# MacArthur on the problem of evil



## cih1355

I watched a video of John MacArthur speaking about the problem of evil. You can find this video by going to the website of Ligonier Ministries, Welcome to Ligonier Ministries , and clicking on the "video" tab. You will see a list of videos including MacArthur's video on the problem of evil. MacArthur gave this presentation during the Ligonier Ministries' 2007 National Conference, Contending for the Truth. 

MacArthur says that God willed evil to exist. It was God's plan that man would sin. He is against those who say that God limits His power or knowledge. MacArthur is also against the Free Will Defense. MacArthur says that God willed evil to exist for His own glory. Our unrighteousness demonstrates God's righteousness (Romans 3:5). God also wanted to demonstrate His wrath, grace, love, and holiness.


----------



## Wannabee

I appreciate MacArthur's treatment of this. I've heard him speak on it and found it refreshing. His isn't the popular position in regard to this, but he clearly bows down to God's absolute and active sovereignty in all things. He preached a similar message at GCC a couple of years or so ago. It's probably available at Grace to You - free mp3 downloads now.


----------



## kalawine

cih1355 said:


> I watched a video of John MacArthur speaking about the problem of evil. You can find this video by going to the website of Ligonier Ministries, Welcome to Ligonier Ministries , and clicking on the "video" tab. You will see a list of videos including MacArthur's video on the problem of evil. MacArthur gave this presentation during the Ligonier Ministries' 2007 National Conference, Contending for the Truth.
> 
> MacArthur says that God willed evil to exist. It was God's plan that man would sin. He is against those who say that God limits His power or knowledge. MacArthur is also against the Free Will Defense. MacArthur says that God willed evil to exist for His own glory. Our unrighteousness demonstrates God's righteousness (Romans 3:5). God also wanted to demonstrate His wrath, grace, love, and holiness.



I'm not normally a fan of MacArthur but it amazes me that Calvinists have a problem with this view. It seems to me to be the the biblical as well as historical view.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Calvinist and have a problem with the summary in the OP. Any position that believes that God has exhaustive foreknowledge has to conclude that God wills evil to exist. The monstrous Arminian position divorces God's foreknowledge from His ordination for sentimental reasons but still has to conclude that God wills evil to exist except it has no purpose. What they end up with is a form of fatalism and a real problem of evil: God knows evil will happen but has no purpose for it. He watches it like a movie, creates, and then everything unfolds inexorably as He saw it without His control of free human actions.


----------



## Wannabee

Two considerations that many fail to consider.
For God, the ends justify the means.
Evil is a tool in God's arsenal. While He tempts no man, He does use evil for His good purposes. Do I understand that? Not really. But I can't see how He could be God if it were not so.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I listened to a sermon on evil by MacArthur once and he mentioned that God is perfect in everything. The only way to be perfect in His characteristics is to demonstrate them in perfection. I can say that I am patient all I want, but until my patience is tried no one can know for sure. The same goes for God. God is perfect in His justice, grace, mercy, and wrath and for these things to be shown evil must exist for Him to have justice, grace, mercy and wrath against.

When I listened to this all I could think was AMEN AMEN AMEN.


----------



## Confessor

Wannabee said:


> Two considerations that many fail to consider.
> For God, the ends justify the means.
> Evil is a tool in God's arsenal. While He tempts no man, He does use evil for His good purposes. Do I understand that? Not really. But I can't see how He could be God if it were not so.



I'm not above shameless self-promotion. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/concerning-ends-justify-means-gods-decretive-will-36188/


----------



## Yodas_Prodigy

Wannabee said:


> Two considerations that many fail to consider.
> For God, the ends justify the means.
> Evil is a tool in God's arsenal. While He tempts no man, He does use evil for His good purposes. Do I understand that? Not really. But I can't see how He could be God if it were not so.



I am reminded of what Joseph said to his brothers, "What you meant for evil, God meant for good."


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Listening to the sermon, there is a problem in the phrasing, because if taken literally, it would mean that God is the author of sin. However, this is made up for as he repeats "God is sovereign _over _everything, including evil," "God uses evil," and "evil occurred _in rebellion against_ God." The problem might actually be on purpose, to set one to thinking. Obviously, if God literally wills evil then men who do evil would be doing his will and not in rebellion against him. If taken literally, then there would be universal salvation, because all men who did evil would be doing his will. The problem of phrasing, I think, came in because the purpose of the sermon is to refute Arminian and liberal ideas of autonomy and _free _will. But if the phrasing were taken literally that God wills everything including evil, then man would have no will at all and thus would not exist. But of course, he does not mean that.

