Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom – A Molinistic Perspective (Doctrines Dividing the Church)

            With respect to the salvation of mankind, there exist two major schools of thought within Christianity. They are Calvinism and Arminianism.

            Very minimally, Calvinism subscribes to divine sovereignty to teach that God chooses some people to go to heaven and others to hell. ‘Arminianism,’ which is predicated on human freedom, teaches that man has freewill to either accept God or reject HIM. This action of man will lead him to his eventual eternal destination, namely heaven or hell.

            Predestination is certainly one of the most controversial doctrines of the Christian faith. But the Bible reveals this doctrine. Hence a Christian has no other option but to understand it to the best of his/her ability.

            ‘Predestination’ refers to God’s choice of individuals for eternal life or eternal death. ‘Election’ is God’s selection of some for eternal life, the positive side of predestination.

            A definite tension (as to who is correct) exists between groups subscribing to Calvinism and Arminianism. Gotquestions.org explains the basic nuances of Calvinism and Arminianism so to understand this tension:¹

Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of salvation. Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509-1564. Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560-1609.

Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. Note: classical Arminianism rejects “partial depravity” and holds a view very close to Calvinistic “total depravity” (although the extent and meaning of that depravity are debated in Arminian circles). In general, Arminians believe there is an “intermediate” state between total depravity and salvation. In this state, made possible by prevenient grace, the sinner is being drawn to Christ and has the God-given ability to choose salvation.

Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.

Calvinism sees the atonement as limited, while Arminianism sees it as unlimited. This is the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person receives Him by faith.

Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call.

Calvinism holds to perseverance of the saints while Arminianism holds to conditional salvation. Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. Conditional salvation is the view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation. Note - many Arminians deny "conditional salvation" and instead hold to "eternal security."

So, in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, who is correct? It is interesting to note that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism. There are five-point Calvinists and five-point Arminians, and at the same time three-point Calvinists and two-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of mixture of the two views. Ultimately, it is our view that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable. Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all. Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation. These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense.

            According to other theologians, this tension need not exist. These theologians subscribe to the teachings of Molinism.

            Dr. William Lane Craig offers an introductory explanation as to how Molinism can help us understand God with respect to man’s salvation:²

The biblical worldview involves a strong conception of divine sovereignty over the world and human affairs even as it presupposes human freedom and responsibility (cp. the accounts of Saul’s death in 1 Sm 31:1–6 and 1 Ch 10:8–12). An adequate doctrine of divine providence requires reconciling these two streams of biblical teaching without compromising either. Yet this has proven extraordinarily difficult. On the one hand, the Augustinian-Calvinist perspective interprets divine providence in terms of predetermination, God choosing in advance what will happen. It is hard to see how this interpretation can preserve human freedom or avoid making God the author of sin, since (for example) it would then be He who moved Judas to betray Christ. On the other hand, advocates of revisionist views (e.g., open theism) freely admit that as a consequence of their denial of God’s knowledge of future contingent events a strong doctrine of providence becomes impossible. Ironically, in order to account for biblical prophecies of future events, revisionists are often reduced to appealing to the same deterministic explanations that Augustinian-Calvinists offer.

Molinism offers an attractive solution. Luis Molina (1535–1600) defined providence as God’s ordering of things to their ends, either directly or indirectly through secondary causes. In explaining how God can order things through secondary causes that are themselves free agents, Molina appealed to his doctrine of divine middle knowledge.

Molina analyzed God’s knowledge in terms of three logical stages. Although whatever God knows, He knows eternally, so that there is no temporal succession in God’s knowledge, nonetheless there does exist a sort of logical order in God’s knowledge in the sense that His knowledge of certain truths is conditionally or explanatorily prior to His knowledge of certain other truths.

In the first stage God knows all possibilities, not only all the creatures He could possibly create, but also all the orders of creatures that are possible. By means of this so-called natural knowledge, God has knowledge of every contingent state of affairs that could possibly be actual and of what any free creature could freely choose to do in any such state of affairs.

In the second stage, God possesses knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions (statements of the form “If x were the case, then y would be the case”), including counterfactuals about what creatures would freely do in various circumstances. Whereas by His natural knowledge God knew what any free creature could do in any set of circumstances, now in this second stage God knows what any free creature would freely do in any set of circumstances. This so-called middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that such knowledge does not depend on any decision of the divine will; God does not determine which counterfactuals are true or false. By knowing how free creatures would freely act in any set of circumstances He might place them in, God thereby knows that if He were to actualize certain states of affairs, then certain other contingent states of affairs would be actual as a result. For example, He knew that if Pontius Pilate were the Roman procurator of Judea in A.D. 30, he would freely condemn Jesus to the cross.

