# Of God's Eternal Decree



## johnny_redeemed (Jun 21, 2004)

the 3rd chapter of the Westminster reads as follows:


&quot;I. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; [i:04beb02620]yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin[/i:04beb02620]; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.&quot;

i would like to focus on the italicized part. 

what do you guys think about this statement?
does anyone disagree with it that you know of? ie someone like Sproul, Warfield, Edwards ect. 

just like your thoughts. thanks 
:bs2:


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 21, 2004)

I don't know of anyone in the Reformed camp who would disagree with this statement.


----------



## JWJ (Jun 23, 2004)

Though it is true that all in the reformed camp would never agree with this statement, it is however another issue as to how many in the reformed camp qualify this statement.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Jun 23, 2004)

[quote:09c38a1ae4][i:09c38a1ae4]Originally posted by JWJ[/i:09c38a1ae4]
 Though it is true that all in the reformed camp would never agree with this statement, it is however another issue as to how many in the reformed camp qualify this statement. [/quote:09c38a1ae4]

please explian???


----------



## Bryan (Jul 15, 2005)

I was going to start a thread on this, but that search feature is wonderful 

It is clear both in the scriptures and in the confessions that God ordains all things, including sin. What then does the phrase "author of sin" mean? I know Cheung has within the last few months gone as far as to call God the Author of Sin, yet from what I remember he was really only saying that God ordains sin and brings it to pass which is really what the confession already says. Is there some deeper meaning in the phrase "author of sin" then? Does it mean that God cannot be held responsible for sin?

Also what does the confession mean when it says "nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established"? Wether or not God uses secondary causes He is still the one who brings about sin is He not? Why then is such an emphesis placed on the secondary causes of sin?

Bryan
SDG


----------



## youthevang (Jul 15, 2005)

There is no reformed person that I can think of who would disagree with the statement. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement and James even mentions in his epistle that God is not the author of sin (James 1:13-14).


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 15, 2005)

By "author of sin" they meant that God doesn't cause sin Himself. Ordaining and personally doing something are different. Part of this question can never be fully answered because of the transcendance of God and also because it hasn't be revealed to us. We must be content with what He has told us. He ordains all things, and uses them for the good of those who love Him, all for His own glory.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 15, 2005)

nuf said:

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:ï»¿ 23 ï»¿Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain

Here is decree and secondary causes all working to the same end.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 15, 2005)

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, 1960 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1984), p. 105.

D. Characteristics of the Divine Decree.

7.	WITH REFERENCE TO SIN IT IS PERMISSIVE. It is customary to speak of the decree of God respecting moral evil as permissive. By His decree God rendered the sinful actions of man infallibly certain without deciding to effectuate them by acting immediately upon and in the finite will. This means that God does not positively work in man "œboth to will and to do," when man goes contrary to His revealed will. It should be carefully noted, however, that this permissive decree does not imply a passive permission of something which is not under the control of the divine will. It is a decree which render the future sinful act absolutely certain, but in which God determines (a) not to hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will; and (b) to regulate and control the result of this sinful self-determination. Ps. 78:29; 106:15; Acts 14:16; 17:30.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 15, 2005)

> *E. Objections to the Doctrine of the Decrees.*
> 
> 3. It makes God the author of sin. This, if true, would naturally be an insuperable objection, for God cannot be the author of sin. This follows equally from Scripture, Ps. 92:15; Eccl. 7:29; Jas. 1:13; 1 John 1:5, from the law of God which prohibits all sin, and from the holiness of God. But the charge is not true; the decree merely makes God the author of free moral beings, who are themselves the authors of sin. God decrees to sustain their free agency, to regulate the circumstances of their life, and to permit that free agency to exert itself in a multitude of acts, of which some are sinful. For good and holy reasons He renders these sinful acts certain, but He does not decree to work evil desires or choices efficiently in man. The decree respecting sin is not an efficient but a permissive decree, or a decree to permit in distinction from the decree to produce, sin by divine efficiency. No difficulty attaches to such a decree which does not also attach to a mere passive permission of what He could very well prevent, such as the Arminians, who generally raise this objection, assume. The problem of God´s relation to sin remains a mystery for us, which we are not able to solve. It may be said, however, that His decree to permit sin, while it renders the entrance of sin into the world certain, does not mean that He takes delight in it; but only that He deemed it wise, for the purpose of His self-revelation, to permit moral evil, however abhorrent it may be to His nature.




Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, 1960 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1984), p. 107-108.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Jul 15, 2005)

The simplest way I've seen it put (and tell me if this is too simplistic that it's no good), is that:

free agents are responsible for sin's origin, in that they were in no way forced by God, by any compulsion from Him, against their will, to sin, although designed with the possibility for it. 

I think that by author, the writers only mean to refer to the one from who sin comes. The author makes the words appear. Sin does not come from God's "pen" but from man's. 

I probably need to think about this a bit more,... i dunno

thoughts comments?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 16, 2005)

Would it be right to say Satan is the author of Sin?


----------



## youthevang (Jul 16, 2005)

Check out this blog entry: http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/05/31/the-author-of-sin/.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Would it be right to say Satan is the author of Sin?



The first sin recorded in Scripture is the temptation of Eve by the serpent, ie., the Devil (Gen. 3.4-5). Jesus speaks of him as a "murderer from the beginning" and the "father of lies" (John 8.44). John says that "the devil sinneth from the beginning" (1 John 3.8). Commenting on this last verse Matthew Henry says, *"It is he [the Devil] that is the author and patron of sin, and has been a practitioner of it, a tempter and instigator to it, even from the beginning of the world."*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 16, 2005)




----------



## Arch2k (Jul 17, 2005)

*Permissive Only?...Calvin Disagrees*



> Calvin's Calvinism
> The Secret Providence of God, p 244.
> 
> From all that has been said, we can at once gather how vain and fluctuating is that flimsy defence of the Divine justice which desires to make it appear that the evil things that are done, are so done, not by the will of God, but by His permission only. As far, indeed, as those evil things which men perpetrate with an evil mind are, in themselves, evil, I willingly confess (as I will immediately more fully explain) that they by no means please God. But for men to represent God as sitting unconcerned, and merely permitting those things to be done which the Scripture plainly declares to be done, not only by His will, but by His authority, is a mere way of escape from the truth, utterly frivolous and vain.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> By "author of sin" they meant that God doesn't cause sin Himself. Ordaining and personally doing something are different. Part of this question can never be fully answered because of the transcendance of God and also because it hasn't be revealed to us. We must be content with what He has told us. He ordains all things, and uses them for the good of those who love Him, all for His own glory.



I agree for the most part Patrick. I'll just nitpick for a second and point out that God DOES most definately CAUSE sin in the sense that he is what is traditionally known as the "first cause" of all things. However, God uses "second causes" or "means" to accomplish his decree. Therfore, while God is the first cause of the post, he is not the AUTHOR of it...I am!

First and second causes must always remain distinguished.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 17, 2005)

*I think Calvin uses the term \"author\" in a different sense here*



> Institutes, Book I, Chapter 18, Section 3
> 
> I have already shown clearly enough that *God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission.* He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isa_45:7); that no evil happens which he has not done (Amo_3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises his judgements willingly or unwillingly. As Moses teaches that he who is accidentally killed by the blow of an axe, is delivered by God into the hand of him who smites him (Deu_19:5), so the Gospel, by the mouth of Luke, declares, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired "œto do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" (Act_4:28). And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God, where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 17, 2005)

> Summarizing the Scriptures, the Confession says here that God is not the author of sin; that is, God does nothing sinful. Even those Christians who are not Calvinists must admit that God in some sense is the cause of sin, for he is the sole ultimate cause of everything. But God does not commit the sinful act, nor does he approve of it and reward it. Perhaps this illustration is faulty, as most illustrations are, but consider taht God is the cause of my writing this book. Who could deny that God is the first or ultimate cause, since it was he who created mankind? But although God is the cause of this chapter, he is not its author. It would be much better, if he were.



Gordon Clark, What do Presbyterians Believe?, p. 37.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



How is God the first cause of sin?


