just some isolated and inferior theologian – he is in fact considered one of the most cogent and reliable – we find a similar example in the revered Herman Bavinck:

We can shed some light on the possibility of the fall, but the transition to the actuality of it remains shrouded in darkness. Scripture makes not so much as a single effort to render this transition understandable. Therefore Scripture also lets sin stand in its properly sinful character. There is such a thing as sin, but it is illegitimate. It was and is and will eternally remain in conflict with the law of God and with the testimony of our own conscience.

Whether Bavinck's senseless babbling inspired Macleod's outright blasphemy is a matter of interest, but since it is not theologically significant, we will not pursue it. However, we cannot ignore his slander against Scripture. It is false that Scripture has made no effort to "render this transition understandable," since it repeatedly affirms God's general sovereignty over all things, God's specific sovereignty over evil, and also God's direct creation of the reprobates as reprobates and his direct control over all demons and sinners, as well as their evil deeds. We have documented these biblical teachings in a number of places.

The truth is that Bavinck "makes not so much as a single effort" to accept and believe what Scripture says on the subject. In another place, he writes:

Humans were not created morally indifferent by God, but positively holy. Still, we have to bear in mind the following as well. In the first place, God most certainly willed the possibility of sin. The possibility of sinning is from God. The idea of sin was first conceived in his mind. God eternally conceived sin as his absolute polar opposite and thus, in that sense, included it in his decree, or else it would never have been able to arise and exist in reality. It was not Satan, nor Adam, nor Eve, who first conceived the idea of sin: God himself as it were made it visible to their eyes….There is therefore no doubt that God willed the possibility of sin.

So far so good, that is, if we will for the moment ignore the tendency to dualism in the phrase "his absolute polar opposite" and the suspiciously weak statement, "in that sense, included it in his decree," as if God decreed the possibility or actuality of sin in a weaker or even different sense that he decreed other events, an absurd theological invention that we deny. In any case, when he proceeds to the actuality of sin, he falls into Macleod "black hole":

With all of this we have established nothing other and nothing more than the possibility of sin. How that possibility became a reality is and will presumably remain a mystery….This explanation eludes us, not only in connection with the origin of the first sin but over and over with respect to all sorts of human deeds and actions….The sinful act is caused by the sinful will, but who will indicate to us the cause of this sinful will? "Trying to discover the causes of such deficiencies – causes which, as I have said, are not efficient but deficient – is like trying to see the darkness or hear the silence…." In its origin, therefore, it was a folly and an absurdity….Satan has, therefore, not incorrectly been called an "irony of all logic." The impossibility of explaining the origin of sin, therefore, must not be understood as an excuse, a refuge for ignorance. Rather, it should be said openly and clearly: we are here at the boundaries of our knowledge. Sin exists, but it will never be able to justify its existence. It is unlawful and irrational.

Again, it is said that the origin of sin is a mystery because sin in itself is "darkness" and "silence." But this would mean that sin is obscure and silent even to God, so that even God cannot understand it. Thus Bavinck also blasphemes. Satan is an irrational person, since it is irrational to defy God, but in himself he is not an irony of all logic, because his sin is clearly explained in the Bible. Bavinck's anti-explanation is indeed an excuse, but probably not "a refuge for ignorance"; rather, it is a refuge for defiance. He refuses to accept what God says. In his denial of an explanation for sin, he has become an illustration of sin.

At the end, he confuses a rational understanding about sin with a justification for "its existence." Moreover, he fails to make a crucial distinction – a justification for committing sin is different from a justification for sin's existence. Bavinck himself acknowledges, albeit in a confused and compromised manner, that sin exists because of God's decree. So it is easy to interpret his comment as saying that God cannot justify his decree for sin's existence, in which case Bavinck blasphemes again. It is true that a creature can never provide a moral justification for committing sin. However, a rational explanation or description of the metaphysics of sin, of the causes and effects, is not only possible, but simple.

The biblical teaching on sin, including its origin, is one of the easiest doctrines to understand. All it takes is an unflinching applicable of divine sovereignty. There are those who present themselves as guardians of the faith, and who purport to uphold the doctrine of divine sovereignty. But when God's majesty is pitted against human tradition and religion prejudice, they flinch so hard that they slap God right out of his throne. Although at times presented as a theodicy, in reality their theology is a disgrace to the kingdom of God, a testimony to their hardness of heart and their worship of human inventions.

The biblical teaching is clear and simple. Since I have explained it so many times and in so many ways, I will provide only a summary. It is just this: God understands it; God ordains it; God causes it; God controls it. From the metaphysical perspective (cause and effect), this summarizes the entire biblical position. From the moral perspective, we first note that although God causes moral evil in his creatures (in the metaphysical sense), there is no moral law stating that it is wrong for him to do so. So God's righteousness is never in question.

Then, when God causes evil in his creatures, it means that he causes them to transgress the moral commands that he has given them, and that is why although it is not evil for God to metaphysically cause his creatures to transgress these moral commands (since he does not transgress any moral law in doing so), it is evil for his creatures to transgress these moral commands (since his commands toward them define good and evil for them). The moral accountability of these creatures is not determined by whether they are the metaphysical cause of their own transgressions, but whether they have indeed transgressed. If they have, then they are guilty (regardless of the metaphysical cause behind their transgressions), and God has determined to judge them.

If one objects that it is unjust for God to judge his creatures for their transgressions when he is the metaphysical cause of these transgressions, then again we reply that this applies a standard of justice that is nowhere announced or even implied in God's word. It is again a human invention to restrict God's sovereignty, and the act of making or applying this invention is itself defiant and sinful, and subject to divine punishment. And again, the real question is whether we will "let" God be God on his own terms.

Louis Berkhof writes that "it would be blasphemous to speak of God as the author of sin." But the opposite is true. I have demonstrated over and over again that we cannot even maintain a basic theism, let alone Christianity, without affirming that God is the sovereign and righteous author of sin. Theologians are so fond of delivering God from the "guilt" of creating evil, but the real issue is whether God will hold them guiltless for denying his unquestionable sovereignty and righteousness. Certainly, I do not have the warrant or authority to absolve them.

God created Satan and Adam as good and holy. Why did they turn evil? One can hardly think of an easier theological question. The answer is that God caused them to become evil. And this is not all, since we even know why God did it. Under a supralapsarian scheme of the divine decrees, God ordained sin so that there would be elect sinners for Christ to redeem, and so that in the end God would be glorified in the accomplishment of such. The reprobate angels and humans also have their purpose, as stated and explained in Scripture. We have discussed other aspects of supralapsarianism elsewhere, and so we will not repeat. A consistent supralapsarianism that affirms God as the author of sin also acknowledges him as the end of all explanation, while theologians such as Macleod and Bavinck make sin the end of all explanation – that is, at least when it comes to the origin of evil – and thus elevate sin into God.

This is the difference between Christian and Satanic theology. One theology is biblical, consistent, and God-centered, whereas the other is blasphemous, confusing, incoherent, man-made, and man-centered. One looks to God for salvation from sin and hell, while the other – in the guise of Christian piety – first condemns God by a human standard, and then rejects his self-revelation in order to rescue him from this same condemnation without abandoning this human standard. They resist truth by their private judgment and tradition, and they forbid Scripture to exercise any authority on the question. They make the most simple biblical doctrine into the most difficult and confusing, and make the name of Christ an object of mockery among the unbelievers. This is the inevitable result of denying that God is the sovereign and righteous author of sin.

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link