"Bare Permission" is unbiblical

[Dave123]

"(Without getting sidetracked on a secondary issue, let me go on record as saying I believe there is a permissive element in God's decree with respect to evil. That is, His decree doesn't make him the author or efficient cause of evil. But, as Calvin said, God's role in the origin of evil is not bare permission. In other words, it's not permission against His will, but a positive decree. In that respect, I think Clark is absolutely right, and his arguments on this point are cogent and persuasive.)"Clark http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005 ... ether.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below, A.W. Pink (The Sovereignty of God - Chapter 8, under question 1)

"Should someone respond, Then is God the Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is meant by "Author"? Plainly it was God's will that sin should enter this world otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission for God only permits that which He has purposed."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turretin (V1. vii. i) makes the following remark:

'Two extremes are to he 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'. (Taken from Colin Maxwell's "HOW CAN GOD ORDAIN SIN AND YET NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?", which is a good read)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting read

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/04/ ... sin-1.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology - Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 9C):

"The decretive and preceptive will of God can never be in conflict. God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do, what He forbids. He may, as we see He does, decree to permit what He forbids. He permits men to sin, although sin is forbidden."

God does not need to effectually cause something to be sovereign over it. Nor did He need to react to man to make an eternal decree.

Calvin on the Sovereignty of God by John Murray (This is a very nice work)

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/murray_...nsovereign.html

Edited January 6, 2009 by Dave123

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Turretin (V1. vii. i) makes the following remark:

'Two extremes are to he 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'. (Taken from Colin Maxwell's "HOW CAN GOD ORDAIN SIN AND YET NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?", which is a good read)

Amen, we agree.

I think we must also state that Ordain in this instance pertians to this particular definition as found in Websters;

4. To set apart for an office; to appoint.

However, we must resist and argue against defect and excess as defined above. It mar's Gods charecter.

Peace,

Dave

[Dave123]

Thanks for the reply, Matt.

I believe that, while this does not capture the whole of the definition of terms like ordain and predestine, one of the important distinctions in scripture to recognise, as I see it, and I'm open to any criticisms that will enhance my understanding in this context, is that 'ordain' is used in a much more broad context and allows for both God's effectual will and His permissive will, while 'predestine', again, in the biblical sense of the word, speaks only of God's effectual, or effective will. And all these things were worked out from the foundations of the world. Salvation is an act of God (predestine), while damnation, is an act of justice towards men who by their own will rejected Him (ordained-allowed). This is all within God's eternal decree from the foundations of the world. God remains completely sovereign in all of it. Those who reject Him hold all the responsibility for their guilt.

It should be noted that there are many people today who define these terms incorrectly. Sometimes even using theses terms as interchangable. While I cannot claim to understand the depths of distinction between the two biblical terms, I do like to keep them each both within the proper framework that scripture allows.

All should keep in mind that If something was not ordained by God, then God isn't sovereign, He would be reduced to simply reacting in time and hoping He gets a good outcome. He is the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. God must have foreknowledge because He is all knowing and always has been. "From the foundations of the world" is another way of saying that God is not bound by time. He knows the beginning and the end all at once. Nothing happens that takes Him by surprise. Not to be mistaken for foresight, which many today use to claim God is reacting to man, which is the way that some wrongly view the term "foreknowledge".

I find that the older theologians didn't necessarily have problems in defining these terms as we do today. For instance, I don't mind if the word "Predestined" is used with the reprobate if it is used correctly. Many times Calvin uses the same but it was meant, as the context usually makes very clear, in a judicial sense, meaning as an act of justice, or better, from the 'fall of man' forward. Not everyone speaking from the eternal decree see the elect as being elected out of guilt, as all men were rightly judged from the fall. Hense, from that point, being the fall of man and forward it would be correct to use "predestined" But this is a very fine line and the proper context must be understood or things can be read into his and others statements that were never meant.

Anyways, keep that thought in the back of your mind when reading from some of the links above. The nuances are often times missed and many times things are read into statements that were never intended by the author of the same. Also keep in mind that the 'why' question can only take us so far. We can understand some of it, but we are still going to be left with questions. We go as far as scripture allows, only.

Anyways...

[larryt]

Thanks for the reply, Matt.

I believe that, while this does not capture the whole of the definition of terms like ordain and predestine, one of the important distinctions in scripture to recognise, as I see it, and I'm open to any criticisms that will enhance my understanding in this context, is that 'ordain' is used in a much more broad context and allows for both God's effectual will and His permissive will, while 'predestine', again, in the biblical sense of the word, speaks only of God's effectual, or effective will. And all these things were worked out from the foundations of the world. Salvation is an act of God (predestine), while damnation, is an act of justice towards men who by their own will rejected Him (ordained-allowed). This is all within God's eternal decree from the foundations of the world. God remains completely sovereign in all of it. Those who reject Him hold all the responsibility for their guilt.