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Patrick,

Let me restate the confession:



> 3:1 God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, *nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes  taken away, but rather established*.



The confession itself, by implication establishes that God is the first cause of ALL things (see italics "second causes") because it is he who has actively ordained and predestined all that comes to pass. His activity in providence also makes sure his decree (or plan) in time will come to pass.

As Calvin says (see above), this is by no bare permission, but an active decree. Man is not autonomous in this sense.

The term "first cause" is attributed to God in his works of decree. He decrees everything...yes? His plan is perfect. His plan involves sin. He decrees sin and ensures that it comes to pass in his providence.

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 17, 2005)

But decree and cause are not the same thing. God decreed, but we caused sin. God does not cause things the same way we do. We must be careful about this string of causality argument. The relationship of God to His creation is different than our relationship within creation. I think you already know this, but it's important to remember. Sin came because men and angels rebelled. God did not cause their rebellion. He decreed it, but He did not cause it. This is probably more semantic, but it's important. The same God who decreed sin, is the same God who freely offers salvation to the reprobate and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. This is where we must bow before the transcendance of God and simply trust HIm, that His ways are not our ways.


----------



## JWJ (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> But decree and cause are not the same thing. God decreed, but we caused sin. God does not cause things the same way we do. We must be careful about this string of causality argument. The relationship of God to His creation is different than our relationship within creation. I think you already know this, but it's important to remember. Sin came because men and angels rebelled. This is probably more semantic, but it's important. The same God who decreed sin, is the same God who freely offers salvation to the reprobate and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. This is where we must bow before the transcendance of God and simply trust HIm, that His ways are not our ways.



Though you make some good points regarding causation and a beings relationship to it, I disagreee with your statement that "God did not cause their rebellion. He decreed it, but He did not cause it. " Of Course God caused it in the sense that He is the ultimate cause. I have no problem when a person equates decree (s) with cause, as long as one understands how this "cause" is the ultimate cause and how God's relationship to His creatrues precludes the charge of God doing evil / sinning.

Jim


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 18, 2005)

Jim


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 18, 2005)

This causation argument is a philosophical one at best and not a confessional one. The confession avoids the use of cause/effect for that very reason.

Shaw in His commentary on the confession says:



> It has been often objected to the doctrine respecting the divine decrees taught in our Confession, that it represents God as the author of sin. But the Confession expressly guards against this inference, by declaring that God has so ordained whatsoever comes to pass as that he is not thereby the author of sin. The decree of God is either effective or permissive. His effective decree respects all the good that comes to pass; his permissive decree respects the evi1 that is in sinful actions. We must also distinguish betwixt an action _purely_ as such, and the sinfulness of the action. The decree of God is effective with respect to the action abstractly considered; it is permissive with respect to the _sinfulness_ of the action as a moral evil.



Dr. Morton Smith says,



> *B. A. It Is Objected that God Is Made the Author of Sin*This objection may be answered by the following arguments:
> 1	God cannot be the author of sin, since his very nature is holy. He always reveals himself as opposed to sin.
> 2	The nature of sin is a want of conformity unto or a transgression of the law of God. How can God, the lawgiver, find himself in either case? The nature of man is that of a responsible free moral agent. As such he always originates his own actions. Grace and goodness are always attributed to God in the Bible, while sin and evil to the heart of evil man.
> 3	The Bible explicitly states that God is holy and that he is not the author of sin (Psalms 92:15; Ecclesiastes 7:29; James 1:13; 1John 1:5).



and A. A. Hodge says,



> It must be remembered, however, that the purpose of God with respect to the sinful acts of men and wicked angels is in no degree to cause the evil, nor to approve it, but only to permit the wicked agent to perform it, and then to overrule it for his own most wise and holy ends. The same infinitely perfect and self"“consistent decree ordains the moral law which forbids and punishes all sin, and at the same time permits its occurrence, limiting and determining the precise channel to which it shall be confined, the precise end to which it shall be directed, and overruling its consequences for good: "œBut as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" (Gen. 50:20).