The sermon is based on Isaiah 45:7, and Dr. MacArthur is reading from the NASB, which reads _calamity_ instead of "evil." This, I think, is more accurate than the KJV, because it means in this context not that God creates evil in the absolute sense, but that he creates _calamity or harm_. It is clearly not "evil" in the absolute sense, because "calamity" is paired in contrast to "peace" or "well-being." Calamity is necessary for divine justice and hell, and such calamity is thus good because it is God's judgment on evil.

The last problem in phrasing I find is one that takes up a dualism, by saying that "good" implies there must be "evil." But that's a mistake in phrasing that leads to the conclusion that good and evil subsist separately in themselves. Evil is a want of good, or, and this is important, anything not absolutely according to God's all-good will. Good does not beg evil; rather, when God says something is good, it means that it is especially pleasing in his sight, as opposed to perceiving something without being so very pleased. Good does not imply evil, but evil does enhance understanding of good, which thereby becomes even more pleasing. Thus God uses evil, as Dr. MacArthur says. But he does not will it. In the end, God's wrathful judgment on evil glorifies God.

Excellent statement he makes: "It's heresy to say that the world is full of evil apart from a pre-determined plan and purpose by God far beyond the human willy-nilly choices."

The sermon definitely brings clarity to the problem of evil.


----------



## toddpedlar

Peter H said:


> Thus God uses evil, as Dr. MacArthur says. But he does not will it. In the end, God's wrathful judgment on evil glorifies God.



I haven't listened to the sermon, but I don't see how God can predestine evil to occur (as Acts 2:22-23 and Acts 4:27-28 demonstrate beyond shadow of a doubt) and yet not will those acts.


----------



## Wannabee

Exactly Todd.

We cannot divorce the fact that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart. They are not opposed, but work in harmony as God accomplishes His will by the means of man's will by working in every man to will and to do according to His good purposes (Phil 2:13; Rom 8:28).


----------



## JM

> The sermon is based on Isaiah 45:7, and Dr. MacArthur is reading from the NASB, which reads calamity instead of "evil." This, I think, is more accurate than the KJV, because it means in this context not that God creates evil in the absolute sense, but that he creates calamity or harm. It is clearly not "evil" in the absolute sense, because "calamity" is paired in contrast to "peace" or "well-being." Calamity is necessary for divine justice and hell, and such calamity is thus good because it is God's judgment on evil.



Is calamity a better translation then evil?


----------



## TimV

> MacArthur says that God willed evil to exist. It was God's plan that man would sin. He is against those who say that God limits His power or knowledge. MacArthur is also against the Free Will Defense. MacArthur says that God willed evil to exist for His own glory.



I'll throw a monkey wrench in.

Isn't this just a lapsarian argument? If you are asked "Did God will evil to exist" and you answer "yes" then you make God the author of sin. If you answer "no" then you assume that there is a power in the universe that God has no control over, namely the will of man.

Aren't both answers wrong? Following the informative exchange between Pastors Lane and Winzer on the Kline thread, it reinforces something Rushdoony said to me years ago, that to ASKING the lapsarian question is the problem, since it can't be answered by beings who can't think outside a temporal framework. As he put it, subordinating the Creator to something created (time).


----------



## OPC'n

Wannabee said:


> Exactly Todd.
> 
> We cannot divorce the fact that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart. They are not opposed, but work in harmony as God accomplishes His will by the means of man's will by working in every man to will and to do according to His good purposes (Phil 2:13; Rom 8:28).



I don't believe that God hardened Pharaoh's. That would be to account sin to God. Pharaoh's heart was hardened because God left it in the condition in which it already was. God soften Pharaoh's heart to let His people go, but as soon as God took away His grace which softened Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh's heart went back into the same condition in which it was born....hardened. God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart by not giving him a soft heart. The key is word softening. If God doesn't soften your heart and then softens your heart and then doesn't soften your heart, that could be seen as either God softening your heart or God hardening your heart because He controls the softening. Well, it's clear to me but I wrote it and I'm not the greatest writer!


----------



## Wannabee

sjonee said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly Todd.
> 
> We cannot divorce the fact that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that God hardened Pharaoh's. That would be to account sin to God.
Click to expand...


