Entry # 025 - May 2005
‘Tis futile to ponder
Upon Almighty Mind far yonder
For reason is a cracking lens
Through which man peers at truth too dense
It oft reveals a little part
But still conceals the greater whole
Ever fickle is man’s heart
Restless is his fettered soul

#024 - 25.05.08 Sun 2:10pm
Thou givest not thy will, unless the Lord taketh it.
The Lord taketh not thy will, unless thou givest it.

# 023 - December 2004
Divine character and will cannot be understood fully in terms of cause and effect, for these two are chronological reciprocals –cause is before, effect is after- and God is not bound by prepositions of time. Logic and reason cannot be stretched to contain or comprehend the mind of God, thus it is not man's place to judge God.

Deficient reasoning can, and often does degrade the infinite God to a finite, negative value:
____S = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 +…
=>_2S = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + … = S – 1
=> _ S = -1

Bound by 4 rudimentary dimensions (3 spatial and 1 chronological), the mortal mind cannot fully perceive God in His infinite dimensions. And just as spatial curvature repeals Euclidean geometry, so Divine Will circumvents conventional causality without contradiction.

True wisdom acknowledges the limits of reason, and continues with faith.

1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men;and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

# 022 - 24.02.08 Sun
It is the will of God that Christ be slain as propitiatory sacrifice.
It is the sin of man and treachery of heretics which nailed Him to the cross.
But it cannot be said that man has, through the necessary evil of sin, has piously fulfilled the plan of God.
Rather, it is the wisdom of God which prevails over, and exploits mortal rebellion against itself.
Again, the co existence of both Divine Sovereignty and mortal free will is plain, although their mode of interaction is anything but.

# 021 - 27th Jan 2008 Sunday 9.30 am

Divine sovereignty and human free will are not mutually exclusive or subtractive. They are not dichotomous opposites. The latter cannot degrade the Former from total to partial, or absolute to relative; the Former does not stifle the latter.

But to ask how both can coexist and/or cooperate is to ask how light is both a photon and a wave, or how a finite line segment is an infinite set of points, or how Jesus is both fully God and man.

A limited Venn-diagram illustration might define divine sovereignty as an infinite superset containing proper subsets of human free will, accurately reflecting the former's precedence over the latter. However, such a model fails to describe or explain the constant conflict between both wills throughout sinful history.

It appears a contradiction but is actually not, and no mortal mind can comprehend how.

As with the Trinity, there is no adequate physical analogy or poetic metaphor for such duality.

# 020 - 24th June 2007 Sunday 2 pm
That God allows sin for His greater glory is a faulty and inconsistent proposition, because it implies that sin is a necessary evil, and God created the sinful or sin-prone only to destroy them in a grand, glorious display of judgment. This blatantly portrays God as a capricious puppeteer who manipulates, and then disposes of his creatures as pawns on a cosmic chessboard - completely contradictory to His benevolent nature. Furthermore, the present reality is clearly inferior to what could, and should have been – namely, the non-occurrence of original sin and persistence of Eden.

It is far more reasonable to suggest that God allows sin simply because He can afford to - the same way billionaires can overlook (but not condone) ignore petty thefts on their property. God can easily over-compensate for the effects of sin. He is more than able to deliver and avenge the afflicted, and consume oppressors in His wrath.
Psalm 72:4 He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.
2Peter2:9   The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
Isaiah 14:4   That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
Isaiah 14:5   The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, [and] the sceptre of the rulers.
Isaiah 14:6   He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, [and] none hindereth.
Isaiah 14:7   The whole earth is at rest, [and] is quiet: they break forth into singing.

# 019 - 6th January 2008 Sunday
There is a fine line between faith and fatalism.

# 018 - 7th  October 2007 Sunday
We can only conclude that it is better for salvation and damnation to be decided by perfect, eternal divine will, rather than myopic, fickle mortal choice. Would anyone accept that the sadistic war-criminals of abominable atrocities be elect, and their victims not? It is a ludicrous miscarriage of justice for these victims to have been immensely tormented on earth, only to be conveniently discarded for eternity with no comfort or compensation, simply because they happen to be non-elect.

