Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
Is God the Author of Sin?
by Danny Wyatt
Over the last year or two I have seen an increasing trend
within Reformed circles where God is being named as the author of sin. I must
admit that I do not have a great deal of charity in dealing with this proposal,
nor do I desire to have such. Nor do I believe that any Christian should be
charitable in dealing with this error within our ranks. It is one thing if this
cancerous seed has been planted in their minds and they are seeking to vet the
truth, it is another consideration entirely if upon having studied and
considered this matter they are advocates of it. Some seem to be inclined to
treat this as if it is merely a matter of differing opinion and one in which
unity can still be found. But I think it has more gravity then that. In fact,
this is such a grave offense that I think its proponents may indeed be charged
with and found guilty of committing the unforgivable sin. We will get to the consideration
of the larger topic at hand, but I want to drive home the point that this is
not something to be scoffed at. If, in the end, we agree that God is not the
author of sin then I don’t believe there is any way that those who hold to such
an opinion are not guilty of the aforementioned sin. We will start this study with
an understanding of what the unforgivable sin entails.
So what does this mean, how does one know if they are guilty
of such a grievous sin? To start with, notice that the entire passage begins
with the call to pay attention, as is seen in the word assuredly or verily.
This is like an exclamation point at the beginning of the passage making us
aware that it is introducing a statement “which not only expresses truth or
fact… but an important, a solemn fact, one that in many cases is
at variance with popular opinion or expectation or at least comes as a
surprise.”[1] So with our hearts awoken and our minds fixed to hear the message
what are we told? We are told that there is a sin which even the blood of
Christ will not blot out, he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit
hath never forgiveness; not because Christ doesn’t have the power to do so,
but because it is the will of God that this especially heinous sin is not
forgiven. “Indeed, there is one spot so black that Christ’s blood does not wash
it away, and that is the sin against the Holy Spirit; not that there is not
enough virtue in Christ’s blood to wash it away; but he who has sinned that sin
will not be washed; he condemns Christ’s blood and ‘tramples it underfoot’
(Heb. 10:29).” [2]
The context of the passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is found
in the verses immediately preceding the quoted verses. As William Hendriksen tells us, the
context shows us that the “scribes are crediting satan with that which the Holy
Spirit, through Christ, was achieving. Moreover, they are doing this willfully
and deliberately. In spite of all the evidences to the contrary they still
affirm that Jesus is expelling demons by the power of Beelzebul. Not only this,
but they are making progress in sin… Now to be forgiven implies the sinner be
truly penitent. Among the scribes here indicated such genuine sorrow for sin
was totally lacking. For penitence they substituted hardening, for confession
plotting. Thus by means of their own criminal and completely inexcusable
callousness, they were dooming themselves. Their sin is unpardonable because
they were unwilling to tread the path that leads to pardon… When a man becomes
hardened, so that he has made up his mind not to pay any attention to the
promptings of the Spirit, not even to listen to His pleading and warning voice,
he has placed himself on the road that leads to perdition.” [1]
Matthew Poole wonders if this specific sin can even still be
committed, a fact which I affirm, and one which he does too though through
other texts which discuss the sin unto death (Heb. 6:4-6;
David Brown agrees as well when he says that, “The
Pharisees… in charging Jesus with being in league with hell they were
displaying beforehand a malignant determination to shut their eyes to all
evidence…, and in spirit committing the unpardonable sin.” [4]
We see plainly then that the unpardonable sin is to assign
credit to the devil for the work of the Lord. In the same manner it would be
true that we are equally guilty when we assign evil to the Lord. If on the one
hand attributing the good works of God to satan is unforgivable then it stands
to reason that the converse is also necessarily true. For how could there be
less offense when it is, in essence, the same sin; if not truly worse? If it is
an unforgivable offense that we are belligerent in attributing good to satan
then how much more so when we say that God is the author of evil? That He leads
men to sin? Or that He leads men into temptation? How much worse can it be when
we then conclude that those works of evil, flowing forth from the Lord, are
then used for good? At best I see no difference in reasoning or severity and at
worst I see a great deal more that can be attributed to these willfully
obstinate hearts.
In the end, this consideration is best summarized not just in a consideration
of the actual act of attributing evil to the work of the Spirit; the larger
consideration is that one who does so has clearly denied the Lord. I am not
necessarily speaking of one who does so in ignorance for there seems to be an
obvious qualifier here that it is a knowing and ongoing willful act of defiance
which convicts a man of this sin. Their denial of Jesus Christ allows them then
to pit themselves against Him and to claim evil in place of His holiness.