God doesn't harden hearts?

Exod 4:21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 
Exod 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. 
Exod 9:12 But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses. 
Exod 10:1 Now the Lord said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants, that I may show these signs of Mine before him, 
Exod 10:20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go. 
Exod 10:27 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go. 
Exod 11:10 So Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go out of his land. 
Exod 14:4 Then I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will pursue them; and I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord.” And they did so. 
Exod 14:8 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued the children of Israel; and the children of Israel went out with boldness. 
Exod 14:17 And I indeed will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen. 
Deut 2:30 “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand, as it is this day. 
Josh 11:20 For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord had commanded Moses. 
1 Sam 6:6 Why then do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? When He did mighty things among them, did they not let the people go, that they might depart? 

John 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.”


----------



## InevitablyReformed

sjonee said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly Todd.
> 
> We cannot divorce the fact that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart. They are not opposed, but work in harmony as God accomplishes His will by the means of man's will by working in every man to will and to do according to His good purposes (Phil 2:13; Rom 8:28).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that God hardened Pharaoh's. That would be to account sin to God. Pharaoh's heart was hardened because God left it in the condition in which it already was. God soften Pharaoh's heart to let His people go, but as soon as God took away His grace which softened Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh's heart went back into the same condition in which it was born....hardened. God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart by not giving him a soft heart. The key is word softening. If God doesn't soften your heart and then softens your heart and then doesn't soften your heart, that could be seen as either God softening your heart or God hardening your heart because He controls the softening. Well, it's clear to me but I wrote it and I'm not the greatest writer!
Click to expand...


God _did_ harden Pharaoh. That's what the texts say. Moses and Paul both say it. I think you are getting caught up in semantics here.

Rom. 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom _He wills He hardens_.

Rom. 11:8 _God has given them [Jews] a spirit of stupor_, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear...


----------



## toddpedlar

sjonee said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly Todd.
> 
> We cannot divorce the fact that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart. They are not opposed, but work in harmony as God accomplishes His will by the means of man's will by working in every man to will and to do according to His good purposes (Phil 2:13; Rom 8:28).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that God hardened Pharaoh's. That would be to account sin to God. Pharaoh's heart was hardened because God left it in the condition in which it already was. God soften Pharaoh's heart to let His people go, but as soon as God took away His grace which softened Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh's heart went back into the same condition in which it was born....hardened. God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart by not giving him a soft heart. The key is word softening.
Click to expand...


That's all well and good, but the key word you posit doesn't exist in the quoted text. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh also hardened his heart. Both are true - concurrent realities.


----------



## moral necessity

I think I understand what Sarah is trying to say. It's like me saying that I made the room dark. All I did was take the candle out of the room. I didn't really take darkness and place it in the room. Rather, I removed light. And so, with Pharoah, the idea of hardening his heart may just involve God's removal of his ordinary influence upon it. And so, it could truly be said that God hardened Pharoah's heart, while leaving out the details about how he went about doing it. I'm not saying I'm totally sold out to this approach, but I do understand it, and it makes sense to me. It does sort of nullify the abrasiveness that the other approach comes across as, and it still holds true to the meaning of the passage.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

moral necessity said:


> I think I understand what Sarah is trying to say. It's like me saying that I made the room dark. All I did was take the candle out of the room. I didn't really take darkness and place it in the room. Rather, I removed light. And so, with Pharoah, the idea of hardening his heart may just involve God's removal of his ordinary influence upon it. And so, it could truly be said that God hardened Pharoah's heart, while leaving out the details about how he went about doing it. I'm not saying I'm totally sold out to this approach, but I do understand it, and it makes sense to me. It does sort of nullify the abrasiveness that the other approach comes across as, and it still holds true to the meaning of the passage.



Charles,

I'm not trying to be difficult here but I do understand what Sarah was trying to say and I still disagree with it. God did not remove the lamp from Pharoah's otherwise good heart, thereby making him bad. The texts, as far as I can tell, posit that God actively hardened an already evil man so that he would defy God and His prophet in the face of clear and overpowering supernatural phenomena. I hope that this post does not miss the mark too badly as far as the differences between these positions go. Hope this clarifies for Sarah.


----------



## TimV

So in that case God was punishing someone evil rather than



> MacArthur says that God willed evil to exist


----------



## InevitablyReformed

TimV said:


> So in that case God was punishing someone evil rather than
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur says that God willed evil to exist
Click to expand...


