God’s Sovereignty and Evil (1)

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. Ezekiel 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?"

This question, while a crucially important one, is also one that has been discussed in the church for many centuries.  One can find in the church those who have defended both positions outlined in the questioner's comments.  The question is basically this: What is the relation between God's sovereign execution of His own will and the sin of which man is guilty?

The two answers which have been given to the question of God's sovereignty and sin are: 1) God causes sin, or, 2) God permits sin.  Both answers are suggested in the question quoted above: "... God does not simply permit evil, but in some way causes it...."

It is important to note that these two answers have been given by people who are genuinely Reformed and Biblical in their theology, who want nothing to do with Arminian error, and who believe with all their hearts that God is absolutely sovereign in the entire work of salvation.  We must be careful, therefore, that we do not accuse the one or the other of "heresy."  Such is not the case.  What puzzles us is the right word to describe the relation between a sovereign God and the sin of man -- sin for which man is responsible.

While the texts referred to in the question have to do especially with the sin of deception on the part of false prophets, a deception which God Himself claims to have done in these prophets, the broader question is all sin.  Sin is man's fault.  Man goes justly to hell for his sin -- unless his sin is paid for in the cross of Christ.  God is sovereign.  God remains sovereign.  God is sovereign over sin.

That disagreement over this question has been present in Reformed and Presbyterian circles is evident from the fact that the Reformed confessions differ slightly on this matter from the Westminster Confession.  Let us briefly look at this difference.

While, so far as I know (someone may correct me on this) the Reformed confessions do not use the word "permission" to define God's relation to sin, these confessions nevertheless imply that "permission" would be an acceptable term.  This assertion is proved by the use of the confessions' definition of reprobation.  Both the Canons of Dordt and the Confession of Faith, in defining reprobation, speak of God "leaving" man in his sin.

The Canons use this expression in I:15, for example: ". . . but leaving them in his just judgment to follow their own ways ...."  The Confession of Faith says (Art. 16): "... in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves."  The idea is that God permits sin to come into the world, and once there, He "leaves" certain people in that sin without rescuing them as He does His elect.

Those who prepared the Canons and the Confession of Faith used this language because (as our questioner also suggests): they were afraid of making God the author of sin.  The Synod of Dordt, strongly affirming the doctrine of reprobation, but defining it as a "leaving" of people in sin, goes on to say, "And this is the decree of reprobation which by no means makes God the author of sin (the very though of which is blasphemy)...."

The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, says that the word "permission" is inadequate: "The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them ..." (V, 4).  The Westminster divines were of the conviction that the word "permission" is not satisfactory to describe God's relation to sin; not because "permission" is heretical, but because it is too weak.

But our space is full for this time, and we shall have to wait to complete this discussion till the next issue of the "Newsletter."