It should be noted that there are many people today who define these terms incorrectly. Sometimes even using theses terms as interchangable. While I cannot claim to understand the depths of distinction between the two biblical terms, I do like to keep them each both within the proper framework that scripture allows.

All should keep in mind that If something was not ordained by God, then God isn't sovereign, He would be reduced to simply reacting in time and hoping He gets a good outcome. He is the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. God must have foreknowledge because He is all knowing and always has been. "From the foundations of the world" is another way of saying that God is not bound by time. He knows the beginning and the end all at once. Nothing happens that takes Him by surprise. Not to be mistaken for foresight, which many today use to claim God is reacting to man, which is the way that some wrongly view the term "foreknowledge".

I find that the older theologians didn't necessarily have problems in defining these terms as we do today. For instance, I don't mind if the word "Predestined" is used with the reprobate if it is used correctly. Many times Calvin uses the same but it was meant, as the context usually makes very clear, in a judicial sense, meaning as an act of justice, or better, from the 'fall of man' forward. Not everyone speaking from the eternal decree see the elect as being elected out of guilt, as all men were rightly judged from the fall. Hense, from that point, being the fall of man and forward it would be correct to use "predestined" But this is a very fine line and the proper context must be understood or things can be read into his and others statements that were never meant.

Anyways, keep that thought in the back of your mind when reading from some of the links above. The nuances are often times missed and many times things are read into statements that were never intended by the author of the same. Also keep in mind that the 'why' question can only take us so far. We can understand some of it, but we are still going to be left with questions. We go as far as scripture allows, only.

Anyways...

Thanks Dave for putting forth some definitions. I like to do that when I can and have benefited from definitions others have come up with. It is important because many of us use the same word but mean different things.

LT

[kross]

"(Without getting sidetracked on a secondary issue, let me go on record as saying I believe there is a permissive element in God's decree with respect to evil. That is, His decree doesn't make him the author or efficient cause of evil. But, as Calvin said, God's role in the origin of evil is not bare permission. In other words, it's not permission against His will, but a positive decree. In that respect, I think Clark is absolutely right, and his arguments on this point are cogent and persuasive.)"Clark http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005 ... ether.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below, A.W. Pink (The Sovereignty of God - Chapter 8, under question 1)

"Should someone respond, Then is God the Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is meant by "Author"? Plainly it was God's will that sin should enter this world otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission for God only permits that which He has purposed."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turretin (V1. vii. i) makes the following remark:

'Two extremes are to he 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'. (Taken from Colin Maxwell's "HOW CAN GOD ORDAIN SIN AND YET NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?", which is a good read)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting read

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/04/ ... sin-1.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology - Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 9C):

"The decretive and preceptive will of God can never be in conflict. God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do, what He forbids. He may, as we see He does, decree to permit what He forbids. He permits men to sin, although sin is forbidden."

God does not need to effectually cause something to be sovereign over it. Nor did He need to react to man to make an eternal decree.

Calvin on the Sovereignty of God by John Murray (This is a very nice work)

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/murray_...nsovereign.html

My approval might get your thread closed, but

I have owned "The Sovereignty of God" for 17+ years and just read it over the last couple of days.

[Dave123]

You're welcome kross. I try.

Dave

[Mudcat]

Either God is responsible for evil or he isn't.

I for one think he is responsible for it.

But apparently its a (sorry for the bad pun)necessary evil, and he rectifies it at judgment.

[legoman]

Either God is responsible for evil or he isn't.

I for one think he is responsible for it.

But apparently its a (sorry for the bad pun)necessary evil, and he rectifies it at judgment.

Hi Mudcat,

I agree. I don't think we can really say there is a middle ground. ie. God didn't really want evil, he only allowed it...

Either God is sovereign or he is not.

Either God is in control or he is not.

Either God is responsible for evil or he is not.

God is sovereign, God is in control, and God is responsible for evil.

And like you said, it is a necessary temporary evil that God will use for his good purposes and reconcile at the end. Good will triumph over evil and God will reconcile the world (2 Cor 5:18-21).

Cheers,

Legoman

[arrowfromgod]

i read somwhere in the old testiment that god said he created evil ,,, only god can create (how i see it )so evil was created by god (he said so in old testiment)

dude made dynomite ,,, got a nobel peace prize for it,,, another dude put it in a rocket made the first death missel

the choice's ppl useing tnt where good or evil ,,,but the tnt isnt evil in itself

god created good and evil ,,, choices

with every decision we make we chose one or the other

evil wouldnt happen if we chose not to do it

we are responsable for our choices,,, not god

i dont understand alot of what ppl are saying here ,,, but i do know that i teach my kids right from wrong ,,, now if they go out and chose to do wrong knowing right is what i taught them ,,, then how am i responsable for there actions???

i knowing right from wrong do wrong things on occasion so how is god held responsable for my desision to do wrong???

he isnt