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 19, 2005)

Thanks for the quotes Mike. They say what I was trying to say, much better than I


----------



## JWJ (Jul 19, 2005)

The crux of this entire issue centers on what one means by "author of sin and evil". Simply stated what most people mean by "author of sin and evil" is the charge / accountability of doing sin and evil. Hence, God's sovereignty precludes this charge.

To say that God by His decree only permits sin and evil implicitly denies the doctrine of providence and classical theism. Scripture is plain that God is the ultimate cause (and mover) of evil and sin and yet he is not the author (cannot be charged with doing) sin and evil. 

Another element that must be kept in mind when dealing with this issue is the relational aspects. God causing sin and evil, and even by his providence, moving a person to sin and evil, is not the same as a creature "causing" or "doing" sin and evil. God does it for His glory while man does it for his carnal glory.

Jim


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> This causation argument is a philosophical one at best and not a confessional one. The confession avoids the use of cause/effect for that very reason.



I disagree completely.

Again: 




> God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of_ *second causes* _ taken away,



Now surely you would admit that the confession uses the phrase "SECOND causes", no?

But what are they refering to? What is a SECOND cause? What are they distinguishing a second cause from? 

They are distinguishing a second cause from a FIRST cause. In fact, first causes are PRECISELY what they are talking about in the first section!

I agree that this is probably just arguing semantics at this point, but there is something to be said about using classical terminology. The term "first cause" is not a recent invention, but has been used by historic reformed theology to define God's role in predestination.

In the whole, if we agree with this section of the confession, we can call it whatever we want, but I see no harm in saying that God is the first cause of everything that happens.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 19, 2005)

> *D. Characteristics of the Divine Decree.*
> 
> WITH REFERENCE TO SIN IT IS PERMISSIVE. It is customary to speak of the decree of God respecting moral evil as permissive. By His decree God rendered the sinful actions of man infallibly certain without deciding to effectuate them by acting immediately upon and in the finite will. This means that God does not positively work in man "œboth to will and to do," when man goes contrary to His revealed will. *It should be carefully noted, however, that this permissive decree does not imply a passive permission of something which is not under the control of the divine will. It is a decree which renders the future sinful act absolutely certain, but in which God determines (a) not to hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will; and (b) to regulate and control the result of this sinful self-determination. Ps. 78:29; 106:15; Acts 14:16; 17:30.* (Emphasis is mine.)
> 
> Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, 1960 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1984), p. 105.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 19, 2005)

Westminster Confession
Chapter V Of Providence
Section II



> II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, _*the first Cause*_, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.



Note the Cause in the confession is with a captial "C" !


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 19, 2005)

> II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, _*the first Cause*_, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.



Note the Cause in the confession is with a captial "C" !  [/quote]

I have noted the capital "œC". However, the issue is not one of whether God is the "first Cause" or not. The issue is whether God is the cause of sin, which you assert. The confessional statements which you have mentioned do not assert that God causes sin. They in fact are pointing away from that view and that is why the confession speaks in chapter 3 of secondary causes and why you do not find the language of "œfirst Cause" in chapter 3. Yes, "œfirst Cause" language does appear in chapter 5, but now it is under a different theological loci. Providence is quite a different issue than the decrees. Certainly, in Q&A 8 of the WSC we come to understand and know that God "œexecuteth his decrees in the works of creation and providence," but this is a different operation than what we see in chapter 3 and in no way gives us a reason to believe that God is the cause of sin. In fact, the Confession elucidates this view for us when it states that "œ. . . all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, _he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of *second causes*, either necessarily, freely, or contingently._ These statements keep us from making cause/effect deductions and going beyond the language or the intent of the Confession.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 19, 2005)

