Colossians 1:15-23, Part 12
Then, Christ the Sustainer. Verse 17 says, "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." And Hebrews 1:3 says, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." Whereas the doctrine of Christ as Creator stresses his transcendence, the doctrine of Christ as Sustainer places the emphasis on his immanence. In other words, as God he is other than and greater than the creation, but by his power and wisdom he actively sustains and regulates the existence of this creation and all the occurrences within it. This doctrine teaches that God not only creates, but he also maintains and controls what he creates. And since he has created all things, he also maintains and controls all things.
This completes the biblical teaching on metaphysics, so now we have a firm position on both the origination and the continuation of creation. That is, the creation does not contain within itself the power and wisdom to sustain and regulate itself. It was made by God but was not made into God, not that this was possible, and so it depends on him for its continual existence and operation. "The point is not that He lets the world exist but that He makes it exist." And because it depends on God for its existence and operation "moment by moment" – at this time the issue is the idea of continuity and not the precise expression by which we should designate this continuity – one moment in creation (the totality of its contents and configurations) is not the metaphysical cause of the next moment, so that in creation itself one moment bears no necessary relation to the next. Rather, it is God who directly sustains – or as some say, continuously creates – his creation moment by moment. The continuity is not inherent in the creation, but it is established in the mind of God.
Again, this biblical, rational, and necessary position on metaphysics also entails that God is the metaphysical author of sin. The implication is almost always denied by tradition and prejudice without argument. For example, Jonathan Edwards affirmed continuous creation, then immediately denied this necessary implication, but could not offer a case for the denial. Thus a splendid statement on God's exhaustive providence is marred by false piety and tradition. If we would be so bold as to take Goliath's sword, then let us not cut off our own heads with it. Let us go all the way in theological consistency. God has done nothing wrong, and he does not need us to be ashamed for him.
The doctrine of divine providence comes under this section of Christ as Sustainer. And this is often divided into ordinary providence (all events, thoughts, and actions), and special providence (such as miracles). We cannot discuss the entire doctrine here. In our context, the emphasis is that Christ sustains and controls everything – every detail of every object and every person. Because of his pervasive and precise power, "we know that all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28). Christ directs all of history, and rules over all nations and cultures. In all things he has the supremacy.
Colossians 1:15-23, Part 11
As for man in God's creation, our passage refers to "thrones or powers or rulers or authorities," so that it is fitting to say something about human government and its relation to Christ. In our culture, debates on this subject are often framed by the expression "the separation of church and state." Although the intention of a nation's founders is an argument from history that has practical importance, it has no direct bearing on a proper understanding of divine precepts and moral principles that are authoritative everywhere. Most people in the world are not Americans. So as practical as it is in some situations to debate the separation of church and state and the intention of the founders, once we transcend this very narrow focus, the only relevant issue is the source of authoritative moral absolutes, and what they say about political authority.
The word "separation" is so loaded and misleading that, it is probably better to abandon it when stating the biblical teaching on the matter. One danger posed by the word is that it tends to suggest an exclusion of God from human government, when throughout the Bible, the command of God is the only legitimate basis for human government. We could make a distinction between God and the church, so that by "separation" we intend to exclude only the church and not God. Of course there are those who wish to exclude God, but this distinction at least allows us to state our position (or something closer to our position), although it still requires careful explanation.
But our position cannot be so simply stated, for the church cannot in fact be separated from the state, unless it is affirmed that man's relation to God can be separated, even in principle, from the church. I would affirm, and on this point contrary to many believers who hold to tradition rather than to Christ, that it is possible (I do not say usual or desirable) for one's faith in God to exist and prosper in complete isolation from other believers. But a Christian's faith is often associated with the church in some way. And like the church, the state is not an abstract institution, but a group of people, so that when we refer to government, we are often referring to the people in power. Although it is correct to insist that all government officials ought to be Christians (in the sense that God commands all men everywhere to repent, Acts 17:30), it would be absurd to also insist that they are forbidden to go to church or to apply anything that they have learned from church in performing their duties, and in this way to include God but not the church in the state.