Intervening between the second and third stages of divine knowledge stands God’s free decree to actualize a world known by Him to be realizable on the basis of His middle knowledge. By His natural knowledge, God knows the entire range of logically possible worlds; by His middle knowledge He knows, in effect, the proper subset of those worlds that it is feasible for Him to actualize. By a free decision, God decrees to actualize one of those worlds known to Him through His middle knowledge. In so doing He also decrees how He would freely act in any set of circumstances.

Given God’s free decision to actualize a world, in the third and final stage God possesses so-called free knowledge of all remaining propositions that are in fact true in the actual world, including future-tense propositions about how creatures will freely behave.

Molina’s scheme effects a dramatic reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. In Molina’s view God directly causes certain circumstances to come into being and brings about others indirectly through either causally determined secondary causes or free secondary causes. He allows free creatures to act as He knew they freely would when placed in specific circumstances, and He concurs with their decisions in actualizing the effects they desire. Some of these effects God desired unconditionally and so wills positively that they occur. Others He does not unconditionally desire but He nevertheless permits due to His overriding desire to allow creaturely freedom, knowing that even these sinful acts will fit into the overall scheme of things, so that God’s ultimate ends in human history will be accomplished. God thus providentially arranges for everything that happens by either willing or permitting it, and He causes everything that does happen, yet in such a way as to preserve freedom and contingency.

            To conclude, divisions among Christian churches over doctrinal matters are rather unfortunate. If we are one in Christ, then much could be achieved in Christendom with the pooling of all resources.

            It is with this objective that these systems of thought are presented here. The hope here is that if Christians subscribing to Calvinism hear and study the Molinistic school of thought, then it is quite possible that they may appreciate the Molinistic perspective. This could then bridge the divide between Calvinists and Arminians.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html

²http://pastorseansblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-can-bible-affirm-both-divine.html

Websites last accessed on 25^th February 2019. 

Why Did God Create Satan Knowing That Satan Would Cause Evil?

                  No one is spared of evil in this world. We either reel under the effects of evil or hear the impact of evil upon our relatives, friends and society at large. Some question God’s goodness on account of evil and a few others dispute God’s presence.

            Evil is real. Evil is not an illusion. Any sane human being would affirm this position. Terrorism or human trafficking is an act of evil, and the pain felt by those hurt by evil is indeed real.

            If evil is real, then it should have a source, and that source has to be real. (If Satan is not real, then was Christ hallucinating while HE was tempted by Satan and while HE drove away the demons?)

            The Bible terms Satan as the source of all evil (John 8: 44 etc.). Christians believe in God as a maximally great being; HE is supreme over all that has been, is and ever will be. If God is supreme, then HE should have created Satan. Isn’t it?

            Before we explore the Bible to learn about Satan, we should discard the following concepts:

            1. That Satan and his demonic entourage are merely a mythological conception drawn from the culture of the day. This is German theologian Rudolf Bultmann’s program of demythologization of Satan.

            2. That Satan and evil do not stem from a personal source but are woven in the fabric of our social reality as a part of the very structure of reality. This is Christian existentialist theologian Paul Tilich’s depersonalization of Satan.

            3. That demons are simply nothingness in their dynamic, not created by God but a threat to God’s creation. This is reformed theologian Karl Barth’s conception. This conception of evil denies the concreteness of evil, hence we disagree.

            So to begin with, we agree with the Bible that evil is real, Satan is real, and God is also real. Did God then create Satan? The answer is an unequivocal yes.

            But the bigger question is, “Did God create Satan as a source of evil?” The answer to this question is an unequivocal no, for God, as a good being, cannot be the creator of evil.

            This then is Bible’s teaching about Satan:

            Isaiah 14: 12-17 and Ezekiel 28: 12-19 are often termed as conjectures of the Satanic fall. This may or may not be so, for these passages could refer to human kings of Babylon and Tyre. Hence it would be profitable for us to explore the Bible outside these references to learn more about Satan.

