• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Question for Reformed

bach90

Evangelical Catholic
Feb 4, 2011
446
19
USA
✟23,183.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Hi all,

I've been trying to get an answer from a Reformed perspective on this issue, but most of the answers I find online tend to be from somebody who already has a hostile attitude to Reformed theology, so I wanted to get the "straight dope" as it were.

How would a Reformed Christian answer the objection that Reformed theology, especially with it's emphasis on the Sovereignty of God, makes God the author of evil?

Obviously that's a huge question. Maybe if someone wanted to give me a basic answer and then point out where I can find a more detailed response (perhaps in the WC?)
 

bsd058

Sola and Tota Scripturist
Oct 9, 2012
606
95
Florida, USA
✟22,046.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
We say that even though God is in control of everything, it doesn't make him evil.

Romans 9 answers this.

Romans 9:19-21
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

This shows that man is still the one who is culpable even though no man can resist God's (decretive) will.

Since we all know that man cannot resist God's will, yet God is still good, Calvinism's logical implications cannot be that God is evil (if this is what "author of evil" means).

However, if "author of evil" means that he causes good and evil and has good purposes for the evil (as in the case of Joseph and his brothers), then guilty as charged. We do paint Him in that light and proudly so. After all, a God who is not in control of evil can have no purpose for it.

Genesis 50:2

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

God used the actions of Joseph's brothers which were evil to bring about good. It wasn't some secondary good. It was ultimate good. God literally meant to use their evil and that's why they did it.

Joseph states earlier in Genesis 45:8 that it wasn't his brothers who did the things they did, but God.

Genesis 45:8

Now, therefore, it was not you who sent me here, but God; and He has made me a father to Pharaoh and lord of all his household and ruler over all the land of Egypt.

This shows that God was the one in control of the whole situation (even the minor details like the sin of Joseph's brothers which was vitally important in His plan to bring Joseph to Egypt).

I think what many Arminians are trying to say is that Calvinists have created an evil God with their philosophy/imaginations. At least that's what I thought when I was an Arminian. then I realized it was actually the biblical view of God's sovereignty and control over all of his creation.

Even the cross which was both the greatest evil in history (to crucify the author of life) and the greatest good in all of history (the redemption of his people) was brought about by God' purpose. Jesus' crucifixion was something that was ordained from the beginning as Stephen said in Acts 2:23 and as the believers in Acts 4:27-28 prayed.

Acts 2:23

Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

Acts 4:27-28

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

God is dread sovereign and no one dare bring an accusation of evil against him. He controls all things, even the crucifixion of Christ. He even planned it from the beginning. And people who claim that His actions in history are evil should put their hands over their mouths and repent as Job:

Job 42:2-6

I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me. I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You; therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

abacabb

Newbie
Apr 15, 2013
354
12
✟23,159.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi all,

I've been trying to get an answer from a Reformed perspective on this issue, but most of the answers I find online tend to be from somebody who already has a hostile attitude to Reformed theology, so I wanted to get the "straight dope" as it were.

How would a Reformed Christian answer the objection that Reformed theology, especially with it's emphasis on the Sovereignty of God, makes God the author of evil?

Obviously that's a huge question. Maybe if someone wanted to give me a basic answer and then point out where I can find a more detailed response (perhaps in the WC?)
God IS the author of good and evil.

Is 45:7
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.

However, God does this for the sake of good:

Zeph 3:5
The Lord is righteous in her midst,
He will do no unrighteousness.
Every morning He brings His justice to light.


Everything God does is right, even the "evil" of creating Satan. God has purposes too great for us to understand, I have faith He has everything under control and for goodness' sake and more importantly, His own sake.
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,147
45,800
68
✟3,117,728.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Hi Abacabb, the AV's "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 can and certainly has been used to mislead many concerning the character of God. Better are translations such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, and even the NKJV that use "calamity" or "disaster", both because we know from many other references in the Bible that God is not the author of "moral" evil, and also because "calamity" or "disaster" (physical evil) fits the context of Is 45:7 so much better (the contrasts are between light and its opposite, darkness; between peace and its opposite, calamity). We would need a different set of "contrasts" if "moral" evil was the intention of the Text, between evil and its opposite, good.

Also, I think you'll find that Satan was created upright and chose to become evil as we, in Adam, did (Isaiah 14:12; Ecclesiastes 7:29). The angels are clearly free agents as well.