----------



## moral necessity

InevitablyReformed said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I understand what Sarah is trying to say. It's like me saying that I made the room dark. All I did was take the candle out of the room. I didn't really take darkness and place it in the room. Rather, I removed light. And so, with Pharoah, the idea of hardening his heart may just involve God's removal of his ordinary influence upon it. And so, it could truly be said that God hardened Pharoah's heart, while leaving out the details about how he went about doing it. I'm not saying I'm totally sold out to this approach, but I do understand it, and it makes sense to me. It does sort of nullify the abrasiveness that the other approach comes across as, and it still holds true to the meaning of the passage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles,
> 
> I'm not trying to be difficult here but I do understand what Sarah was trying to say and I still disagree with it. God did not remove the lamp from Pharoah's otherwise good heart, thereby making him bad. The texts, as far as I can tell, posit that God actively hardened an already evil man so that he would defy God and His prophet in the face of clear and overpowering supernatural phenomena. I hope that this post does not miss the mark too badly as far as the differences between these positions go. Hope this clarifies for Sarah.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Daniel for your thoughts. I agree with what you say here. I must clarify that I wouldn't ever say that Pharoah's heart was good at all, but was always evil, just as you say. I'm just saying that this approach sees God's sovereignty as restraining Pharoah from being as evil as he could have been, and that He hardens and softens him according to how tight or loose He lets the reigns of this restraint be. And so, when He hardens his heart, He does so by loosing His restraint moreso than he usually did. It would still agree with you in being an "active hardening", for God was being active; the main difference would be how God went about doing the hardening. I guess it all centers on the idea of how an evil heart becomes more hardened in the first place. Is there a passage of scripture that describes how it actually takes place? Is it by God subtracting something, or by him adding something? Hmmm.

Guess I could be getting off topic from the OP here.


----------



## OPC'n

So what you all are saying is that Pharaoh's heart was soft to begin with and God hardened it? If we think through this carefully and take other Scripture alone with it, I think you would see what I'm saying. I'll ask a few questions: Do you believe

1) that we all are born totally depraved
2) that we all are born with a heart of stone (hard heart)
3) that we all are born this way because we are sons of Adam
4) that Adam sinned from his own desires not from God giving him the desire to sin
5) that God doesn't gives us a heart of stone we are born with it
6) that God has common grace on the unelect to fulfill his purposes
7) that common grace can reflect a positive but temporary change on the unelect to whom it was given.
8) that by God's grace even the unelect are not utterly depraved
9) that God allows some people to carry out a depraved nature *more fully* because He has withheld the normal amount of grace He gives to the normal unelect (Hitler vs Mother Teresa)

If you can agree with those things, I believe you will be able to see that God doesn't have to harden hearts, that He only has to withhold some of His grace to make it more hardened. In hell, people are utterly depraved because His grace has been completely withdrawn from them and their "hearts" are completely hardened. Sometimes God uses language so that we can understand Him, however we know through hard study that things are not always what they appear on the surface. For example, "For God so loved the world that He gave is only Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not parish but have eternal life." We know through study that God doesn't love the whole world and we know that when it says "whosoever believes" it is speaking about those He calls and not those who decide to believe. Or another example is when it says "All in Galilee were baptized" we know that not ALL were baptize. Sin hardens the heart not God. We are born into sin and so we were born with a hard heart. That heart can be soften temporarily (like Pharaoh's) or permanently (like the believer) by God giving His grace. Once God withdraws His grace like in the case of Pharaoh that heart is hardened again so it would appear that God hardened Pharaoh's heart but He didn't it was sin in Pharaoh that hardened Pharaoh's heart. God wills that this happens but He isn't the giver of sin and having a hard heart is the result of having a sin nature.


Ezekiel 11:18 "And when they come there, they will remove from it all its detestable things and all its abominations. 19 And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 21 But as for those whose heart goes after their detestable things and their abominations, I will bring their deeds upon their own heads, declares the Lord GOD."


----------



## Stomata leontôn

toddpedlar said:


> That's all well and good, but the key word you posit doesn't exist in the quoted text. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh also hardened his heart. Both are true - concurrent realities.



