God’s Sovereignty and Evil (2)

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.  Eze.14:9.

I have quoted only one verse referred to by the questioner.  The entire question refers to various texts and reads as follows (the reader is asked to look up the other texts): "I Ki. 22:20-23 and verses teaching similar truths, such as Ez.14:9, Jer.4:10 and 20:7, II Thess. 2:11-12 -- these verses seem to indicate that God does not simply permit evil to exist, but in some way causes it.  I believe this, but also believe that God cannot be the author of sin, since He is holy and there is no darkness in him (I Jn. 1:5), and he is too pure even to 'behold evil' (Hab. 1:13).  Could you explain how these things fit together?"

In the last issue (which it would be good to re-read), I mentioned that different answers have been given by Reformed people to the question of the relation between God's sovereignty and sin.  I quoted from the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession to demonstrate this point.  Now we must continue the discussion.

I could define the difference in this way: Those who speak of God's permissive will with regard to sin are afraid of making God the author of sin -- something which the Canons of Dordtcalls "blasphemy."  The Westminster divines, in finding that the word "permissive" is not adequate to describe the relation between God's will and sin are afraid to do injustice to God's sovereignty.  Both are correct in their fears.  It is indeed wrong to suggest or imply in any way that God is the author of sin.  And it is indeed wrong to teach in any form or fashion that God is less than sovereign -- also in His relation to sin.

Scripture simply has too many texts which put the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God before our very eyes for us to deny it.  We ought to mention just a few here.  These are in addition to the texts which the questioner suggested.  David confesses that God told Shimei to curse David (II Sam. 16:10).  God moved David to number Israel, though David was punished for his sin (II Sam. 24:1).  Isaiah compares God's relation to the wicked as the relation of one who swings an ax to the ax itself, as one who pulls the saw to the saw itself, as one who walks with a staff to the staff itself (10:15, 16).  The most heinous crime of the ages, the crucifixion of our Lord, was done according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23, 4:27, 28).  There is almost no end of these passages.

We might notice in passing that John Calvin was not afraid to speak of God as the "cause" of sin, although he insisted that one must carefully distinguish between primary causes and secondary causes, and that God always accomplished His will through secondary causes.  I think that can be helpful also in this discussion.  In all sin, man's will is always a secondary cause. Never does man do one thing without doing it as an act of his own will.  Therein lies his accountability.

It has always seemed to me that the word "permission," when used to describe God's relation to sin, does not really solve any problems.  I know that the motive for using the word is to avoid any semblance of making God the author of sin.  And that must be farthest from our minds.  But does the teaching that God "permits" sin really help us?  I doubt it.  Supposing that I am in a hardware store looking at hammers, and I see a man within two feet of me putting a hammer under his coat and taking it out of the store without paying for it.  I have "permitted" him to steal. Have I escaped culpability for that act of theft by standing there doing nothing? when I was in a position to prevent him from stealing?  This is not the case.

So, if God (and I speak as a man) stood by watching men sin, able to prevent it, but doing nothing to stop the sin, but rather permitting it, this too, apart from any other consideration, would not solve the problem.  I do not see how an appeal to God's permissive will will do anything that a direct appeal to God's sovereignty will not do.

We must maintain God's absolute sovereignty over all things, including sin.  This is the clear teaching of Scripture; and, if we do anything less than Scripture requires of us, we create a power in the universe outside of God's control.  If such a power exists, a power over which God has no control, then we have created a dualism: a dualism of two powers, God and sin; a dualism of two eternal beings, God and evil; a dualism of two independent powers, God and wickedness.  Such a dualism is impossible and intolerable, for it is a limitation on God which destroys God.

We must maintain that God determined sin in His eternal counsel, that God controls and directs sin in His sovereign control and direction of all things, and that God uses sin also to accomplish His purpose.  The first Paradise is the stage on which, under God's sovereign rule, the drama of sin and grace is enacted.  The fall serves that purpose, the purpose of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Apparently we shall have to use another article to "explain how these things fit together" -- as the questioner so graphically put it.