            1. God created everything, which includes angels and demons (Colossians 1: 15-16).

            2. Everything God created was originally good (Genesis 1: 31; 1 Timothy 4: 4)

            3. Some angels sinned and are doomed for eternal destruction (1 John 3: 8; 2 Peter 2: 4; Jude 6). If some angels sinned, then they were created merely with a potential to sin i.e. they had the freewill to sin.

            4. Satan is an angel who is subordinate to God (Job 1: 6-7).

            5. Satan is a demon (Luke 10: 17-20) – casting out of demons implies the defeat of Satan.

            6. Satan is the prince of demons (Matthew 12: 22-32; Mark 3: 22-30; Luke 11: 14-23).

            7. Those who are demon possessed are under the influence of the devil (Acts 10: 38; cf. Luke 13: 16).

            8. Satan is the evil one (Matthew 13: 19; 1 John 2: 13, 3: 12, 5: 18).

            These passages undoubtedly teach us that God created Satan and his demons originally as good beings. But Satan and some of his fellow angels sinned against God and are in the business of enabling mankind’s rebellion and disobedience against God.

            Significantly, God did not create an evil Satan. God created a good angel, who used his freewill to reject God and become evil.

            If God had not created angels, then Satan would not exist. So why did God create angels? The Bible reveals the purpose behind God’s creation of angels. Angels were created to…

            1. …reveal and communicate God’s message to humans (Acts 7: 53; Hebrews 2: 2).

            2. …minister to believers (Acts 5: 19; Hebrews 1: 14).

            3. …execute judgment on the enemies of God (2 Kings 19: 35).

            4. …praise and glorify God (Psalm 103: 20, 148: 2).

            5. …be involved in Christ’s second coming (Matthew 25: 31)

            A variant of the bigger question is, ‘why did God create Satan knowing that he will cause evil in this world?’

            First, did God know that Satan would cause evil? Yes, God would have known all about Satan. God is all-knowing (Job 37:16; Psalm 139:2–4, 147:5; Proverbs 5:21; Isaiah 46:9-10; 1 John 3:19–20), so God would have definitely known that Satan would cause evil and disaster in this world.

            Second, could not have God created a world without Satan? Wouldn’t a world without Satan and evil be a better world than ours? In other words, is our world the best of all possible worlds?

            One of the great thinkers of 17^th and 18^th century is Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. He proposed that our world is the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz's proposition was that since God knew all of the infinite possibilities, this world should be the best of all possible worlds, for God has actualized this world over the other possible worlds.

            Christian analytic philosopher, Alvin Plantinga differed from Leibniz by positing that there cannot be a best world, for one more palm tree or one more morally righteous person can make any world better. So Plantinga concluded that there is no such thing as the best world. [Even if God does not create anything, HE alone will exist as the greatest good (Summum bonum)]. Therefore, God is merely obligated to create a good world and not a best world.

            This world is a good world, since God has offered freedom to his creation. God has offered freedom to man to love HIM freely. The same freedom was offered to the angels as well. Some angels a.k.a. Satan and his demonic entourage abused this freedom and rebelled against God.

            A world without freedom is not a good world. Therefore, as C.S Lewis wrote in ‘Problem of Pain,’ God has created a good world in such a way that the goodness of this world could be perverted into evil upon mankind’s rebellion or when creation is distorted.

            In other words, free beings i.e. man could use their freedom to perform evil deeds by rejecting God, which in effect would destroy the goodness of God’s creation. Similarly man can tamper with nature to bring about evil e.g. destruction of coral reefs would bring about hunger, poverty and political instability.

            As long as God offers freedom to his creation, the free moral agents (e.g. man) would possess the ability to do good or evil. So the question is not about Satan’s existence whereas the question should be about the presence of freedom.

            A world without freedom would be a world full of puppets or robots albeit in the form of human beings, which in essence is not a good world at all.

            Creating human beings with freedom is wiser than creating humans in an antiseptic environment from whom the logical possibility of desiring anything contrary to God’s will is excluded.

            Therefore, a world without freewill and Satan would any day be a terrible world to live in than a world with freewill and Satan.

            Could God have created a world with freewill and without Satan? A world with freewill will entail evil and a world with evil will posit a source, namely Satan. Even if angelic beings were not created, and as long as freewill exists, evil would exist.

            Evil would exist because God in HIS nature is good. So anyone opposing or rejecting a good God would do evil. So a world with freewill and without Satan would still contain evil.