Yes. Pharaoh hardened his own heart, what, seven times? In the end, Pharaoh was driven to exhaustion and softened temporarily. But after all his tumultuous resistance, God wouldn't let him off the hook so easily. God was to redeem Israel, as he promised, Pharaoh wasn't. So God hardened Pharaoh's heart as right judgment on him and took his people out. Therefore, the people were set free not by Pharaoh's evil will, but by God's all-good will. Pharaoh could not win. Pharaoh was rightly humiliated and God was glorified. (And in so doing, God was giving Pharaoh one last chance to repent.)

Lest there be any doubt as to the permanent state of Pharaoh's heart, recall that after Israel had wandered for some time in the wilderness on the Egyptian side of the Red Sea, when Israel was at the very mouth of the Red Sea channel, facing Baal Zephon (= the Mount of the gloomy "North"), Pharaoh was behind -- at his own fallen will. In spite of Pharaoh's hardening his own heart this time, God took his people, and Pharaoh drowned in his own sin.

-----Added 1/17/2009 at 06:53:33 EST-----



JM said:


> The sermon is based on Isaiah 45:7, and Dr. MacArthur is reading from the NASB, which reads calamity instead of "evil." This, I think, is more accurate than the KJV, because it means in this context not that God creates evil in the absolute sense, but that he creates calamity or harm. It is clearly not "evil" in the absolute sense, because "calamity" is paired in contrast to "peace" or "well-being." Calamity is necessary for divine justice and hell, and such calamity is thus good because it is God's judgment on evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is calamity a better translation then evil?
Click to expand...

Yes! Check it out.

Apparently the orthodox translators of the NASB knew that there was a problem here with the KJV's reading of "evil." They made the reading match more literally the Hebrew, consistent with how it was translated elsewhere in the Bible. God does not will evil; rather he is sovereign over all and will turn evil to good for his glory.


----------



## Wannabee

If anything happens outside of the decretive will of God then He is not sovereign. If He did not will it then it did not happen. If it happened then He willed it. There is no amount of philosophizing, reasoning, or other pursuits of logic that can escape this. God is proactive, being neither passive or reactive. We cannot explain away the power of God because of our lack of understanding or human discomfort in the truth of what He says. Furthermore, many Scriptures abound that make it clear that God hardened hearts. Those are His words, not mine. It's not a matter of lining up logical questions to arrive at a conclusion or pursuing a philosophical equation to ease our own consciences. We have to deal with Scripture as He has given to us. Each text that states clearly and explicitly that "God hardened" men's hearts needs to be dealt with individually and specifically. We either accept the perspicuity of Scripture, or we explain it away. 
I choose to submit and rest in God's sovereignty.

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for *it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure*.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

One said, "There is no amount of philosophizing, reasoning, or other pursuits of logic that can escape this," yet relies on exactly that to say that *God wills evil.*

Where in Scripture does it say that *God wills evil*?

Where in the WC?



> CHAPTER IX.
> Of Free Will.
> 
> I. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, *that is neither forced*, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.
> 
> II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.
> 
> III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
> 
> IV. When God converts a sinner and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
> 
> V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutable free to good alone, in the state of glory only.





> CHAPTER III.
> Of God's Eternal Decree.
> 
> I. 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.
> 
> II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.
> 
> III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
> 
> IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.
> 
> V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
> 
> VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
> 
> VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
> 
> VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.





> CHAPTER IV.
> Of Creation.
> 
> I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and *all very good*.
> 
> II. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.


----------



## Wannabee

Rich said it well.


Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Calvinist and have a problem with the summary in the OP. Any position that believes that God has exhaustive foreknowledge has to conclude that God wills evil to exist. The monstrous Arminian position divorces God's foreknowledge from His ordination for sentimental reasons but still has to conclude that God wills evil to exist except it has no purpose. What they end up with is a form of fatalism and a real problem of evil: God knows evil will happen but has no purpose for it. He watches it like a movie, creates, and then everything unfolds inexorably as He saw it without His control of free human actions.


Did God know all that would happen in creation before it was created? Did He know it because He brought it about?

Ephesians 3:8-12
To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.

Ephesians 1:11
In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of *Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will*,

Acts 2:23
Him, being *delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God*, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

Acts 4:27-28
“For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

Daniel 4:35
All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?” 

Did God mean Joseph's brother's evil for good, or not? I didn't say it, God did.

Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

Prov 16:9 Aman’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.

Prov 19:21 There are many plans in a man’s heart, Nevertheless the Lord’s counsel—that will stand.

Prov 20:24 Aman’s steps are of the Lord; How then can a man understand his own way?