Now, we can proceed forward to see what the evidence is that would say God is
or is not the author of sin and if, in our conclusion, those that embrace such
thought are right to fear for their souls as a result of our previous
consideration. We will consider four primary elements of this overall topic:
1) Does God tempt man? 2) What are permissive decrees? 3) Does God cause man to sin? 4) Is God the author of
sin?
As part of the assault waged with regards to this topic we hear that
God leads men into temptation so that they may be blessed to achieve God’s will
through those temptations. Of course the statement in and of itself seems rather
absurd and illogical. But that not being a sufficient argument against such a
statement per se, we may consult the word of God, for the Bible speaks
to this matter specifically in Jas. 1:12-16, “Blessed is the man that endureth
temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the
Lord hath promised to them that love Him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I
am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any
man: but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and
enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it
is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.” I had
someone recently tell me that this passage proves that God tempts man, but that
He does so through secondary causes. My fellow saints, when we look at the
plain speech of Scripture and see where it says that God does not tempt man and then
interpret it to mean that He actually does, I have no choice but to say that we are
standing on shaky ground if such faulty exegesis is allowed to stand
unanswered. Do your diligence in reliance on the Spirit to
apply the truths of holy writ to your heart and then take the plain evidence
provided at face value and embrace it.
There is nothing in this passage that is ultimately difficult to grasp. What
would cause the difficulty? That we are told that a man that endures temptation shall
receive the crown of life? Does that lead us to assume then that God is
tempting man so that we may be blessed to receive our reward from Him? Notice
that directly after the statement is made that the natural sinful default of
our hearts, which would assign blame to God for temptation, is refuted. No such
thing exists. Thomas Watson addresses temptation and puts the consideration
under the heading of “The evil of temptation is overruled for good to the
godly.” [5] Right away we are given a taste of what is being taught in this
passage which we will come back to shortly.
First let us look at what is being refuted through the
declarative statement that God does not tempt man. If not from God then where
does it stem from? The Bible is clear that temptation is a result of our
indwelling sin wherein we lust after wicked desires which eventually finds
opportunity to be acted upon and finally ends in sin which leads to death. The
accusation against God is from one who has failed in his battle with temptation
and looks to shift blame not just to someone else but to God Himself. Adam did
this in the Garden (Gen. 3:12). Sure, he veiled his accusation as really filing
a complaint against his wife, but it was ultimately an accusation against God.
It was God, says Adam, who dared to give the woman to him in the first place, the
woman whom thou gavest to be with me. But then, just as now, God did not
accept the blame; and then, just as now, there was a just punishment for Adam's
sin which is laid at the feet of the guilty party. God answered Adam and made
it abundantly clear that the fault was his, he had willfully ignored the
command of God and had abused the good thing that God had given him, God said
because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the
tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is
the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy
life. This is the exact same scenario being played out in the book of
James. We, as guilty sinners, are so depraved in our hearts that even when we should
be stricken with sorrow for the sin we have committed against God we look to
blame Him by saying in effect, “Hey, I wouldn’t have sinned had you not put the
temptation there in the first place.” But rather than agreeing that the
temptation itself proceeds from God, we are told that the temptation didn’t come from Him at all. Simon Kistemaker
says, “James is not interested in explaining the origin of evil, for he knows
that not God but satan is called the tempter… He [says]… that God, who created
all things, is not the cause of evil. In His holiness God stands far above evil
and cannot be influenced by it…; it is impossible for God to be tempted.
Because of His perfection, God has no contact with evil, and evil is powerless
to bring God into temptation. Moreover, God does not tempt anyone. God hates
evil and therefore does not lead anyone astray…; He will not do what He hates…
[Each] man is responsible for his own sin… [James] deprives man of any excuse
to place the blame on someone or something else. He says, in effect, that the
cause lies within ourselves… Our desires lead us into temptation, and if we are
not controlled by the Spirit of God they lead us into sin.”[6] The
responsibility for sin is not only ours as a result of the act but in the very
temptation that draws us into sin. Sin, from start to finish is the result of
the wicked heart of wicked man acting upon their wicked inclinations. It has nothing
to do with God, the blame is entirely ours.
But some will say, “If this is true then why does Christ ask
that God not lead us into temptation in the Lord’s Prayer? That is proof enough
that God tempts man!” But then this is not saying at all that God ever has or
ever will lead us into temptation. When it says in Matt.