            Satan and his cohorts are busy causing evil in this world. Although we reel under the effects of evil both directly and indirectly, God has offered us eternal life through the Lord Jesus Christ and God has promised to care for and protect those who believe and seek HIM. May we believe in Christ, gain life eternal, and protection against evil. Amen. 

If God is NOT in Suffering

Let us think on the entailment of Godlessness in human suffering. What are my legitimate options if I am unable to believe in God during times of suffering? I use the word ‘unable’ to emphasize the overwhelming pain of the suffering heart. We should positively sympathize with those struggling to decrypt God’s presence in times of (arduous) suffering. Those who succumb to the incredible pain caused by their suffering, deny God’s existence.

            If man replaces God, then suffering is caused by mankind. Poverty, I postulate, is an imbalance in the distribution of financial resources, due to greed. The haves turn a blind eye to the have-nots. The poor shrink and the rich bloat. This is a tenable proposition. Again, if starvation is an outcome of the barrenness of land due to lack of rain, then one can posit concretization (building of concrete jungles) through deforestation as a plausible cause. This too is tenable.

            Man ought to be the cause behind a baby with birth defects due to parental negligence or an untimely death because of a drunken driver. These evils could be attributed to him exercising his freewill. But what is he free from? If someone is “free,” then we posit a restraining power. A young man may want freedom from his parent or a slave may want freedom from his oppressor. The parent and the oppressor are the restraining powers.

What do these powers restrain a man from? Parents restrain a child from being bad (which is good). An oppressor restrains the slave from escaping (which is bad). Hence, the restraints could be either good or bad. Man can choose to be free from either good or bad. Thus, a “free” man can liberate himself from good or bad.

            The moment we bring concepts such as ‘bad’ and ‘good’ (morality) into our domain, we should explain its cause. Who framed these moral laws? Since our postulation is Godlessness, society (man) frames its own moral laws. But one society executes convicts for armed robbery, whereas another imposes a lesser punishment. We need to decide which of these societies is right or wrong.

So we arrive at the realm of arbitration. A society sets up objective units to arbitrate opposing contentions. These objective units determine the innocent, the criminal, the winners, and the losers. Even in villages (where literacy is rare), a village council comprising of mature and credible people is established as an objective arbitrative unit. When man seeks justice/truth, he approaches the objective authority, whose sole purpose is to establish truth through impartial justice.

            This objective arbitrative unit ought to be a transcending authority. Primarily, it should transcend the contending parties, without sympathizing with either. But man is a vulnerable being. So the transcending authority need not be absolutely transcending, for it could fail to transcend corruption.

            When a man depends on his fellow being for justice, especially with the prevailing corruption, one can reasonably posit that justice need not be rendered to every individual. Justice often marries power, position, and prominence, leaving the poor and powerless divorced from justice.

Here the aspect of “Hope” needs to be considered if mankind is robbed of justice from fellow man. When one is at the receiving end of injustice, should he live with hope to receive justice one day, or should he be hopeless? When a man fails to receive justice, what is his assurance to receive justice later? When corruption is in full force, justice from a fellow man is not an optimistic anticipation, especially if he is poor and powerless. When man replaces God, hopelessness prevails.

            With man at the helm of affairs, justice and hope are uncertain. With God at the helm of affairs, there is justice and hope. This hope is an eternal hope where evil will be punished and righteous will be saved to coexist with God unto eternity (Revelation 20ff). If the Lord so ordains that I do not receive justice in this time and age (Cf. Hebrews11:35b-40), I am certain of receiving justice when HE comes in all HIS glory to judge mankind.

           

            Until now we hypothetically removed God from the helm and replaced HIM with man. Then we examined the situation to ascertain if man’s replacement of God answers questions related to suffering. The situation of suffering with man at the helm is worse. If I depend on man, then I am hopeless and robbed of justice. Hopelessness with man also posits that man is not “free” but is under the control of evil.

            There is a sense of duplicity in those who reject God (a transcending, objective, Almighty reality) but accept the presence of objective arbitrative units of men. On one hand, they reject God because of HIS supposed partiality (HE provides good to some and not to all), and impotency (HE fails to eliminate evil), but on the other hand they accept a man who is worse than God – partial, impotent, and susceptible to corruption. Those who are disappointed in God should also be disappointed with man (even with themselves!). Significantly, there is hope with God but only hopelessness with man.