The Bible is against the separation of God and state, for he who is not for him is against him. Any state that is not a Christian state is a Satanic state. Again, the government is not an abstract institution, but it consists of people who are either Christians or non-Christians, children of God or children of Satan. So just as there is no such thing as a spiritually neutral person, there is no such thing as a spiritually neutral government. This is not to say that Christians should always disobey such an ungodly state, for all authority comes from God, not in the sense that he morally approves of what is done, but that he has established the principle of human government, and particular governments by his providence.
Proverbs 3:6 says, "In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight." This is said to individuals, not abstract institutions. Because all institutions consist of individuals, this statement applies to all institutions, whether schools, corporations, or governments. When it comes to the government, only an explicit and biblical confession of Christ can provide a basis for laws that prohibit the likes of murder, rape, theft, and perjury, if these laws are to reflect an objective moral standard rather than mere preference or practical concerns.
Then, perhaps the only sense in which we can construe Scripture to teach a separation of church and state is, not in the separation of beliefs and ideals, but in a separation of roles. The major principle here is that it is the state that handles civil affairs, while it is the church that handles spiritual matters. The church is not responsible to direct traffic, collect taxes, organize drug raids, fend off invaders, or to arrest, judge, imprison, and execute criminals. On the other hand, the state does not the possess the spiritual authority of the church. That is, government officials who are operating as such do not have the authority to, for example, excommunicate unrepentant sinners from the church and order them to be shunned by the community of believers. But as Christians, these officials would have the same rights as other believers in the church. It is better to say that the church and state are different institutions with a distinction of roles, rather than to say that there is a simple "separation" between the two.
As the creator of all thrones, powers, rulers, and authorities, Christ has the supremacy over all human institutions. All things were created "by him and for him." Whether church or state, if it does not honor and serve Christ in an explicit and intentional manner, then it is a perverted, defective, and rebellious institution.
Colossians 1:15-23, Part 10
Demons, on the other hand, are strong, intelligent, but evil spirits that are in constant opposition against God, his purpose, and his people. Theologians are careful to note that demons were not created evil, but that they are fallen spirits. This is accurate as far as it goes, but when these theologians use it to distance God from the origin of evil, we must respond that their effort is unbiblical, irrational, and unnecessary.
Some recognize the fact that the sovereignty of God and the freedom of creatures are incompatible. But if the demons became evil by an autonomous self-determination, then this is dualism, and theism itself is overthrown. Distancing God from evil then becomes the least of our concerns. This is the position that all attempts at metaphysically distancing God from the origin of evil put us in – they destroy theism itself.
And then there are those who claim that the two are compatible. However, when the context has to do with the cause of an event relative to divine sovereignty, it is self-contradictory to say that a creature's change of nature from good to evil, or even a simple decision to perform evil, is at the same time God-determined and self-determined. But this is the absurdity that results from trying to preserve both the sovereignty of God and the freedom of creatures. Since divine sovereignty is by definition an absolute and exhaustive control, the two are never compatible.
It is said that the self-determination refers not to a freedom from God, but to a person's ability to decide according to his own desires, and in a manner that is free from coercion. The subtle deception here is that "God-determined" and "self-determined" (or equivalent terms) are now used to address two different questions. The first term, "God-determined," specifies the metaphysical cause behind all events. So if the second term, "self-determined," refers to the metaphysical cause behind one's decision, it gives a contradictory answer to the same question. Also, it is dualism, which is blasphemy. On the other hand, if it addresses the event from a "lower" reference point, on the level of consciousness (desires, coercion, etc.) rather than metaphysics, then it has changed the question before answering it, which makes the answer deceptive and irrelevant.
Those who advocate compatibilism make much of the claim that the decisions of creatures are not "coerced," but this is again deceptive and irrelevant. Coercion is not a thing in itself – it is something that a person or object does to another. If it is said that a man is not coerced by other creatures in making his decision, then it is irrelevant because we are talking about divine sovereignty – the sovereignty of God relative to the decisions of creatures. But if it is said that man is not coerced by God in making his decision, then we must still ask why he is not coerced. If God exercises a genuinely absolute sovereignty, then the man is not coerced only because God so completely controls him, including all his desires and the principle that he will decide according to his desires, that there is no need for coercion – it simply does not apply.