Luke 16:20   And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Luke 16:21   And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luke 16:22   And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luke 16:23   And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luke 16:24   And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luke 16:25   But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Ultimately, Divine character is eternally consistent, and its justice and mercy extend even to hell. Divine judgement is proportional to the offence, as is revealed in the Written Law.
Exodus 21:24   Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exodus 21:25   Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

God Himself has declared that He will crush oppressors and deliver their victims.
Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
2Peter2:9   The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
Psalm 72:4 He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.

# 017 - 7th  October 2007 Sunday
0.                  Whenever arises a discussion of the fall of Man - or more specifically, the Adamic fall - the vexing issue of collective condemnation is often neglected. Instead, it is conveniently stated that all mankind fell with Adam, without any attempt to resolve the apparent contradictions.

0.1.               The first such contradiction is chronological- Adam's descendents should not be held accountable and judged for original sin, since they were yet non-existent at its occurrence.

Romans 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

0.2.               The second is moral-judicial - Divine Justice seems to require indiscriminate, collective and hereditary punitive measures, yet according to the Written Law and other portions of scripture) it expressly outlaws the same.

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin

Romans 2:5   But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Romans 2:6   Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

In spite of having neither choice over Adam's offence nor option to disown and renounce Adamic ancestry, his descendents suffer the aftermath all the same.

1.                    The Pelagian response to this is that man is judged for sin of his own free will - instigated by Adam’s bad example - but not for Adam's transgression per se.
However:

1.1.               This does not agree with Genesis 3:16-19, 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:12.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The Genesis passage clearly details hereditary judgement upon both genders in the form of painful labour (both senses of the word). The others explicitly trace all human sin and condemnation to Adam's. Augustinian theology on original sin seems more Biblically accurate.

1.2.               Moreover, the freedom of human will is questionable, for it is fundamentally compromised on 2 levels:

1.2.1.           First, election and exclusion from salvation had already been decided before the foundation of the world - before man was created, and certainly before man first used his free will.

Ephesians 1:4   According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Ephesians 1:5   Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

By the very absolute nature of predestination, the non-elect would not have been allowed a theo-centric free will compatible with salvation.

1.2.2.           Second, the descendents of Adam are collectively infected with hereditary original sin, and thereby unable not to sin (non posse non peccare). But such paralysis is no fault of theirs.  One wonders if their punishment is not unlike the crippling of a beast, and subsequent beating thereof for refusal to stand.

1.2.3.           Yet again, it cannot be denied that man enjoys at least some freedom of choice, and may not be absolved of moral responsibility for his deeds. In fact, he wants that responsibility; He enjoys controlling circumstances and shaping his own destiny. Just as he desires and claims merit for success and virtue, so he must receive demerit for failure and vice. The average person often has as much free choice over good and evil as over walking right or left. Certainly those monstrous felons of war may not conveniently claim hereditary and insurmountable depravity in defence of their abominable atrocities; they are fully liable to vengeful judgement.  

2.                    Another response is that Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection has completely undone the sin and condemnation introduced by Adam, thereby resolving all collective contradictions. Despite collective and involuntary imputation of original sin upon Adam's descendents, imputation of righteousness is offered and accepted voluntarily; one can exercise free will (if it still is free at all) to either accept or decline it. The latter imputation purges the former.
However:

2.1.               One must be excused for asking if this is like making a right with 2 wrongs: Man is forcibly rendered unrighteous by original sin, and Jesus is punished for that unrighteousness to absolve man of imposed guilt.

2.2.               The work of Jesus is effectual only for the elect, even though both elect and non-elect are equally casualties of Adamic hegemony. It is difficult to claim this as a total reversal of the fall.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

2.3.               Furthermore, even a total reversal of the fall only compensates for, but does not explain or justify collective condemnation in the first place.

