ABC:Romans 2

From BibleStrength

Verse 11

The EvilBible claims a contradiction exists here, and makes the following comments (italicized).[1]

The critic makes some serious mistakes in trying to attribute injustice and partiality to God. First of all, Genesis 9:25 contains something Noah said, not God, and that was because his son had immorally looked at his father's nudity. As a result Noah cursed his younger son. However, even IF that had been something God had said, not Noah, it would not have necessarily shown injustice or partiality since it was a condemnation of an immoral action. Using that as the primary example of God's injustice displays seriously flawed reasoning, as well as carelessness, on the part of the critic.

The critic seems to be arguing that Exodus 20:5 displays partiality because children experience the consequences of their ancestor's decisions to the third and fourth generations. This may well be a reference to disease. God punishes individuals who hate Him with diseases and physical maladies that carry over into their later generations. However, despite this God forgives those who repent, healing their lives and bodies. The critic noticeably does not mention the next verse, Exodus 20:6, which specifically states that God shows mercy to those who love Him and righteously keep His commandments.

In the Mosaic Law, God elsewhere specifically states that children are not to be put to death for the actions of their parents, or parents for what their children have done, but punishment should be based upon their individual actions. Therefore, while God may execute forms of punishment on later generations through disease, execution was to occur only when an individual had done that which was clearly evil.

Ultimately final judgment at the end of the time will be based solely on a person's actions irrespective of what their ancestors have done.

Concerning the critic's third allegation of injustice/partiality by God and Romans 9:11-13, God did determine before Jacob and Esau were born which should rule over the other. However, this is because God is able to know our personalities and what we are like inside before we're even born. Evil people begin thinking and doing evil from the womb, just as the good are known from this time as well.

However, God still pleads with those who are evil to change and do what is right, and makes clear that He takes no pleasure in the deaths of those who are wicked.

So, in conclusion, just because God knew enough of what Jacob and Esau were like while they were still in the womb to foreordain aspects of their lives, does not mean that God is unjust or impartial. It simply evinces the depths of God's knowledge and understanding to realize what kind of people we are from the moment we are created, even before we leave our mother's wombs. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that Esau, like his brother Jacob, was blessed permanently with land that God has permanently left to his descendants. (ABC:Deuteronomy 2:4-5)

Finally, the critic accuses God of injustice and partiality because in Matthew 13:12 Jesus says that those who have will be given more, and those with little will have that little taken away from them. However, the fuller context shows that this was spoken concerning knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The ones Jesus was speaking to had closed their own eyes (Matthew 13:14) because they did not want to realize the truth.

Truth is something given to those who seek it earnestly, who wish to know righteousness. Therefore it is not unjust of God to take away the understanding of those who close their eyes and ears because they don't want to know or accept the truth. God is fair and gives wisdom generously to those who seek in a right spirit by trusting God (James 1:5-6).

Verse 11 (Again)

Don Morgan's list at Infidels claims this is a contradiction and makes the following comments (italicized).[2]

God's impartiality refers to His judgment of people without regard for their social status, race, religion, etc. (Revelation 20:12; Ephesians 6:9; Romans 10:12) People are judged according to their words and actions. Morgan deceptively excludes the parts of the passages which show this (Acts 10:35; Romans 2:6-10, 12-15) Cain's offering was rejected because it was a wrong action, not because God just didn't like Cain. This is evident from verse 7 (which Morgan also failed to mention). As God told Cain, "If you do well, won't you be accepted?" Thus God impartially treated both Cain and Abel on the basis of their actions.

Sources

  1. Thiefe, Chris. Biblical Contradictions. EvilBible.com.
  2. Morgan, Donald. Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions? Internet Infidels.