--David
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

abacabb

Newbie
Apr 15, 2013
354
12
✟23,159.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Abacabb, the AV's "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 can and certainly has been used to mislead many concerning the character of God. Better are translations such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, and even the NKJV that use "calamity" or "disaster", both because we know from many other references in the Bible that God is not the author of "moral" evil, and also because "calamity" or "disaster" (physical evil) fits the context of Is 45:7 so much better (the contrasts are between light and its opposite, darkness; between peace and its opposite, calamity). We would need a different set of "contrasts" if "moral" evil was the intention of the Text, between evil and its opposite, good.

Also, I think you'll find that Satan was created upright and chose to become evil as we, in Adam, did (Isaiah 14:12; Ecclesiastes 7:29). The angels are clearly free agents as well.

--David

God sends calamity. He is not in Himself evil, but He definitely causes things that we wold call "evil." For example, allowing Satan to hurt Job and kill his family.

Now, God had good reasons for it, but no, not all of evil is because of free will. That's a cop-out and quite frankly, is not in line with the God of Scripture (who orders the Israelites to kill their enemies and such.)

I make no apologies for God. God is responsible over everything and there is nothing outside of his control. Weather, wars, all things.
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,147
45,800
68
✟3,117,728.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
God sends calamity. He is not in Himself evil, but He definitely causes things that we wold call "evil." For example, allowing Satan to hurt Job and kill his family.

Now, God had good reasons for it, but no, not all of evil is because of free will. That's a cop-out and quite frankly, is not in line with the God of Scripture (who orders the Israelites to kill their enemies and such.)

I make no apologies for God. God is responsible over everything and there is nothing outside of his control. Weather, wars, all things.

If He truly causes "moral" evil, then God is the Author of evil. "Causing" things that we "call" evil is a different thing all together. "Allowing" or "ordaining" evil caused by a free agent's choice is something different as well.

God's judgments against a person or a people (or a world of people .. "The Flood") is also not a moral evil.

I certainly agree that God is in control of EVERYTHING, He just doesn't "cause" everything.

--David
 
Upvote 0

abacabb

Newbie
Apr 15, 2013
354
12
✟23,159.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If He truly causes "moral" evil, then God is the Author of evil. "Causing" things that we "call" evil is a different thing all together. "Allowing" or "ordaining" evil caused by a free agent's choice is something different as well.

God's judgments against a person or a people (or a world of people .. "The Flood") is also not a moral evil.

I certainly agree that God is in control of EVERYTHING, He just doesn't "cause" everything.

--David

Now we're getting into semantics. I'm of the mind that history is already decided. God knows all the events that occurred, which events that would otherwise occur but he'll alter, and which events He's going to create.

So, to me, it's not important to discern whether Hitler or Pol Pot are the authors of their own evil or not. I'd say that they are. But effectively, they are part of God's plan. God is not impotent, if He didn't want them to exist, they would not.

The original post said "answer the objection that Reformed theology, especially with it's emphasis on the Sovereignty of God, makes God the author of evil?"

I don't need to play whitewash with what God is in order to preserve His dignity. We are dirt compared to Him, who are any of us to question what He is?

Whether God is literally the "author" or just the "creator of people and things that do evil stuff but all for an ultimately good purpose" to me are two different sides of the same coin.

Best,
Craig
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,147
45,800
68
✟3,117,728.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
"Semantics"? While I agree with that concerning some of our recent discussion, if God is truly the direct cause of a moral evil, IOW, that He (for instance) worked iniquity into the hearts of Adam and Eve and caused them to disobey Him, or into the hearts of those who just set off bombs and murdered innocent people in Boston, how could Adam and Eve, or the Boston bombers, ever be held culpable for their actions?

On the other hand, while God always "knows" what is going to happen and often allows men to follow through on their choice to perform a moral evil, that is something different all together. THEY are making the choice as free agents and of their own volition to do evil. THEY are to blame. If God CAUSED them to do what they do or simply enticed them to act upon a moral evil, than He would be the One to blame, right?

--David

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God";
for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
James 1:13-14
 
Upvote 0

abacabb

Newbie
Apr 15, 2013
354
12
✟23,159.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Semantics"? While I agree with that concerning some of our recent discussion, if God is truly the direct cause of a moral evil, IOW, that He (for instance) worked iniquity into the hearts of Adam and Eve and caused them to disobey Him, or into the hearts of those who just set off bombs and murdered innocent people in Boston, how could Adam and Eve, or the Boston bombers, ever be held culpable for their actions?