2.4.               If the involuntary imputation of original sin had so severely compromised the human free will, why should the imputation of Jesus’ righteousness depend on that will to any extent at all? According to Wilmington’s Guide to the Bible\The Doctrine of Salvation p.735, "God forces the righteousness of Christ upon no-one". But since that be true, the unrighteousness of Adam should have been forced upon no-one as well.

3.                    Buswell attempts to explain collective condemnation in terms of sociological representation. The following is lifted from J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, p.295 (as referenced by Wilmington's Guide to the Bible\The doctrine of Sin, p.723):

{ " As a matter of fact the representative principle runs through the entire range of human life. Representative action is a sociological fact everywhere and is recognised in all orderly legal systems. For example, it may properly be said, I signed the Declaration of Independence as of the Fourth of July 1776. I was not there, but I am implicated in all the consequences of all my representatives' action. Further, I declared war and entered World War II with the whole nation as of December 7, 1941. I was not present when the action was taken. I was only listening on the radio. I might have been an unborn child. Nevertheless, my representatives acted for me, therefore their action was mine, and I am implicated and involved in all the consequences thereof.

Jus so, I became a wicked, guilty sinner in the Garden of Eden. I turned my back upon fellowship with my holy God. I deliberately corrupted the character of godly holiness which God imparted to His creation, over which He had intended me to rule. I was not there, but my representative was, and he acted as such in my place, so I was driven from the garden and excluded from the tree of life." - J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, p 295 }

But collective constitutions, treaties, declarations of war have traditionally been an excuse by and for the top brass to conveniently slam their will upon the ignorant, unsuspecting populace. Wars are instigated by individuals, but fought by whole nations. It is the former who discreetly vanish in the ensuing chaos, while the latter are helpless bound to languish in violence. Hitler's end remains uncertain, his corpse never found. Osama still cowers in his mole-rat tunnels. And civilians continue to perish in some holocaust or jihad they never voted for. It is an obvious error to equate a person's will with that of his/her representative over whom s/he has no control.

Sociologifcal representation is faulty, indiscriminate and apparently very unjust. Imputation of guilt and imposition of punishment by blood relation -or some other vague association- is a primeval practice characteristic of tribal fools.  Long-time adherence to such abject convention by human society is no grounds for proving that God did so with original sin.  

Buswell's argument is frighteningly fallacious.  

# 016 - 25th November 2006 Sunday 12.30 pm
For if had such grievous judgment been
Upon them so immutably predestined
It is better if life they’d never seen
And be hence immune to that immortal Fiend

# 015 - 30th May 2007 Wednesday
It makes no difference whether prophecies describe predestined or foreknown events, or both. Either way, no one bothers to intercept the foretold heinous sufferings.

# 014 - 7th October 2007 Sunday 5 pm
Perhaps mankind is a position to intercept the damnation of the non-elect altogether, by preventing their existence. It is not necessary to foreknow whom they are. All that is required is complete cessation of procreation.
Romans 9:11  (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Jesus Himself said it was better if Iscariot had never been born (we infer the same is generally true of the non-elect).
Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Surely it is better to prevent 1 non-elect from entering hell, than watching 10 elect enter heaven. One can do without eternal bliss, but one must do without eternal suffering.

It is unreasonable to assume that elect will beget elect. Old Testament history clearly shows that Noah personally cursed not only Canann his grandson, but all Canannite descendents as well.
Genesis 9:22   And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Genesis 9:24   And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Genesis 9:25   And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

(It is particularly difficult to reconcile Noah’s reckless cursing with Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, Romans 2:6 and Revelation 20:13, given that Genesis 6:9 labelled him “a just man”.)

The chaos within the immediate Davidic royal family - as well as the entire dynasty - further illustrates this point. King David was especially favoured of God, yet the same could not be said for all his children. He married too many wives and fathered too many children, failing miserably to restrain his own fertility. That was a grave lesson in (ir)responsible procreation, one which His son Solomon - for all his vaunted wisdom - tragically failed to grasp.