Job 1:21 And he said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord.”

Amos 3:6 If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid? If there is calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?

Is 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.

2 Samuel 24:1
Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”


There are others. But I'll leave it at that. Even as I read through Hodge's commentary on this (ch III, p 64) I found a clear inconsistency. However, this IS a confessional board, and the WC clearly states that God is not the author of sin. I don't know how much latitude is allowed on this, or if there is more to the WC statement than meets the eye, thus, I have no more to say.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

John Frame has an interesting take, drawn from Grudem, that equates "author" to the author of a play or a book versus the assumed view that "author" means efficient cause and that by causing evil God actually does something wrong. 

Writing in Morgan and Peterson's *Suffering and the Goodness of God*, a chapter entitled _The Problem of Evil_, Frame states:

_"I borrow the Shakespeare-Macbeth illustration from Wayne Grudem’s excellent Systematic Theology. But I do disagree with Grudem on one point. He says that we could say that either Macbeth or Shakespeare killed King Duncan. I agree, of course, that both Macbeth and Shakespeare are responsible, at different levels of reality, for the death of Duncan. But as I analyze the language that we typically use in such contexts, it seems clear to me that we would not normally say that Shakespeare killed Duncan. Shakespeare wrote the murder into his play. But the murder took place in the world of the play, not the real world of the author. Macbeth did it, not Shakespeare. We sense the rightness of Macbeth paying for his crime. But we would certainly consider it very unjust if Shakespeare were tried and put to death for killing Duncan. And no one suggests that there is any problem in reconciling Shakespeare’s benevolence with his omnipotence over the world of the drama. Indeed, there is reason for us to praise Shakespeare for raising up this character, Macbeth, to show us the consequences of sin."_

AMR


----------



## OPC'n

Joe,
I didn't say that God isn't sovereign. I too believe that EVERYTHING that happens is under His will. He does allow evil to happen and uses for His own use and for His children's good. NOTHING is outside of His control...absolutely nothing. However, that has nothing to do with what I'm speaking of. God decided that Pharaoh's heart would be hardened then soften then hardened. I'm not trying to get around that at all! It was all according to God's will and Pharaoh's only part was to sin under God's direct control. However, the only thing that hardens a person's heart is sin. When Adam fell (which was according to God's will and he couldn't have done anything else because God doesn't have plan A and plan B) it was his own desire to disobey which brought sin which hardened Adam's heart. EVERY person after Adam is born with a hard heart because of sin because of depravity. God doesn't have to harden our hearts for them to be hard. The only reason Scripture states that God hardened Pharaoh's heart is so that we can understand what God was doing to Pharaho's heart. He wrote it that way so we could know that He was always in control and the He softens hearts and then hardens them. Looking at other Scripture we see how He does this....By grace. Either giving it so to soften the heart or withhold it and allow the heart to stay hard. If God chooses to temporarily soft one's heart by giving grace to it, then it can be said that God harden that heart when His grace was once again removed from that heart. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. I believe completely in His will being the only will that wins. Hope that clears up what I said. Sorry for any errors I had to type fast as I'm on break right now.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

sjonee said:


> Joe,
> I didn't say that God isn't sovereign. I too believe that EVERYTHING that happens is under His will. He does allow evil to happen and uses for His own use and for His children's good. NOTHING is outside of His control...absolutely nothing. However, that has nothing to do with what I'm speaking of. God decided that Pharaoh's heart would be hardened then soften then hardened. I'm not trying to get around that at all! It was all according to God's will and Pharaoh's only part was to sin under God's direct control. However, the only thing that hardens a person's heart is sin. When Adam fell (which was according to God's will and he couldn't have done anything else because God doesn't have plan A and plan B) it was his own desire to disobey which brought sin which hardened Adam's heart. EVERY person after Adam is born with a hard heart because of sin because of depravity. God doesn't have to harden our hearts for them to be hard. The only reason Scripture states that God hardened Pharaoh's heart is so that we can understand what God was doing to Pharaho's heart. He wrote it that way so we could know that He was always in control and the He softens hearts and then hardens them. Looking at other Scripture we see how He does this....By grace. Either giving it so to soften the heart or withhold it and allow the heart to stay hard. If God chooses to temporarily soft one's heart by giving grace to it, then it can be said that God harden that heart when His grace was once again removed from that heart. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. I believe completely in His will being the only will that wins. Hope that clears up what I said. Sorry for any errors I had to type fast as I'm on break right now.