On the other hand, while God always "knows" what is going to happen and often allows men to follow through on their choice to perform a moral evil, that is something different all together. THEY are making the choice as free agents and of their own volition to do evil. THEY are to blame. If God CAUSED them to do what they do or simply enticed them to act upon a moral evil, than He would be the One to blame, right?

--David

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God";
for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
James 1:13-14
God forgive me if I'm wrong, but yes, I think you're correct.

God doesn't put no sins in our heart. God uses Satan to literally accuse us for the sins already there, bringing them out. So, God didn't put it in Hitler's head to be a mad man (though God may have hardened his heart and made him more of a mad man), but God let Hitler become a dictator and work his evilness.

Pharaoh hardened his own heart a few times first before God hardened it in Exodus. This approach makes sense of what it says in James:

"Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed." (1:13-14)

But, does God let Hitler come to power, make people rich or poor, cause hurricanes and other stuff? Even if Satan is the one directly responsible, Satan does it because God essentially allows him to...God can crush Satan at any moment. That moment can come any second.
 
Upvote 0

bsd058

Sola and Tota Scripturist
Oct 9, 2012
606
95
Florida, USA
✟22,046.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
"Semantics"? While I agree with that concerning some of our recent discussion, if God is truly the direct cause of a moral evil, IOW, that He (for instance) worked iniquity into the hearts of Adam and Eve and caused them to disobey Him, or into the hearts of those who just set off bombs and murdered innocent people in Boston, how could Adam and Eve, or the Boston bombers, ever be held culpable for their actions?

On the other hand, while God always "knows" what is going to happen and often allows men to follow through on their choice to perform a moral evil, that is something different all together. THEY are making the choice as free agents and of their own volition to do evil. THEY are to blame. If God CAUSED them to do what they do or simply enticed them to act upon a moral evil, than He would be the One to blame, right?

--David

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God";
for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
James 1:13-14
StWorm, God's decree as to what will happen within history is not the same as God tempting someone. God tempting a man is God enticing him to commit that evil (which no one is saying He is doing). God simply decrees all things to happen for a purpose according to his secret will. If He doesn't control every aspect of history, then he cannot guarantee that his plan will come to pass. As every minor detail can change the course of major events in all of history.

So, no one is saying that God is tempting men. We are merely saying that nothing happens except by God's decree. And if there is evil and He didn't decree it would happen, then there is no purpose for that evil (it just happens) since God is the only one who can give purpose to anything.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you or abacabb, though. That could very well be.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,147
45,800
68
✟3,117,728.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
StWorm, God's decree as to what will happen within history is not the same as God tempting someone. God tempting a man is God enticing him to commit that evil (which no one is saying He is doing). God simply decrees all things to happen for a purpose according to his secret will. If He doesn't control every aspect of history, then he cannot guarantee that his plan will come to pass. As every minor detail can change the course of major events in all of history.

So, no one is saying that God is tempting men. We are merely saying that nothing happens except by God's decree. And if there is evil and He didn't decree it would happen, then there is no purpose for that evil (it just happens) since God is the only one who can give purpose to anything.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you or abacabb, though. That could very well be.

I don't disagree with anything you just wrote, so perhaps it is me who is misunderstanding Abacabb? Maybe this is all just a matter of semantics as he said .. :confused:

It just seemed to me that when Abacabb used the word "semantics", he was saying that God in His ordaining of sinful acts is really no different than Him being the "Author of sin" (IOW, Him being the direct cause of these sinful acts). That's what I was arguing against. If I misunderstood (which is very possible), I certainly apologize.


--David
 
Upvote 0

bsd058

Sola and Tota Scripturist
Oct 9, 2012
606
95
Florida, USA
✟22,046.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I don't disagree with anything you just wrote, so perhaps it is me who is misunderstanding Abacabb? Maybe this is all just a matter of semantics as he said .. :confused:

It just seemed to me that when Abacabb used the word "semantics", he was saying that God in His ordaining of sinful acts is really no different than Him being the "Author of sin" (IOW, Him being the direct cause of these sinful acts). That's what I was arguing against. If I misunderstood (which is very possible), I certainly apologize.


--David
I see what you are saying now. I agree.
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,147
45,800
68
✟3,117,728.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
God forgive me if I'm wrong, but yes, I think you're correct.

