Hey guys! I'm a long time lurker but a first time poster here at the Puritan Board! Please let me know if there are any administrative details that I need to take care of. I have a few questions regarding how the permissive decree of God is efficacious. Let me open with this quote from Charles Hodge:
"The decrees of God are certainly efficacious, that is, they render certain the occurrence of what He decrees. Whatever God foreordains, must certainly come to pass. The distinction between the efficient (or efficacious) and the permissive decrees of God, although important, has no relation to the certainty of events. All events embraced in the purpose of God are equally certain, whether He has determined to bring them to pass by his own power, or simply to permit their occurrence through the agency of his creatures. It was no less certain from eternity that Satan would tempt our first parents, and that they would fall, than that God would send his Son to die for sinners. The distinction in question has reference only to the relation which events bear to the efficiency of God. Some things He purposes to do, others He decrees to permit to be done. He effects good, He permits evil. He is the author of the one, but not of the other. With this explanation, the proposition that the decrees of God are certainly efficacious, or render certain all events to which they refer, stands good." - Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Ch. IX
My questions are essentially summed up in the following: What makes the permissive degrees of God certain? Let me be more specific.
The WCF and LBC clearly teach that God has ordained and decreed everything that comes to pass, including the fall and individual human sin. My questions are related to how we are to understand "ordain" and "decree" in relation to the permissive language that most Reformed believers have adopted. In the bold text above, it appears to me that Hodge is suggesting that God determined to bring evil to pass simply by permitting it. It seems clear that Hodge is seeking to prevent God from becoming the author of sin, which is something that most of us also deem important.
I have always understood that God "ordains" an individual's sin in the sense that He actively permits man to continue in sin and uses those sins for His own purposes and glory. I believe that acknowledging God as active in permitting these sins is important, because it distinguishes between the Arminian view, which is essentially that God passively permits sin in order to preserve man's free will. Is my view of God's ordaining sin too soft? Should we understand "ordain" in more of a deterministic sense? Man obviously does not have libertarian free will, but even the fallen man has the ability to choose, to a degree, in which way they express their rebellion against God. Is it to much of a stretch that suggest that, for example, while God certainly predestined the Crucifixion of His Son (Acts 2 and 4), He did so by orchestrating and permitting the actions of inherently sinful men rather than placing in them a desire to crucify our Lord? I understand that God gathered Herod, Judas, Pilate, etc. together for his own predestined purposes, but I have a difficult time believing that He determined their sin in an effectual manner outside of his diving foreknowledge and active permission.
Similar questions may be asked about the fall. In what way did God decree that the fall would take place? The majority of what I have read on this from Reformed sources essentially says that God created Adam with the ability to either sin or not sin. While God did not coerce Adam to sin, He did render Adam's sin certain in His eternal decree. Should we understand that Adam's sin was rendered certain because of God's infallible foreknowledge as to the fact that the fall would take place, or did God have a more active role in the fall? The foreknowledge suggestion seems a bit soft, but I believe it can still qualify as rendering the fall certain as God's foreknowledge of future events cannot be violated. If, however, we suggest that God in some way actively brought about the fall, don't we ultimately make God the author of sin and evil regardless of how much we talk about primary and secondary causes? Is there some middle ground here that I am missing?
We all understand that anything decreed by God will come to pass, and that everything that comes to pass is decreed and ordained by God. When God's decree involves human sinfulness, may we suggest that this decree is effectual because God actively permits the sin, and certain because his infallible foreknowledge has determined that it will take place? I fully embrace the fact that sometimes God uses sinful actions to further his purposes. At this point, however, I am only comfortable with God being the "first cause" in the sense that He orchestrates the events necessary to accomplish His will through human sin. I really struggle with God being the "first cause" in the sense that He in some way "forces" (I know, not the best word) man to sin, even understanding that the natural man is already dead in sin so it would not technically be coercion.
Of course, I understand that the standard for truth is not how comfortable I am with it, so tell me, am I way off here?
"The decrees of God are certainly efficacious, that is, they render certain the occurrence of what He decrees. Whatever God foreordains, must certainly come to pass. The distinction between the efficient (or efficacious) and the permissive decrees of God, although important, has no relation to the certainty of events. All events embraced in the purpose of God are equally certain, whether He has determined to bring them to pass by his own power, or simply to permit their occurrence through the agency of his creatures. It was no less certain from eternity that Satan would tempt our first parents, and that they would fall, than that God would send his Son to die for sinners. The distinction in question has reference only to the relation which events bear to the efficiency of God. Some things He purposes to do, others He decrees to permit to be done. He effects good, He permits evil. He is the author of the one, but not of the other. With this explanation, the proposition that the decrees of God are certainly efficacious, or render certain all events to which they refer, stands good." - Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Ch. IX
My questions are essentially summed up in the following: What makes the permissive degrees of God certain? Let me be more specific.
The WCF and LBC clearly teach that God has ordained and decreed everything that comes to pass, including the fall and individual human sin. My questions are related to how we are to understand "ordain" and "decree" in relation to the permissive language that most Reformed believers have adopted. In the bold text above, it appears to me that Hodge is suggesting that God determined to bring evil to pass simply by permitting it. It seems clear that Hodge is seeking to prevent God from becoming the author of sin, which is something that most of us also deem important.
I have always understood that God "ordains" an individual's sin in the sense that He actively permits man to continue in sin and uses those sins for His own purposes and glory. I believe that acknowledging God as active in permitting these sins is important, because it distinguishes between the Arminian view, which is essentially that God passively permits sin in order to preserve man's free will. Is my view of God's ordaining sin too soft? Should we understand "ordain" in more of a deterministic sense? Man obviously does not have libertarian free will, but even the fallen man has the ability to choose, to a degree, in which way they express their rebellion against God. Is it to much of a stretch that suggest that, for example, while God certainly predestined the Crucifixion of His Son (Acts 2 and 4), He did so by orchestrating and permitting the actions of inherently sinful men rather than placing in them a desire to crucify our Lord? I understand that God gathered Herod, Judas, Pilate, etc. together for his own predestined purposes, but I have a difficult time believing that He determined their sin in an effectual manner outside of his diving foreknowledge and active permission.
Similar questions may be asked about the fall. In what way did God decree that the fall would take place? The majority of what I have read on this from Reformed sources essentially says that God created Adam with the ability to either sin or not sin. While God did not coerce Adam to sin, He did render Adam's sin certain in His eternal decree. Should we understand that Adam's sin was rendered certain because of God's infallible foreknowledge as to the fact that the fall would take place, or did God have a more active role in the fall? The foreknowledge suggestion seems a bit soft, but I believe it can still qualify as rendering the fall certain as God's foreknowledge of future events cannot be violated. If, however, we suggest that God in some way actively brought about the fall, don't we ultimately make God the author of sin and evil regardless of how much we talk about primary and secondary causes? Is there some middle ground here that I am missing?
We all understand that anything decreed by God will come to pass, and that everything that comes to pass is decreed and ordained by God. When God's decree involves human sinfulness, may we suggest that this decree is effectual because God actively permits the sin, and certain because his infallible foreknowledge has determined that it will take place? I fully embrace the fact that sometimes God uses sinful actions to further his purposes. At this point, however, I am only comfortable with God being the "first cause" in the sense that He orchestrates the events necessary to accomplish His will through human sin. I really struggle with God being the "first cause" in the sense that He in some way "forces" (I know, not the best word) man to sin, even understanding that the natural man is already dead in sin so it would not technically be coercion.
Of course, I understand that the standard for truth is not how comfortable I am with it, so tell me, am I way off here?