If God does not work in man when a man acts antagonistically, then, it would seem that the man is able to effect his own will.
...which is what the Westminster Confession has said from the beginning. God, being the first cause, foreordains all things and makes them certain. But with regard to the second cause, God is only efficacious in the actions which are in accordance with His character, and is permissive among those which are sinful (although being foreordained).
Same issue. This argument allows man a will that is not subject to God's predetermination. Arminians would agree.
Incorrect. You are leaving out the phrase "It renders the event infallibly certain". God foreordains the event without removing the will of the creature, and yet it is made apart from the will of the creature. Therefore there is no chance with God, there is no way that the event could be anything other than what has been decreed.
If man is permitted to sin and such occurrences of sinning are not God's will, then the man must be acting against that part of himself (the man's self) that God implanted in the man. If that is true then it surely must be the case that the converse is realizable - that a man may act against the fallen nature that he has inherited since the fall. Does this not prove that anyone, despite their tendency to sin, can in fact turn to God?
It certainly does NOT prove that man can turn to God despite sin. I would also like to point out that your argument is falling quit close to full Pelagianism, as if no amount of prevenient grace is needed to supplement man in his choice of following after God.
Understand that Shedd NEVER said sinning is against the will of God, if we define
will as His ultimate approval and disapproval of what actually comes to pass in history. Read again:
"It should be observed in permitting sin,
God permits what he forbids. The permissive decree is not indicative of what God approves and is pleasing to him.
God decrees what he hates and abhors, when he brings sin within the scope of his universal plan."
In the definition above, God wills, permits, and decrees that sin happen. He does so in light of His Divine Decree, which is to bring Himself glory through the riches of His grace shown towards us in the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
I don't have a problem with this. In attempting to explain the OP, you (in quoting Mr. Shedd) seem to be edging towards the Arminian position.
Not at all. I think you are confused on what Shedd is proposing.
Of all things:
Divine Decree = God foreordained all things for all time and was approving that they become reality, and set His plan in stone, being immutable and unchangeable.
Of the Divine Decree:
Efficacious Decree = What God actively brings about
Permissive Decree = What God passively brings about or permits to happen
And there are decrees that continue on, subdividing the categories.
And yet Shedd has already argued that the sin that is permitted is not God's intention. 'God permits what he forbids'. On the one hand God permits a man to sin and on the other hand evil is...'done by the Lord'.
One can be forgiven for being confused.
Again, try not to interact with Shedd based on something he isn't saying. It forces you to be dishonest and misrepresent him, and therefore your conversation becomes worthless.
"By reason of His Permissive Decree, God has absolute control over moral evil". Nothing happens that God has not decreed, that He has not approved, that He has not been willing of, that He has not permitted, that He does not have a purpose in. In these senses, there is absolutely no contradiction in Shedd's words and Scripture, just in your misrepresentation of them.
I understand Shedd to say that there is little in the permissive decree, maybe nothing other than sin itself. For God to destroy a city is not evil (it may be interpreted as evil by those in the city), but God has complete control over His creation, and there is no way to put God in your debt so that He owes you something, especially in that we have sinned against Him and deserve hell. In that sense, does not the potter have the right to do what He wishes with the clay, whether that be to show His righteousness in our destruction, or show His grace in our salvation? So if we say "yes", does that not put this in the category of the efficacious decree?
