May God make innocent beings suffer?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Puritan Board Graduate
Rev. Winzer,

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

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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."
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Junior
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 ----------

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

NB3K

Puritan Board Sophomore
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)?
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.
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

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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

Administrator
Staff member
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 *11He 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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Flatly Unflappable
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

Puritan Board Junior
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
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 ----------

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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Junior
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.
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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?
 
Last edited:

InSlaveryToChrist

Puritan Board Junior
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?
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

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
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

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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
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

Iron Dramatist
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
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?
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

Puritan Board Junior
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.
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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 ----------

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

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top