> [align=center]*God´s Decree Effective or Permissive.*[/align]First. God´s decree "œforeordains whatsoever comes to pass"; there was no event in the womb of the future, the futurition of which was not made certain to God by it. But we believe that this certainty is effectuated in different ways, according to the different natures of God´s creatures. One class of effects God produces by His own immediate agency (as creations, regenerations, inspirations), and by physical causes, which are continually and immediately energized by His power. This latter subdivision is covered by what we call the laws of material nature. As to these, God´s purpose is called effective, because He Himself effects the results, without the agency of other intelligent agents. The other class of effects is, the spontaneous acts of rational free agents other than God. The being and powers of these are derived from and dependent on God. But yet He has been pleased to bestow on them a rational spontaneity of choice which makes them as truly agents, sources of self"“determined agency, in their little, dependent sphere of action, as though there were no sovereign over them. In my theory of the will, I admitted and claimed as a great truth of our consciousness, that man´s action is spontaneous, that the soul is self"“determined (though not the faculty of willing) in all its free acts, that the fountain of the volition is in the soul itself; and that the external object of the action is but the occasional cause of volition. Yet these spontaneous acts God has some way of directing (only partially known to us), and these are the objects of His permissive decree. By calling it permissive, we do not mean that their futurition is not certain to God; or that He has not made it certain; we mean that they are such acts as He efficiently brings about by simply leaving the spontaneity of other free agents, as upheld by His providence, to work of itself, under incitements, occasions, bounds and limitations, which His wisdom and power throw around. To this class may be attributed all the acts of rational free agents, except such as are evoked by God´s own grace, and especially, all their sinful acts.
> 
> R. L. Dabney


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 19, 2005)




----------



## Arch2k (Jul 19, 2005)

*Fisher\'s Questions on the Catechism*

Q. 26. How does the decree of God extend to things naturally and morally good?

A. Effectively: because God is the author and efficient cause of all good, Phil. 2:13.

Q. 27. How does it extend to things morally evil?

A. Permissively and directively only, Acts 14:16.

Q. 28. Is the permissive decree a bare inactive permitting of evil?

A. No; it determines the event of the evil permitted, and overrules it to a good end, contrary to the intention both of the work and worker.

Q. 29. What scripture example is there of this?

A. God permits Joseph's brethren to sell him into Egypt, and Potiphar to throw him unjustly into prison, and yet overrules both these evils, and makes them means, contrary to the intention both of the work and workers, for executing the decree of his advancement to the greatest honour, Gen. 45:5-8; and 50:20 -- "Ye thought evil against me, (says Joseph to his brethren,) but God meant it unto good."

*Q. 30. How can the decree of God be permissive and efficacious at the same time?

A. It is permissive, with respect to the sinfulness of the action as a moral evil; and efficacious, with respect to the matter of it as a natural act.
*

Q. 31. How do you prove that God cannot be the author of sin?

A. From the contrariety of it to his holy nature and law, and the indication he has manifested against it, in what Christ suffered on account of it; for he can never be the author of that of which he is the avenger.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Q. 26. How does the decree of God extend to things naturally and morally good?
> 
> A. Effectively: because God is the author and efficient cause of all good, Phil. 2:13.
> ...



I am glad you have come to see as I see it!  



> Q. 27. How does it extend to things morally evil?
> 
> A. Permissively and directively *only*, Acts 14:16.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 19, 2005)

*W.G.T. Shedd*



> "˜The permissive decree as related to the origin of sin presents a difficulty that does not exist in reference to the continuance of sin. The certainty of the continuance of sin in fallen man is easily explained, by merely leaving the fallen will to its self-determination. But merely leaving the unfallen will to its self-determination would not make its apostasy certain; because it was endowed by creation with a power to remain holy as created, and there was no punitive withdrawal of any grace given in creation until after apostasy. How, under these circumstances a permissive decree which does not operate by direct efficiency can make the fall of a holy being certain, is an inscrutable mystery. Respecting it, Turretin (VI. vii. i) makes the following remark: "˜Two extremes are to be avoided. First, that of defect, when an otiose permission of sin is ascribed to God. Second, that of excess, when the causality of sin is ascribed to him. Between these extremes, the orthodox hold the mean, who contend that the providence of God extends to sin in such way that He does not involuntarily permit it, as the Pelagians say, nor actively cause it as the Libertines assert, but voluntarily ordains and controls it´.



Source


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> I am glad you have come to see as I see it!



Hey! That's a non sequitor!


----------