Can one say with a clear conscience that, if his child is non-elect, then he will conveniently accept without question the latter's final exile to hell? Certainly not, especially since the former was in a position to prevent such a heinous eventuality in the first place (by abstinence from procreation).

Contrary to some Biblical interpretations, marriage and reproduction are not mandatory.

The Apostle Paul affirmed singlehood and abstinence as a desirable estate, in no way inferior to marriage.
1Corinthians 7:8   I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Corinthians 7:9   But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Jesus Himself confirmed that the final, perfect state of human existence requires no marriage.
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Jesus also lamented the dreadful fate of pregnant and nursing mothers in turbulent times, with words so strong they might have been intended to dissuade at least some from procreation.
Matthew 24:19   And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

(“Woe” was usually reserved by Jesus for rebuke.):   
Matthew 23:13  But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye
neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Matthew 11:21  Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

History is repeatedly stained with abominable sins against women and children, by men who would be incestuous whores of Satan himself. Consider the blasphemous military ambition and exploits of Qin Shihuang, Genghis Khan, Alexander, Hitler and their ilk. Remember the perverse papal inquisition and crusades, the debased Japanese defilement of Nanjing and the Asia during the Second World War, the foul felonies of Milošević and his underlings in Kosovo, Pol Pot’s ruthless rampage in Cambodia, the ravenous Russian repression of Chechnya…   
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
2Kings 8:12 And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

One wonders if such prophecies of atrocities are given as warning to encourage prevention, or simply spoken because they must be fulfilled anyway.

In any case, since mankind knows not when these prophecies are due, should not prophylaxis begin in present time for good measure? Should Bible-believing scientists be fumigating the atmosphere with anti-aphrodisiac, contraceptive nano-machines? Is reproduction so necessary, and extinction so dreadful? Perhaps if mankind goes extinct early ahead of schedule then the consummate violence, plague, famine and apostasy of Armageddon may be averted. Scripture does not condone the taking of life in euthanasia, but it does not condemn the prevention of life either.

Ecclesiastes 4:1 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of [such as were] oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors [there was] power; but they had no comforter.
Ecclesiastes 4:2   Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.
Ecclesiastes 4:3   Yea, better [is he] than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.

# 013 - 22 November 2007 Thursday
“Be fruitful and multiply”? Clearly the adjective is distinct from the verb. Fruitfulness is not necessarily synonymous with multiplicity. A bumper crop of rotten fruit is quite clearly fruitless. Howbeit many populations multiply excessively, till they sink into the quagmire of poverty, decadence and suffering, groaning neath their own weight.

Procreation can be legitimate but irresponsible.

# 012 - 7 March 2007 Wednesday
2Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Timothy 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Timothy 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Timothy 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Timothy 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
2Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
 2Timothy 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
2Timothy 3:9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all [men], as theirs also was.

2 Timothy 3:1-9 categorically foretells moral degeneration in the future.

2Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Scripture confidently declares that people will not respond to sound doctrine. It can thus be concluded that evangelism will have no effect on them.

Luke 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Future atrocities and tribulations are prophesied in scripture with divinely inspired certainty.

Perhaps the only way to prevent this suffering altogether is to stop procreating and go extinct. It is unreasonable to dogmatically claim that the command “be fruitful and multiply”, given to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:22 and to Noah and Sons in Genesis 9:1 is for everyone in every generation.

The only two occasions on which this procreative commission was issued were beginnings on a clean slate.

Adam and Eve had not yet committed original sin when they received this instruction.

Noah and his family had been extricated from a corrupted world culled by the Flood. It seemed the "spiritual genome" had been sufficiently refined.