God doesn't put no sins in our heart. God uses Satan to literally accuse us for the sins already there, bringing them out. So, God didn't put it in Hitler's head to be a mad man (though God may have hardened his heart and made him more of a mad man), but God let Hitler become a dictator and work his evilness.

Pharaoh hardened his own heart a few times first before God hardened it in Exodus. This approach makes sense of what it says in James:

"Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed." (1:13-14)

OK, I think we're basically on the same page now .. :thumbsup: You continue:

But, does God let Hitler come to power, make people rich or poor, cause hurricanes and other stuff? Even if Satan is the one directly responsible, Satan does it because God essentially allows him to...God can crush Satan at any moment. That moment can come any second.

All true, but allowing Hitler to come to power, or allowing hurricanes, are not morally evil acts in and of themselves. Finally, if God disallowed all evil actions by His creatures, could it truly be said that we have "free will"?

--David
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,212.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Jerome Zanchius might help sort it out:

God, as the primary and efficient cause of all things, is not only the Author of those actions done by His elect as actions, but also as they are good actions, whereas, on the other hand, though He may be said to be the Author of all the actions done by the wicked, yet He is not the Author of them in a moral and compound sense as they are sinful; but physically, simply and sensu diviso as they are mere actions, abstractedly from all consideration of the goodness or badness of them.

Although there is no action whatever which is not in some sense either good or bad, yet we can easily conceive of an action, purely as such, without adverting to the quality of it, so that the distinction between an action itself and its denomination of good or evil is very obvious and natural.

In and by the elect, therefore, God not only produces works and actions through His almighty power, but likewise, through the salutary influences of His Spirit, first makes their persons good, and then their actions so too; but, in and by the reprobate, He produces actions by His power alone, which actions, as neither issuing from faith nor being wrought with a view to the Divine glory, nor done in the manner prescribed by the Divine Word, are, on these accounts, properly denominated evil. Hence we see that God does not, immediately and per se, infuse iniquity into the wicked; but, as Luther expresses it, powerfully excites them to action, and withholds those gracious influences of His Spirit, without which every action is necessarily evil. That God either directly or remotely excites bad men as well as good ones to action cannot be denied by any but Atheists, or by those who carry their notions of free-will and human independency so high as to exclude the Deity from all actual operation in and among His creatures, which is little short of Atheism. Every work performed, whether good or evil, is done in strength and by the power derived immediately from God Himself, “in whom all men live, move, and have their being” (Acts 17.28). As, at first, without Him was not anything made which was made, so, now, without Him is not anything done which is done. We have no power or faculty, whether corporal or intellectual, but what we received from God, subsists by Him, and is exercised in subserviency to His will and appointment. It is He who created, preserves, actuates and directs all things. But it by no means follows, from these premises, that God is therefore the cause of sin, for sin is nothing but auomia, illegality, want of conformity to the Divine law (1 John 3.4), a mere privation of rectitude; consequently, being itself a thing purely negative, it can have no positive or efficient cause, but only a negative and deficient one…[end quote]

Before Zanchius brought us to this point, showing that God acting “directly or remotely” is not the “Author of them in a moral and compound sense,” he teaches in Position 2;

That God often lets the wicked go on to more ungodliness, which He does (a) negatively by withholding that grace which alone can restrain them from evil; (b) remotely, by the providential concourse and mediation of second causes, which second causes, meeting and acting in concert with the corruption of the reprobate’s unregenerate nature, produce sinful effects; (c) judicially, or in a way of judgment. “The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of waters; He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Prov. 21.1); and if the King’s heart, why not the hearts of all men? “Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lam. 3.38). Hence we find that the Lord bid Shimei curse David (2 Sam. 16.10); that He moved David himself to number the people (compare 1 Chron. 21.1 with 2 Sam. 24.1); stirred up Joseph’s brethren to sell him into Egypt (Genesis 50.20); positively and immediately hardened the heart of Pharaoh (Exod. 4.21); delivered up David’s wives to be defiled by Absalom (2 Sam. 12.11; 16.22); sent a lying spirit to deceive Ahab (1 Kings 22.20-23), and mingled a perverse spirit in the midst of Egypt, that is, made that nation perverse, obdurate and stiff-necked (Isa. 19.14). To cite other instances would be almost endless, and after these, quite unnecessary, all being summed up in that express passage, “I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things” (Isa. 45.7). See farther, 1 Sam. 16.14; Psalm 105.25; Jer. 13.12,13; Acts 2.23, & 4.28; Rom. 11.8; 2 Thess. 2.11, every one of which implies more than a bare permission of sin. Bucer asserts this, not only in the place referred to below, but continually throughout his works, particularly on Matt. 6. § 2, where this is the sense of his comments on that petition, “Lead us not into temptation”: “It is abundantly evident, from most express testimonies of Scripture, that God, occasionally in the course of His providence, puts both elect and reprobate persons into circumstances of temptation, by which temptation are meant not only those trials that are of an outward, afflictive nature, but those also that are inward and spiritual, even such as shall cause the persons so tempted actually to turn aside from the path of duty, to commit sin, and involve both themselves and others in evil. Hence we find the elect complaining, ‘O Lord, why hast Thou made us to err from Thy ways, and hardened our hearts from Thy fear?’ (Isaiah 63.17). But there is also a kind of temptation, which is peculiar to the non-elect, whereby God, in a way of just judgment, makes them totally blind and obdurate, inasmuch as they are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (See also his exposition of Rom. 9.)[end quote]
 