God's sovereignty necessarily implies that he is the author of sin, that is, the metaphysical cause of it; otherwise, Satan and Adam could not have turned evil. Many theologians perceive this but refuse to follow through with it. And so they just call the entire question a "mystery," while the unbelievers rejoice in this hopeless inconsistency, and deride the Christian faith as if Scripture teaches this self-contradiction. God is the author of sin – it is blasphemy to say otherwise, for it would attribute the very power of God, of metaphysical causation, or of even creation itself, to demons and to men. Nevertheless, under God's control, the sinners are the ones who break his moral laws, and they are judged relative to these moral laws, not relative to the metaphysical cause behind their transgressions. There is no mystery or inconsistency here. The only hurdle is religious tradition that upholds the teachings of man rather than the word of God.
As for demonic activities and their place in human lives, unbelievers are children of the devil, and they are vulnerable to all kinds of demonic attacks and influences, resulting in lust, greed, rage, violence, insanity, and so on, but God's people are delivered from demonic powers through Jesus Christ. They can be tempted by the devil, just as Satan tempted Christ in the wilderness, and they can be assaulted by the devil's children, just as Christ suffered at the hands of the Jews and the Romans. But in all things we possess the victory through faith in Christ, because he has overcome all temptations and persecutions, including the power of death.
Demonic activities were already rampant before the coming of Christ, but God's people had limited abilities and options in dealing with them. The spiritual ministry of an anointed one could at times provide relief for the demonized person: "Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him….Whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul, David would take his harp and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him" (1 Samuel 16:14, 23). The evil spirit was under God's direct command, and not regulated by some "permissive" sovereignty, a ridiculous theological invention that is unbiblical and self-contradictory.
The forceful expulsion of demons from persons under their influence is a sign of the kingdom, that is, a sign that the king has come, and that he is enduing his people with power and sending them forth as his heralds. As Jesus says, "But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matthew 12:28). Even the demons bore him witness in their panic and confusion, exclaiming in effect, "What are you doing here? Have you come to send us to the pit before the appointed time?" He was not a prophet like any other, but the very Son of God. They recognized him, and they were mystified as to why he visited the earth in person.
Christians usually ignore Christ's command to cast out demons. One reason for this is the false doctrine of cessationism. Although not all cessationists think the same way, some of them argue that since the time of Christ and the apostles, the kind of demonic activities that we refer to have reduced or ceased. However, there is no biblical evidence to suggest this. And if we were to consider the contemporary cases of possible demonization, we might have to conclude that these activities have greatly multiplied, perhaps due to the neglect of this very ministry of casting out demons. Now, I agree that extra-biblical cases can at best illustrate a biblical teaching and not serve as a conclusive demonstration of a position. But this is precisely the point: unless there is a definitive demonstration from Scripture, to teach that it is no longer a Christian's duty to cast out demons is to teach rebellion against a clear command from Christ.
Even in the absence of any biblical argument to excuse them, some people just prefer not to deal with this. So when it comes to contemporary instances of demonized persons, they either stick their heads in the sand and pretend these things can no longer happen, or they shove these people into mental institutions and lock them up, so that these maniacs cannot trample their impotent theology. But psychiatrists and medications are no match for demons.
In any case, if anyone would teach that a command of Christ is no longer applicable, he better be sure, lest he falls under the curse of Matthew 5:19 and be regarded as a worthless servant. Are you so sure that you will tell someone to stop doing what Christ said to do? Are you so sure that you will criticize and even persecute those who continue to do what Christ commanded? If so, then make your case. If not, then shut your mouth. Tradition can be effective in hiding unbelief and disobedience (at least from ourselves), but when it seeks to subvert God's command, we must defy what authority that these men credit to themselves and to one another, even in the face of severe persecution unleashed by those who call themselves Christians, and instead follow the command of Christ with boldness of speech and action.