Nowhere else is this procreative commission repeated. Sure enough, one generation after Noah, the original sin infection flared up again in Ham. He and his progeny were collectively cursed by Noah as a result, and hereditary transmission of original sin was supercharged. Ham could have prevented much suffering by sterilising himself, but he irresponsibly contributed to the fulfilment of his father’s curse anyway.

# 011 - 20 May 2007 Sunday
If we say (as did Augustine of Hippo) that, simply for being descendents of Adam, infants are subject to divine condemnation, then we make life itself, and hence the procreation thereof, criminal.

The common argument against this is that Christ's salvation is available to all, so procreation can and should continue, despite the fact that creates more criminal casualties of circumstance.

However, this assumes all are elect, which is clearly incorrect. Who then, will take responsibility for preventing non-elect births?

Too many Bible patriarchs had the option of preventing suffering by simple abstinence from procreation, but failed to responsibly exercise this prerogative, choosing instead to spawn entire races cursed and condemned even before their very existence. Examples include Ishmael, Esau, Ham, Cain and perhaps even Adam. 

# 010 - 18 November 2007 Sunday
A reflection on Rev. Wong’s sermon based on the following scripture passage:
Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

It is an over simplistic generalisation, to say that everyone has free choice, and must hence bear full responsibility for any consequences thereof.

Very often one encounters dichotomous scenarios in which one option is so terrible that it does not qualify as a choice at all; and the other is practically forced. Such circumstances are frequent in strategic games - an illusion of free choice may prevail, despite the awareness that one “choice” is the lesser (or least) evil.

The penalty for defaulting on faith is so detestable that its opposite automatically imposes itself. One cannot help but wonder if the availability of "wrong" choices is some kind of booby-trap.

Choosing not to choose is not necessarily indicative of the desire to sit on the fence and enjoy the best of both worlds. In fact, it is sometimes the exercise of restraint, of caution against choosing wrongly. Sometimes it is shunning both worlds altogether, particularly if each threatens with its own consequences.

Is it wrong to evade the forceful imposition of responsibility? Was cowardice ever a crime?

# 009 - 7 January 2007 Sunday
Whether free will is painfully influenced by punitive coercion, or conveniently overruled by mind-control, the eventual common result is complicancel. One is left wondering if free will is purely ornamental and unpragmatic.

# 008 - 8 January 2007 Monday
Some Christian aplogeticians present this argument:

Man desires and enjoys free will, but after misusing it to sin, questions God’s allowance of free will. Therefore, he is irrational and immoral to ask the question ‘Why did God create man and allow him to sin?”  

This very unsatisfactory argument does not address deeper issues.

The issue is not so much God creating man and allowing him to sin, but that God was certain of man's sin even before creation. It is not unreasonable to question the lack of perfect preventive intervention.

How about restricting man’s free will from sin without allowing him to realise this (and thus prevent him from clamouring for more freedom)? The elect angels have free will, but restricted such that they are unable to sin.

How about replacing Adam with Enoch? Given the latter’s recorded conduct, perhaps he would not have taken the forbidden fruit and brought collective punishment upon man.

How about removing the collective punishment clause from the covenant with Adam? Need original sin be hereditary? Even Abraham challenged the practice of collective punishment on the basis of God’s character. Genesis 19:25

How about reversing time to undo original sin? God is not bound by uni-directional linear chronology.

How about preventing the existence of the non-elect? Jesus Himself said it would be better for Judas Iscariot to have never been born.  (Mark 14:21) So it is with the non-elect.

Which is the lesser evil: to be a God-fearing robot immunised to sin, or to possess free will with the possibility of sin?

It is often explained that man, possessing God’s image, cannot be a robot. We understand the ‘image of God’ to be a metaphorical image of His character. But where in scripture is it implied that free will is a necessary constituent of this image? 

No sane person would give Osama a nuke since his murderous intent is obvious. Why then, should man be given unrestricted free will if he will certainly abuse it?

