nothing could be more cruel than hell.
Have you ever considered that those who go to hell deserve to go to hell? Remember, the
JUST judge that will send the devil and his angels to an everlasting hell is Jesus Christ, God himself, the perfect Holy one who "cannot lie" and who has no sin.
Now you may ask, how can God find an individual guilty, who He formed out of dust, who descends from fallen ruined sinful parents, and who is incapable, on his own to please God or save himself ?
Your question was anticipated by the Holy Spirit in forming Romans 9:
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"
Rom. 9:19.
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" Is not this the very objection which is urged today? The force of the apostle's questions here seems to be this: Since everything is dependent on God's will, which is irreversible, and since this will of God, according to which he can do everything as sovereign — since he can have mercy on whom he wills to have mercy, and can refuse mercy and inflict punishment on whom he chooses to do so — why does he not will to have mercy on all, so as to make them obedient, and thus put finding of fault out of court? Now it should be particularly noted that the apostle does not repudiate the ground on which the objection rests. He does not say God
does not find fault. Nor does he say,
Men may resist his will. Furthermore, he does not explain away the objection by saying: You have altogether misapprehended my meaning when I said "Whom he wills he treats kindly, and whom he wills he treats severely". But he says, "`first, this is an objection you have
no right to make'; and then, `This is an objection you have no reason to make'" (see Dr. Brown). The objection was utterly inadmissible, for it was a replying
against God. It was to complain about, argue against, what
God had done!
Rom. 9:19.
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why, doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" The language which the apostle here puts into the mouth of the objector is so plain and pointed, that misunderstanding ought to be impossible. Why doth he yet
find fault? Now, reader, what can these words mean? Formulate
your own reply before considering ours. Can the force of the apostle's question be any other than this: If it is true that God has "mercy"
on whom he wills, and also "hardens"
whom he wills, then what becomes of human responsibility? In such a case men are nothing better than
puppets, and if this be true then it would be
unjust for God to "find fault" with his helpless creatures. Mark the word "then" — thou wilt say
then unto me — he states the (false)
inference or
conclusion which the objector draws from what the apostle had been saying. And mark, my reader, the apostle readily saw the doctrine he had formulated
would raise
this very objection, and unless what
we have written throughout this book provokes, in some at least, (
all whose carnal minds are not subdued by divine grace) the
same objection, then it must be either because we have not presented the doctrine which is set forth in Rom. 9:1-33, or else because human nature has
changed since the apostle's day. Consider now the remainder of the verse Rom. 9:19. The apostle
repeats the
same objection in a slightly different form — repeats it so that his meaning may not be
missunderstood — namely, "For who hath resisted his will?" It is clear then that the subject under immediate discussion relates to God's "will", i.e., his sovereign ways, which
confirms what we have said above upon Rom. 9:17,18, where we contended that it is
not judicial hardening which is in view (that is, hardening because of previous rejection of the truth), but
sovereign "hardening", that is, the "hardening" of a fallen and sinful creature for no other reason than that which inheres in the sovereign will of God. And hence the question, "Who hath resisted his
will?" What then does the apostle say in reply to these objections?
Rom. 9:20.
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" The apostle, then, did not say the objection was pointless and groundless, instead, he rebukes the objector for his
impiety. He reminds him that he is merely a "man", a creature, and that as such it is most unseemly and impertinent for
him to "reply (argue, or reason) against God". Furthermore, he reminds him that he is nothing more than a "thing formed", and therefore, it is madness and blasphemy to rise up against the former himself. Ere leaving this verse it should be pointed out that its closing words, "Why hast thou made me
thus" help us to determine, unmistakably, the precise subject under discussion. In the light of the immediate context what can be the force of the "thus"? What, but as in the case of Esau, why hast thou made me an object of "hatred"? What, but as in the case of Pharaoh, Why hast thou made me simply to "harden" me? What other meaning
can, fairly, be assigned to it?
A.W. Pink
If you're interested, the rest is here in chaper 5:
http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/0-index.htm
Pink also asks the question below and does a very good job answering it in this same book as above in chapter 8
"How Can The Sinner Be Held Responsible For The Doing Of What He Is Unable To Do? And How Can He Be Justly condemned For Not Doing What He Could Not Do?