Perhaps it is better that the cessationists leave the demons alone, for the fallen spirits might say to them, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are you?" (Acts 19:15), and then overpower them and beat them (v. 16). Demons will submit to servants of Christ who act boldly in his name, and not to credentials and reputations that men have conferred upon one another. It is not that God and Satan have ceased their extraordinary activities in the world, but that faith has ceased in the hearts of the cessationists.
It is sometimes said that a "Reformed charismatic" is an oxymoron. This can be contested on both theological and historical grounds, but so what if it is granted? So what? Why does anyone need to call himself "Reformed" or "Charismatic"? Those who make this claim assume a meaning for "Reformed" and a meaning for "charismatic" that are incompatible with each other, and then jam them together and slap the label on people, thus appearing to make their opponents look foolish. It is just as easy, and more accurate, to say that a Christian Cessationist is an oxymoron, not that cessationists are unbelievers (although many of them are crippled with severe unbelief), but that cessationism is incompatible with Christianity. Also, the objection itself betrays that they value tradition in their hearts, and not Christ. This is the murderous spirit of the Pharisees, else why do they persecute their brothers who heal the sick, cast out demons, and desire spiritual gifts, as Scripture commands all Christians to do?
One argument is that ever since Christ's triumph over Satan, God has placed strong restraints upon demonic activities, so we ought not to come across the kinds of demonizations that are recorded in Scripture. There are variations of this argument. But this is a forced inference that is contradicted by Scripture. Christ's triumph over Satan does not make it unnecessary for believers to cast out demons; rather, it has made it possible. And Christ's triumph did not occur at the completion of the canon of Scripture, but at his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. All of this has already happened by the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, but evil spirits continued to demonize people, and believers continued to cast them out. If some Christians insist on their defiance against Christ on this matter, at least they should refrain from criticizing and persecuting those who obey him.
Regarding the ministry of casting out demons, if a person's first reaction is disbelief and ridicule, he would do well to examine his own attitude toward God and the Scripture, rather than to criticize those who attempt to obey Christ's command on the matter, and to face the evil one on the behalf of those oppressed by him. Casting out demons was an integral and consistent ministry of Christ and the apostles, so that a person's attitude to this ministry also reflects his attitude toward them. To argue for a cessation of these activities is one thing, although this is an assault on the Christian faith, but to mock the ministry itself is to mock Christ and his holy servants. There are many who commit this evil today. It is far better for them to acknowledge their unbelief, cowardice, and disobedience in failing to obey Christ's command.
We have stated that humans are not to initiate contact with angels, but can only respond to contact initiated by them, if such should occur. A similar principle applies here. The kind of confrontation that is involved in casting out demons is not to be initiated by believers. Some charismatics who advocate a "ministry of deliverance" have indeed carried it to an extreme, attributing even ordinary flaws and habits in people's lives to demonic activities.
Although there is a sense in which Satan's hand is behind all wickedness, this is not the kind of demonic activity that we have in mind in this context, and it is unbiblical to constantly suspect or look for demonic activities in people. Rather, the biblical pattern is that when the demonization becomes so evident that the victim's mind and body are taken over in an obvious manner, when the demons begin to overtly express themselves through a person, then believers are to confront this situation head-on and command the evil spirits to depart. Demonic powers are involved in many other instances of evil, but in ordinary cases the biblical teaching is for us to utilize the usual methods of ministry to overcome them, such as prayer and preaching. That is, in ordinary situations there is no need to distinguish between demonic or human evil, for they are addressed in the same manner.
Again, in our context the most important point is that Christ is greater than all demons, not as an angel, nor as a man, and not as God only, but as the incarnation of God, the God-man, Jesus Christ. And as Christians, we have authority over the father and master of all non-Christians, that is, the devil.
Colossians 1:15-23, Part 9
The duality of creation frames our discussion on the content of creation. By content, we refer to the specific objects or categories of objects that have been created. Since Paul divides these into "things in heaven and on earth" and the "visible and invisible," we will also divide our discussion into the heavenly or the invisible, and the earthly or the visible. Of course, here we cannot list all the objects or categories of objects in creation, but we can state what kinds of things would be included.