            If we replace God with anything inanimate (chance), then the situation gets even worse. We are left with more holes and questions – the situation becomes more unstable and untenable. If God is at the helm, then God decides the birth of every man. If man rejects God, then his birth is a chance occurrence. When ‘chance’ rapes a man, he is abandoned into brutal obscurity, humiliation and indignity that he remains idiotically ignorant of the cause for his malady. This is a situation of greater hopelessness and indignity. This is a horrendous evil.

            It has already been emphasized that man can decide to liberate himself from good or bad. We have the intrinsic freedom to liberate ourselves from God or the devil. When we liberate from God, we fall prey (even innocently and ignorantly) to the schemes of the devil. A deluded man falls prey to the devil’s schemes. God gives man many chances to seek HIM, love HIM, and obey HIM willingly and lovingly. It is my prayer that we do not fall into the hands of the evil one, but willingly and lovingly fall into the loving and nail pierced hands of the Almighty God.

            Christ in us is the hope of glory (Colossians 1:27). Without Christ, we are hopeless. I therefore submit that suffering is more understandable and explainable with God. Amen.

Summary:

If man replaces God:

            Suffering caused by ‘man’ or ‘chance’

                       

If suffering caused by man, then Man is “free.”

                                    A ‘free’ man can liberate himself from ‘good’ or ‘evil’ (morality).

Man frames moral laws to establish justice/good (since God is replaced by man).

Man arbitrates/judges to ensure fairness/good (man sets up objective authority akin God)

Arbitration should absolutely transcend, but does not, for man is vulnerable (corrupt). So, man is unable to liberate himself from evil.

                       

Justice unrendered to man, since man unable to liberate himself from evil.

When justice is unrendered, man is HOPELESS, evil prevails, ‘good’ is nonexistent/partial.

Because justice and hope are consistently non-existent/partial, man is not ‘free,’ but is under the control of evil.

Therefore, when man rejects God, he is under the control   of evil.

                        If suffering is a ‘chance’ occurrence

           

Man is so hopeless that he cannot seek anyone or anything for answers. Man is robbed of dignity completely.

This is a horrendous evil, so evil prevails.

                       

If man replaces God, evil prevails, man is under the control of evil.

                       

Fallacies:

Man sets up an objective authority to establish justice/good, but rejects a good and a just God who is an objective authority. (Man does not want to yield control to God.)

Because of corruption/evil, man fails to provide justice consistently. (But he rejected God for the same reason - not providing justice consistently.)

Dignity Undamaged

Some suffer from mild physical anomalies such as obesity, short stature, baldness etc. Often our society shamefully compares them with their handsome and beautiful peers. Hence, those affected are besieged by an inferiority complex. To intensify their heartache, media accentuates external beauty in all its glory. This is an incredible burden. These children of the living God are pushed into oblivion because a well-designed body is appreciated as an object of beauty.

            A very short man is burdened when society ridicules him. His burden further intensifies when he fails to secure a job he so dearly desires (e.g. airline steward). He fails, since his short stature is rejected by the airline’s minimum height policy.  

The man’s short stature was designed by God. So, he cannot be blamed, but he still carries the burden of lost dignity. Similarly, people who are obese, highly freckled/acned, or with irregular teeth carry the burden of lost dignity.

            Dignity is a very powerful word. Dignity is self-worth, honor, or respect. The healthy and handsome are more dignified over the unhealthy and ugly. The intensity of deprivation of dignity ranges from mild to severe. The popular, powerful and prominent are more dignified in our society while their less illustrious peers are dumped into the dungeons of ignominy. The world glorifies people with greater dignity.

Sadly, there are more severe hereditary medical conditions such as Schizophrenia, familial Alzheimer’s etc. Those suffering through these severe conditions may not even understand the loss of dignity; however their immediate family would suffer the loss of it.

Here is my understanding of dignity in the form of a basic equation.

Dignity = Man × (nX)

where “X” is one or a combination of: health, wealth, education, vocation, beauty, power, popularity, prominence etc., and

“n” refers to numerals ranging from -10 to 10.