Now that doesn’t mean that enduring temptation isn’t used by
God for the good of His saints, this is abundantly clear in Jas. 1:12. Turning
back to Watson he says, “[…] temptations are overruled for good to the children
of God. A tree shaken by the wind is more settled and rooted; so, the blowing
of a temptation does but settle a Christian the more in grace. Temptations are
overruled for good in eight ways: (a) Temptation sends the soul to prayer. (b)
Temptation to sin is a means to keep from the perpetration of sin. The more a
child of God is tempted the more he fights against the temptation. (c)
Temptation works for good, as it abates the swelling of pride. (d) Temptation
works for good, as it is a touch-stone to try what is in the heart. (e)
Temptations work for good, as God makes those who are tempted, fit to comfort
others in the same distress. (f) Temptations work for good, as they stir up
paternal passion in God to them who are tempted. The child who is sick and
bruised is most looked after. (g) Temptations work for good, as they make the
saints long more for heaven. (h) Temptations work for good, as they engage the
strength of Christ.” [5] So when James tells us there is a benefit to enduring
temptation it is not in vain, there a great many ways that God uses to grow us
as we endure the Siren of our wicked hearts.
Still, there is more good news. It is not only a great comfort to our hearts
that our holy God will never tempt us, it is not only good news that He will
use temptation for our good, but the exclamation point is that He will not even
allow us to be tempted beyond what it is possible for us to resist. Rather than
being the cause of our temptation God is Himself a preventive cure for
temptation! See 1 Cor. 10:13, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as
is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted
above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape,
that ye may be able to bear it.” I have seen some try and use this passage as
proof that God places temptation in our lives. But 1 Cor.
It is important that we also understand the context here; it
is found just a few verses earlier (9-12) where Paul instructs the Corinthians
not to tempt (test the patience of) Christ. He is referring to the happening in
Num. 21:6-9 where the Jews had risen against God, where they had accused Him of
treating them badly, and where the people had lost faith in God and were more
content to lean upon themselves rather than Him. Calvin says, “Let us… take
notice, that the fountain of that evil against which Paul here warns us is
impatience, when we wish to go before God, and do not give ourselves up to be
ruled by Him, but rather wish to bind Him to our inclination and laws.” [7] Verse
12 concludes with Paul telling us let him that thinketh he standeth take
heed lest he fall. Again Calvin says, “The Apostle concludes from what goes
before, that we must not glory in our beginnings or progress, so as to resign
ourselves to carelessness and inactivity. For the Corinthians gloried in their
condition in such a way, that, forgetting their weakness, they fell into many
crimes.” [7] Once again, the fault for their sin and being led away in their
lust is laid at their own feet as it is through the entire Bible. But the great
hope we have is that we may lean on God; there is absolutely no cause to lean
on our own ability and when we do it only leads us into sin. This is why Paul
gives the ultimate encouragement against those sins by pointing us to God. It
is God who restrains us from being tempted beyond our ability to withstand it
and it is this fact that allows us to have a sure hope that we will indeed be
able to withstand the wiles of the devil and our hearts; therein we may
successfully mortify sin.
If God tempts man then not only is there no assurance for
believers, but we have reason to doubt whether God is even on our side in the
whole affair. If God Himself is directing temptation and sin into our lives
what hope do we have of deliverance? What chance do we have to withstand
temptation if God is the one who is actively working to cause us to fail? We
know the answer is that were such a thing true we would have no hope at all.
But the sure hope of the Bible is that God does not tempt us and will restrain
us from having to face more than we are able to bear. We see this practically
applied in the case of Job. Satan came seeking to destroy Job and to bring him
down; he came hurling accusations that Job was nothing more than a hireling of
God who only gives obedience because the Lord gives him so much in return. Thus
God permitted satan to come against Job in order that His faithfulness might be
shown in the sustenance of Job. But even when God permitted satan to do this He
restrained him every step of the way saying, Behold, all that he has is in
your power; only do not lay a hand on his person. Later when satan came
back for a second round God said yet again, Behold, he is in your hand, but
spare his life. (Job 1:12; 2:6) God restrained what satan was able to do in
order to lead Job away into sin. Even when that crafty devil thought he had
another Adam on his hands, God sustained Job against the wicked invite of his
wife to Curse God and die. God was proven faithful in the life of Job
and as a result Job himself remained faithful as well. The same principle holds
true for us all, we are upheld by the mighty hand of God and through His
abundant grace and care for us we are able to withstand temptation and to
mature in the faith being ever more conformed to the image of Jesus Christ our
Lord.
