It’s unlikely that people would object the first law of the so-called Four Spiritual Laws (by the Cru): “God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.” It is rather when we introduce the second law that we get resistance.
Some find that claim disturbing because they believe they themselves are in fact not that bad. It is relatively easy to make (or help) them recognize that they are worse than they think they are. What is more challenging, however, is when people object the second law through questioning the omniscience and omnipotence of God. To them, that Adam and Eve fell and got separated from God indicates that it happened independent of God’s own control; that is, God himself never meant it to take place. So, when both fell, God was baffled, so to speak, and had to put together a plan to rectify the fallen state of humanity. If it had been the case, then, they argue, God does not seem to be omnipotent or omniscient. It then leads them to think that, if it had been God himself who made Adam and Eve fall, God cannot be good or righteous.
It really is a formidable challenge. That’s why, when asked about the origin of evil and human sinfulness, we tend to waffle on it and hurriedly move on to the third law: “Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for man’s sin. Through him you can know and experience God’s love and plan for your life”. In that sense, I think many gospel tracts (including the Four Spiritual Laws) are lacking. Failing to address that question honestly and sincerely, many gospel messages end up presenting our God as just a soft, malleable, docile, and almost powerless being who is at the mercy of obstinate humanity.
I myself struggled for a long time with this besetting question. I, however, do not believe I have a convincing answer. Would anyone be able to say that he has found the answer to the problem of the origin of evil or the necessity of the fall? I doubt that. That is almost completely hidden from human beings. But one thing I think I know is that one may not be able to grasp the gospel in the fullest sense without coming to terms with the notion of the infinite sovereignty of God.
I think it is God’s sovereignty concerning our salvation that lies at the heart of the TULIP doctrines (Total depravity; Unconditional election; Limited atonement; Irresistible grace; and Perseverance of the saints). I think Richard Mouw was right when he said that accepting Jesus as one’s Savior wouldn’t be possible until one “would eventually come to understand the basic issues at stake in the TULIP doctrines” (Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport 2004:15). What I can cautiously suggest now is that, without understanding and accepting that God is so absolutely sovereign that even evil and Satan are under God’s complete control and plan, one’s understanding of the gospel of Christ will be limited and incomplete.
J. I. Packer, too, writes, “God is to be trusted as the sovereign LORD, with an eternal plan covering all events and destinies without exception, and with power to redeem, re-create and renew; such trust becomes rational when we remember it is the almighty Creator that we are trusting” (Concise Theology 22). Trusting God as the sovereign LORD helped me embrace the beauty and necessity of the entire creation–fall–redemption framework. And as Bavinck puts it, confessing and accepting God’s sovereign counsel gives us comfort: “The confession of the ever-wise counsel of God is a source of rich comfort” (Our Reasonable Faith 1956:163).