Greater dignity:  “n” = 1 to 10 (1 = average & 10 = superlative)

Lesser dignity:  “n” = 0 to -10 (0 = below average & -10 = invalid)

The dignity of man is directly proportional to “X.” The greater the “X,” the greater is his dignity (self-worth, honor, and respect). Man is highly dignified when he possesses a superlative “X.” When “X” takes a negative plunge, his dignity suffers. If we consider “health” as an example, then a very healthy man would possess greater dignity. On the other extreme, being an invalid with terminal disease would destroy his dignity. This is one facet of dignity.

The other facet of dignity is, when man scales greater heights, his self-dignity swells (he is proud of his achievements). Simultaneously, when he scales greater heights, the world recognizes, appreciates and awards him. Thus his outward dignity – in the eyes of men – swells as well.

Let us proceed to the theology of dignity. Man, able or disabled, is gifted with an intrinsic dignity for he is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). However, mild or severe medical conditions seem to rob him of his intrinsic human dignity. The faulty design of man is attributed to the almighty God. It appears that God who gave man the intrinsic dignity also robs it from him because of his medical condition. Hence, it is imperative to learn the reason behind the apparently lost dignity from God’s perspective, and HIS plan for them to realize their intrinsic dignity.

First, why would God design a human being with medical conditions that apparently destroy the intrinsic human dignity? Dare I suggest two reasons!

1. For God’s glory: One can experience, enjoy and glorify God through prosperity and peril. Lazarus’ sickness was for the sake of God’s glory (John 11:4). Bible does not state that God should only be glorified through prosperity. A twice-orphaned Annie Johnston Flint glorified God through her poverty and terrible sickness, which made her totally dependent on nursing care. It was from her sick bed that she penned the wonderful hymn “He giveth more grace.” She enjoyed God’s grace during her utmost pain, and glorified God through her poems (Cf. 2 Corinthians12:8-10).

2. Because of Sin and Freewill: Ever since the fall (first sin) of Adam and Eve, mankind continues to reel under the burden of sin (Cf. Genesis 3; Romans 8:20-22). Sin and freewill are partners in crime. Smoking is injurious to health says the warning note on the cigarette pack. However, smokers ignore the warning and employ their freewill to smoke. If a pregnant woman smokes, her child is more likely to be born with birth defects, which God allows!

Would these two facts from the Bible answer the second question of how the victims of medical conditions realize their intrinsic dignity?

Fact #1: In Matthew chapter 1, some who figure in the lineage of our Lord Jesus Christ are undignified: Judah and Tamar no strangers to illicit sex (Genesis 38), the prostitute Rahab (Joshua 6:25), Ruth a Moabite – a race that originated from incest (Genesis 19:30-38), the adulterer King David (even emphasized as an adulterer through the mention of Uriah’s name in 1:6), King Rehoboam the megalomaniac (Matthew 1:7, Cf. 1 Kings 12:1-24)…Could not have God chosen a better lineage? HE could have also chosen a more dignified place for the Lord’s birth, but HE did not!

Fact #2: As if HIS undignified ancestors weren’t enough, the Lord associated himself with undignified people: the short tax collector Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10; tax collectors defrauded their own people, so were undignified, and to add to his plight, Zacchaeus was short), a Samaritan woman with loose morals (John 4:17-18); Christ was known to associate with undignified sinners (Luke 15:2). Significantly, our Lord HIMSELF was accused as an undignified glutton and a drunkard (Luke 7:34).

Understanding dignity from God’s perspective is vital. God does not view dignity as humans do. Christians do not acquire dignity from worldly prominence, power or popularity (Cf. 2 Corinthians 4:18). Please recollect the “X” from my equation of dignity. The “X” for a man is JESUS CHRIST or SIN. Sin separates man from God, resulting in his undignified separation from God. If he accepts Christ as his God and Savior, then the righteousness of Christ is upon the believer. The believer then finds his dignity from the one who offers him eternal life, and not just that, he is seated in Christ and with God in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6). What a gloriously dignified position! The Christian looks beyond the world, and into his God, for his dignity.

Our mediocre medical condition may degrade our body, but God, by virtue of our belief in Christ, raised us and seated us with HIM in the heavenly realms, unto eternity. Our body will perish, but our glorious position in Christ and with God will never fade or perish (Cf. 1 Peter 1:3-4). This glorious position enables a Christian to realize his intrinsic dignity.

Having said this, Satan is capable of inflicting a vicious attack into the heart of the Christian that can apparently shatter his dignity in the eyes of the world. Stay tuned to read more about this attack of Satan next week.

May God bless us all according to HIS will and pleasure. Amen.