For example, heaven itself would fall under the category of invisible things. Creatures such as angels and demons would be invisible things that possess intelligence. However, this just means that they are usually invisible, since they can assume visible forms at times. The visible would include things like water, rocks, plant life, and the animals. Humans would usually fall under the category of visible things, but keep in mind that they also possess intelligence, and because of their dualistic nature, there is a spiritual and invisible aspect to them.
Here we will direct our attention only to those things that possess intelligence and are the most theologically significant, as well as the most relevant to Paul's letter. As indicated, they are angels, demons, and humans. Even with this narrower focus, it would be impossible to address these three items in a comprehensive fashion. So we will have to select some aspects of each topic for our discussion.
Angels belong to a class of strong, intelligent, and holy spiritual creatures who are in constant worship and service of God. In the study of angels, or angelology, we would consider their nature and purpose, their types and ranks, their relationship to God and to man. Part of what we can say about their purpose and relation to man is that they are "ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation" (Hebrews 1:14). According to biblical examples, their service would include the direction, protection, provision, and vindication of God's people. They perform these tasks under the command of God, and not by their own decision.
There is a teaching popular among some charismatics that because angels are "ministering spirits" sent to serve us, believers are to speak to them, and command them to perform their desires or to fulfill the promises of God. However, this teaching finds no support in the biblical accounts of how God's people relate to angels. First, the angels are the ones who initiate interactions with humans; people cannot initiate contact with angels. Second, their activities are ordered by God's command, and not by his people's command. Angels serve the heirs of salvation in the sense that they obey God's command to perform various tasks for our benefit. They are not our servants in the direct sense; rather, both angels and believers are God's servants.
If there is no biblical support for commanding angels to do our bidding, petitioning them to grant our desires is even more unbiblical and sacrilegious. In short, our conscious relation to angels is usually limited to an awareness that God commands them to serve the heirs of salvation, in the sense that they perform his will in the direction, protection, provision, and vindication of the believers. Their activities are almost always undetectable to us, but there is no biblical evidence to suggest that angelic appearances have ceased at the completion of the canon of Scripture, and the two in fact have no necessary relation to each other. Anyone who would insist that angels never appear to humans today do so by their tradition and prejudice.
That said, even if there is to be any verbal interaction with angels, we do not speak to them unless they first speak to us by God's command. And any such visitation must be tested by the word of God – not only by those who hear about it, but by the person encountering it even as it occurs. Since angels must obey the command of God, and the Bible is the word of God, they are subservient to the Bible in all their speech and conduct. Any being claiming to be an angel who distorts or disobeys Scripture is an imposter, and a spirit of deception. If an angel cannot satisfy me with sound logic, precise exegesis, and a consistent theology, he cannot be an angel, and I will have no obligation to follow what he says or to accept his message. If he comes from God, he will speak and obey the word of God, which is the Bible.
In our context, perhaps the most important point to make about angels is that Christ is the creator and sustainer of them all. He is not himself a mere angel, not even the chief of angels, but he is the God who made them, who sustains them, and who commands and controls them. Therefore, Christ has the supremacy over all angels. The implication for Christian doctrine and practice is that it is an act of idolatry to worship or to render excessive honor to them.
Colossians 1:15-23, Part 8
As for the nature of created things, again, we refer to the general manners in which they exist. Scripture teaches that God created persons and objects, mind and matter, spirits and bodies, things in heaven and things on earth, the invisible and the visible. From one perspective, these are various ways to distinguish the spiritual and the physical.
Thus when it comes to this question of the nature of created things, the Bible teaches a dualism. Here the word is used in a different sense than before, when we were discussing the sovereignty of God and the order of the eternal decrees. In the context of metaphysical causation, dualism refers to at least two supreme powers that create and sustain the objects and operations in the universe. This is the heresy that results from the attempt to metaphysically distance God from the creation and continuation of evil.
However, when it comes to the nature of created things, we are using the same word to refer to a different distinction, namely, that the universe consists of spiritual and material objects. Some objects possess both a spiritual aspect and a material aspect. For example, the Bible presents man as a spirit and a body. But here it also teaches a dualism – that is, the spirit is the man, who lives in a body. We may neutralize the rhetoric of objectors by absorbing their pejorative phrase – man is indeed "a ghost in a machine."