Now, this is not an attempt to blame God, but to demonstrate that apologetics needs to think of a more thorough solution to the causality problem. If no solution can be derived, then this should be plainly admitted. Shallow answers only give sceptics more ammunition.

# 007 - 25 January 2007 Monday 10 am

In the words of Mr. Ong Chee Hong of SYFC on 25th January 2007, “Anything created by God in His image is beautiful but has a potential for ugliness”. Such is his explanation for the degeneration of Lucifer into Satan, and the fall of Adam. To qualify, he quite probably would have quoted:  

James 1:14…but each is tempted when, by his own evil desires, he is dragged away and enticed because of his own evil desire.’ …Therefore he needs not the devil because of the evil within.

The implications of this argument are disastrous – that man, even without the devil’s existence, is by default prone to evil. That means Adam and Eve had a latent, innate sinful tendency. This is in direct contradiction with the fact that God made all things good.

God, who possesses perfectly accurate foreknowledge, is aware of exactly how all free will and potential will be harnessed, or exploited. This must mean He knew that Lucifer and Adam they would fall - even before creating them. Was there then any point in giving Lucifer great power and wisdom, or the non-elect free will?

# 006 - 5 May 2007 Sunday
To allow evil is to refuse or restrain prevention of, or intervention against the corruption of an apparently good piece of creation.
But it is a different thing altogether to foreknow - prior to creation - of certain corruption in that creation, and still insist on bringing that foreknowledge into reality.

Adam's descendents never asked to be collectively condemned with him in the convenient mass-infection by hereditary original sin. They weren't even in Eden to vote on his decision to eat of the forbidden fruit. And it is by that infection that they are made unable not to sin. Is this not indiscriminate, collective punishment?

The Second Adam would by His merit neutralise that infection, but only in a limited, elect proportion of mankind. The judicial symmetry is difficult to establish.

When omniscient God established His covenant with Adam, the Former must have foreknown that the latter would breach it, the same way He foreknew and openly prophesied Peter's denial and Judas' betrayal of Him. He even said it would have been better if Judas had never been born, which leaves some troubling questions:

Are the non-elect pawns of prophecy, to be manipulated and then discarded?

If not, then why should they be born, their eternal fate already sealed even before the foundations of the world?

Should anyone shoulder the responsibility of preventing the birth of non-elect people?

# 005 - 25 December 2006 Tuesday
The implications are confusing: It makes no sense to pray for the salvation of the non-elect, since that is asking amiss. Consequently, prayer for an unbeliever must be founded on the assumption that s/he has been predestined for salvation, otherwise it is vain prayer.

# 004 - 30th May 2007 Wednesday

Some Bible commentators and preachers go so far as to say that “we must preach the gospel, for hell demands it”. They often remark that deceased unbeliever so-and-so could have believed the gospel and received salvation, if another so-and-so had (or had not) said or done this or that.

But that seems somewhat self-contradictory, in that there is no if or if not with God. The sequence of cause and effect is clear. Decisions on predestination - election and exclusion - were made before creation, and certainly before mortals were born and given free will. Salvation and damnation must have been predetermined and/or foreknown from eternity.

Free will seems irrelevant if its choices had been completely foreknown. If any should be lost, none other - believer or otherwise - may be held responsible.

# 003 - 29th July 2007
If it is salvation is more an effect of divine election than mortal choice, then damnation must be more an effect of divine exclusion than mortal irresponsibility.

# 002 - 6th June 2007 Wednesday
If the choices of human free will have been exactly foreknown and charted an eternity in advance, then the freedom of will itself, and the relevance of human responsibility to the equation of sin and salvation, must be called into question.

# 001 - 26th January 2007 Friday

Ephesians 1:4   According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Ephesians 1:5   Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Evangelism is evacuation from an overgrown Sodom and Gomorra. But Evangelism is also the enactment of predetermined events designed for calling the elect.

One begins to wonder if the Love of God is only as effective as the status of election, and fundamentally limited by the status of non-election.

But the scriptures say:
2Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.