Good afternoon Sarah. I hope you are having a blessed Lord's Day. I have some thoughts on your post and maybe, if I am misunderstanding you, you can correct me. I completely agree with the idea that God doesn't have to harden our already hard hearts (from conception). But I believe this to be only one side of the story. In other words, the ultimate cause of reprobation is not our sin (which is a fully legitimate cause for reprobation and indeed men go to hell for their sin), rather, it is God's decrees. It seems to me that if Paul had been thinking along the terms that you have set forth (which again, are legitimate) he would not answer the question of "who can resist His will?" (Rom. 9:19) with "Who are you o man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to the molder..." (v. 20-23). Rather, he would have answered the question "who can resist His will?" with "Who are you O sinful man to demand that God save you? You hate Him because of your depraved heart." But he doesn't do that. He answers the question by appealing to God's decretal will, not man's sin. So, I see the accuracy and legitimacy of your points, I just don't think that it is the whole story. 

And this post is probably too far off topic...


----------



## charliejunfan

Macarthur softened on his view of God and evil I think, at least that is how it sounds in his book the truth war. The way he describes it sounds like the implications carried out by Infralapsarianism. My grandpa tried to use the book to show me that Arminian free will is correct, but I showed him that Macarthur seems to reveal the implications of an Infralapsarian. He would say that God wills evil by Negation rather than action. It seems as if he is writing his books in more general terms now so as not to offend, but I have great respect for the guy(and got a book signed by him!) since my dad used him to first introduce me to Calvinist soteriology, then I just took it to the next level .


----------



## OPC'n

InevitablyReformed said:


> Good afternoon Sarah. I hope you are having a blessed Lord's Day. I have some thoughts on your post and maybe, if I am misunderstanding you, you can correct me. I completely agree with the idea that God doesn't have to harden our already hard hearts (from conception). But I believe this to be only one side of the story. In other words, the ultimate cause of reprobation is not our sin (which is a fully legitimate cause for reprobation and indeed men go to hell for their sin), rather, it is God's decrees. It seems to me that if Paul had been thinking along the terms that you have set forth (which again, are legitimate) he would not answer the question of "who can resist His will?" (Rom. 9:19) with "Who are you o man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to the molder..." (v. 20-23). Rather, he would have answered the question "who can resist His will?" with "Who are you O sinful man to demand that God save you? You hate Him because of your depraved heart." But he doesn't do that. He answers the question by appealing to God's decretal will, not man's sin. So, I see the accuracy and legitimacy of your points, I just don't think that it is the whole story.
> 
> And this post is probably too far off topic...


I think you are speak of two different aspects here...which are good ones. First one is "causation" and the other is "purpose". 

The cause of a hard heart is definitely sin. We have to ask ourselves "What does it mean to have a hard heart?" The answer would be rebellion/hatered against God's laws. Hebrews 3:13 "But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be *hardened by the deceitfulness of sin."* I believe that we all believe that we are totally depraved at conception. We are that way because we are sons of Adam who plunged us into rebellion against God.

What happens when we receive a soft heart....regeneration where we now love His laws and desire to obey them. Ezekiel 11:18-20 "18And when they come there, they will remove from it all its detestable things and all its abominations. 19 And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God."

Now we come to the purpose of having a hard or soft heart. Romans 9:22 " What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" So God made the unelect who are born with hard hearts (they were allowed to be born according to God's will) so that they could be sent to hell in order that He might be able to show His glory when He gave His mercy to His children. 

So we are to be blamed for our own hard hearts not God. God doesn't cause anyone to sin. God doesn't put into our hearts sin so that He can harden it. He only withholds His grace from the unelect so that they stay in their hardened condition in order for Him to fulfill His purpose of sending them to hell. 

I think it helpful to remember that although we are totally depraved we are not utterly depraved. Some people exhibit their depravity more than others (Hitler) and some show less of their depravity than others (Mother Teresa). Hitler showed more of his depravity because he had less grace upon him. Teresa showed less because she had been given more grace than Hitler. Were it not for the common grace of God upon mankind, all would show their utter depravity here upon this earth. So when God wants to harden someone's heart He just removes some of His common grace upon them. They then show more of their depraved nature. When He wants to soften their hearts, He gives them more grace. He is in control of hardening and softening their hearts, but He doesn't use sin to do this He uses grace. Hope that's clearer.


----------