One trend in theology denies that man is essentially a duality, but claims that Scripture insists that man is a unity. Their use of the biblical evidence is misleading. Of course it is appropriate to refer to both the spirit and the body together as "man," as a unity, in ordinary discourse, when the topic is not about the nature of man. The question is whether the Bible makes the distinction when it addresses the topic, or when the truth about the topic must be assumed as it addresses something else. And we find that it consistently makes such a distinction, so that a disembodied person is still the same person, but the corpse of that person is not the person.
It is sometimes alleged that dualism is the "Greek" view of man, at times adding that such a view is anti-biblical because it assumes that matter is essentially evil. Such an objection is foolish and unproductive. I could not care less about what the Greek view is; rather, does or does not the Bible teach dualism when it comes to the nature of man, and that a person retains his personhood without his body? Since it does, and assumes this everywhere, our conclusion is that if this is the "Greek" view, then the Greeks were more biblical than these Christians who deny this position.
Also, one can hold to this position without thinking that matter is essentially evil. Just because matter is not evil in itself does not mean that it has to be a necessary part of a human person. These are two separate issues. There is no conflict between dualism and the biblical teachings that the deeds of the body are morally significant, that the bodies of believers form the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that there is a future physical resurrection, in which our bodies will be raised and changed. All these doctrines can be affirmed without also affirming that the body is an essential part of the human person.
The biblical doctrine of creation entails the creation of spirit and matter, and that not from preexisting substances, but by the bare power of God. All of creation – anything that exists that is not God – was conceived by divine intelligence and generated by divine ability. These propositions carry obvious implications for theology, philosophy, and science. Any theory of reality must be false that denies the spiritual world or the distinction between spirit and matter. Any method of investigation begs the question that begins from the assumption that the universe consists of matter alone. And since matter was created by God, material objects were not evolved from matter that already existed.
Colossians 1:15-23, Part 7
Then, verse 16 says, "For by him all things were created…all things were created by him and for him." The doctrine of creation, as it is related to Christ, reinforces Scripture's insistence on his deity. This is because it attributes the ability and accomplishment of creation to God alone, and at the same time it says that all things were created by Christ, and therefore Christ must be God: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:3).
Paul's purpose is to emphasize Christ's "supremacy" (v. 18), and so in this context the doctrine of creation suggests the supremacy of Christ over all things. That is, he is greater than all things because he is the creator of all things. He is the firstborn over all creation because of who he is and what he did. This is said in relation to him not only as the second person of the Trinity in eternity, but the apostle stresses his supremacy as Christ, or as the incarnate Son of God. This is the Jesus who walked the earth, preached to the people, who died on the cross, and was raised from the dead (v. 22). He is the creator of all things, and he has supremacy over all things.
Although this might be the main reason for the apostle's mention of creation in this passage, the doctrine does more than to reinforce Christ's divinity and supremacy. The manner that it is asserted informs us about the creation itself, such as the purpose, the nature, and the content of creation. By "purpose" we mean the reason for which Christ created all things. By "nature" we refer to the general manners in which these created things exist. And by "content" we refer to the actual objects that have been created.
Regarding the purpose of creation, verse 16 says that "all things were created…for him." Although we may call attention to some secondary purposes for creation that are legitimate to mention when speaking relative to non-ultimate reference points, the primary and ultimate purpose of creation is for God himself. As with all biblical teachings, the doctrine of creation is God-centered. Any formulation of a doctrine of creation that is not God-centered must be false. For example, it is against the entire spirit of divine revelation to suggest in any way that the purpose of creation terminates on the development and the salvation of mankind. These are at best secondary purposes that serve the primary, God-centered, purpose of creation.
This controlling theological principle produces clear implications for Christian doctrines and practices.