Upvote 0

abacabb

Newbie
Apr 15, 2013
354
12
✟23,159.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK, I think we're basically on the same page now .. :thumbsup: You continue:



All true, but allowing Hitler to come to power, or allowing hurricanes, are not morally evil acts in and of themselves. Finally, if God disallowed all evil actions by His creatures, could it truly be said that we have "free will"?

--David

I agree, though the original post addresses the idea that a totally sovereign God permits evil, essentially making Him the author. It's a simple question of theodicy answered in Job. Even things that appear evil are in reality good, according to God's purposes. This is a much more realistic view than the "best of all possible worlds" of Liebniz/"Pangloss."
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
36,184
6,771
Midwest
✟128,561.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Hi all,

I've been trying to get an answer from a Reformed perspective on this issue, but most of the answers I find online tend to be from somebody who already has a hostile attitude to Reformed theology, so I wanted to get the "straight dope" as it were.

How would a Reformed Christian answer the objection that Reformed theology, especially with it's emphasis on the Sovereignty of God, makes God the author of evil?

Obviously that's a huge question. Maybe if someone wanted to give me a basic answer and then point out where I can find a more detailed response (perhaps in the WC?)

It's a great question and since I'm new to Reformed Theology, I'm not really qualified to answer. However, I found an interesting article online:

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the vessels of His mercy—whom He prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" Romans 9:21-24

The true notion of the present world is—that it is a state of preparation for another, eternal world; and, therefore, such as we habitually are here, such shall we be forever. Mankind are now being formed, like clay in the potter's hands—some for honor and some for dishonor; some for wrath and some for glory. And as the potter does not put his vessels to their respective uses until they are finished and prepared for them—so neither are men removed from the present state, and fixed in their respective residences in the eternal world, until they are prepared, finished, and completely fitted for them. The vessels of mercy are prepared beforehand for that glory with which they shall be filled. And, on the other hand, the vessels of wrath are fitted to destruction, and fit for nothing else, before they are dashed to pieces by the iron rod of divine justice.

It is a criticism worthy to be mentioned, even in this solemn place, where I never choose to make a parade of useless learning, that the apostle uses a different form of expression, when speaking of these different sorts of people. The preparation of the vessels of mercy for glory, he ascribes to God, as his work. Hence he uses an active verb, referring expressly to God as the agent—the 'vessels of mercy, whom HE prepared in advance for glory'. But the fitting or preparing the vessels of wrath for destruction, he does not ascribe to God—but intimates that it is their own work. Hence he uses a passive particle—the 'vessels of wrath prepared for destruction'—fitted by their own willful sin and impenitence, during the long-suffering of God towards them, which had a tendency to lead them to repentance.
--- Samuel Davies
The Vessels of Mercy and the Vessels of Wrath Delineated
 
Upvote 0

bsd058

Sola and Tota Scripturist
Oct 9, 2012
606
95
Florida, USA
✟22,046.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
FYI - The Westminster Confession states the following:

CHAPTER III.

Of God's Eternal Decree.

I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

See here for chapter 3 of the confession and click on the bracketed numbers for scripture references.
 
Upvote 0

abacabb

Newbie
Apr 15, 2013
354
12
✟23,159.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
FYI - The Westminster Confession states the following:

CHAPTER III.

Of God's Eternal Decree.

I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

See here for chapter 3 of the confession and click on the bracketed numbers for scripture references.

God allows it, however. That's the issue in the OP.
 
Upvote 0