First, the God-centered principle defines true religion. For example, it requires a supralapsarian approach to the order of the eternal decrees. This is the biblical and rational order. Infralapsarianism confuses logical conception with historical execution, so that not only is it contrary to fact, but it makes nonsense of some of the divine decrees. For any given decree, it leaves the purpose of the decree unspecified until the next decree. But then, of course, there is no reason for the present one, so that it becomes arbitrary. Thus infralapsarianism is blasphemous by implication, since it insults God's intelligence and rationality.
Infralapsarians retort that supralapsarianism undermines God's justice, but to assert this they smuggle in a private and unbiblical standard of justice, one that rejects God's absolute sovereignty and violates strict logical inference, and then evaluate the eternal decrees by it. Their attempt to defend God's subservience to a human standard of justice turns out to be a subversion against his sovereign and divine justice, and a denial of even a simple ability for logical planning and arrangement in the mind of God. Hence their objection commits another act of blasphemy, although again, by implication and not necessarily by intention.
Berkhof, in explaining some of the objections against supralapsarianism, writes, "Notwithstanding its seeming pretensions, it does not give a solution of the problem of sin. It would do this, if it dared to say that God decreed to bring sin into the world by His own direct efficiency." But I dare say this. In fact, I dare not deny it, since if I do, I would be saying that some other power has the ability to generate and control sin by its own "direct efficiency." Handing over divine power to humans and demons, this is the heresy and blasphemy of dualism. Berkhof continues, "Some Supralapsarians, it is true, do represent the decree as the efficient cause of sin, but yet do not want this to be interpreted in such a way that God becomes the author of sin." But I do affirm that God is the sovereign and righteous author of sin, for the same reason that I just stated. To deny that God is the author of sin would produce some form of dualism, which amounts to a rejection of biblical theism.
Then, another objection goes, "It is pointed out that the supralapsarian scheme is illogical in that it makes the decree of election and preterition refer to non-entities, that is, to men who do not exist, except as bare possibilities, even in the mind of God; who do not yet exist in the divine decree and are therefore not contemplated as created, but only as creatable." This is a perplexingly stupid objection. In a logical arrangement, the final purpose is first conceived, and then each succeeding decree is made to accomplish the one that comes before. Thus of course the decree that concerns the creation of man would be preceded by a decree that requires the creation of man to accomplish but still represents man as bare possibilities. The objection fails to grasp the reasoning of supralapsarianism, and amounts to saying that supralapsarianism is wrong because it is not infralapsarianism.
As with many other related controversies, the real question in this disagreement between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism is whether we are willing to "let" God be God on his own terms. A consistent supralapsarianism is the only position that honors God, Scripture, and reason on this matter. And it is the only God-centered position.
Second, the God-centered principle explains and directs proper worship. Some people wonder if it is right for God to require worship, for is it not selfish and self-exalting? Would we not question the character, if not also the sanity, of any man who demands the same thing? But God is not a man. This objection assumes that either God is not as exalted as he is, or we are not as abased as we are. Among other things, to worship is to ascribe honor to the one most worthy of it. Since this person is God, it is ethically appropriate and necessary for man to worship him. And by the same principle, it is also appropriate and necessary for God to ascribe honor to himself. He does what is right when he exalts himself and demands his creatures to do the same, since he is the one who is most worthy of honor and praise.
What frustrates man-centered religion is that God refuses to worship his creatures or to allow them to worship themselves. This explains why greed is idolatry even when it is not explicitly religious (Colossians 3:5). All self-centered or man-centered thinking and living, or to honor any object, person, or ideal in a manner that ought to be reserved for God alone, is idolatry. Since all things were created for him, to place anything other than God in the highest place in our thinking and living is to go against the very purpose of creation. It is unethical and destructive. It is the reason for all present human misery, and the basis for future divine judgment.
We must note as well, that when the passage says "all things were created…for him," it is referring to Christ – all things were created for Christ, the Christ of the Christian Trinity, so that worship is not ascribed to any deity conceived by non-Christian religions. Rather, they are in the same position as any self-centered and man-centered system. And so all non-Christian thoughts and religions are idolatrous, because they refuse to honor the true God. The failure to consistently employ our principle, that creation is first "for him" and not for man, betrays a breakdown in both the intellect and character of man.