We start with a wonderful definition from Berkhof, “It is
customary to speak of the decree of God respecting moral evil as permissive. By
His decree God rendered the sinful actions of man infallibly certain without
deciding to effectuate them by acting immediately upon and in the finite will.
This means that God does not positively work in man ‘both to will and to do,’
when man goes contrary to His revealed will. It should be carefully noted,
however, that this permissive decree does not imply a passive permission of
something which is not under the control of the divine will. It is a decree
which renders the future sinful act absolutely certain, but in which God
determines (a) not to hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will;
and (b) to regulate and control the result of this sinful self-determination.
Ps. 78:29; 106:15; Acts 14:16; 17:30.” [10]
I have wondered if part of the issue here is that from the
perspective of the Reformed faith we have fought the error of free will to such
a point that we deny that man has a will at all. I have seen a plethora of
Reformed believers fall into this error when discussing soteriology. We are not
pre-programmed robots without a will. Adam failed the probationary period in
the Garden where he truly had free will having been created purely in the
image of God. He failed, and thus through his Original Sin we are all now born
in sin, his transgression being passed along through ordinary generation.
But that didn’t negate the will. That meant that the will was now depraved and
that left to its own devices it would only, indeed could only, choose sin. God
is sovereign over whether we sin but the two concepts work together in unity.
Boettner explains it this way, “[…] man is constantly commanded in Scripture
not to commit [sin], he is, nevertheless, permitted to commit it if he chooses to
do so. No compulsion is laid on the person; he is simply left to the free
exercise of his own nature, and he alone is responsible. This, however, is
never a bare permission, for with full knowledge of the nature of the person
and of his tendency to sin, God places him or allows him to be in a certain
environment, knowing perfectly well that the particular sin will be committed.
But while God permits sin, his connection with it is purely negative and it is
the abominable thing which He hates with perfect hatred.” [12]
Calvin recognizes this same thing when he says, “It is abundantly evident that
the external temptations…, are sent to us by God. In this way God tempted
Abraham, (Gen. 22:1,) and daily tempts us, that is, He tries us as to what we
are by laying before us an occasion by which our hearts are made known. But to
draw out what is hid in our hearts is a far different thing from inwardly
alluring our hearts by wicked lusts.” [11]
God controls the environment and allows things to be placed
in our path that try our faith. He knows that we will sin, but it is
exclusively the wicked desires of our own heart which lead us to take advantage
of the opportunity to sin; God did not compel us to sin by placing the
opportunity for sin in our path. In other places in Scripture, especially in
dealing with the lost, God totally abandons man as a result of their rejection
of Him and their love for sin. We see this in the book of Hosea where God
abandons
There are those within the ranks of professed Christianity that think that God
causes man to sin so that good may come of that sin. But I ask those men to
consider the plain truth of Scripture. In Rom. 3:8 and 6:1 Paul chastises the
Romans for thinking that they should sin so that grace may abound. Literally,
the concept being taught here was that we should sin so that God may bless us
more. Paul’s reply to such thinking was to tell them emphatically to stop. “The
very suggestion that the end justifies the means, that grace may be produced by
living in sin, is so thoroughly obnoxious to Paul that he answers it by making
use of one of his characteristic, blunt rejection formulas, ‘By no means.’ For
a Christian, continuing to live in sin is not only impermissible, it is
impossible!” [15] If Paul so vehemently rejects such thinking from men how much
more so would he stand opposed to the suggestion that God Himself is guilty of
this? But more so, do we think that God is a hypocrite? That He tells us in His
infallible word not to think this way ourselves while actively violating that
command Himself?
Ah! But of course there is the perennial objection that God
hardened Pharaoh and thus caused him to sin (Ex.
But the hardening of the wicked is not just there mentioned,
we also see it in God hardening the hearts of the Israelites as is mentioned in
Isa. 6:9-10. In both instances the blame is found in the depraved hearts of
sinful men achieving their desired end and God has hardened them from grace as
a result of their sin. He withholds the good and pure from them and abandons
them to achieve their sinful desires. Rather than making them sin so that the
charge of evil may be laid at the feet of the Lord it is actually quite the
opposite, not only is the sin theirs to bear but the Lord is abandoning them to
the true desires of their heart as a just punishment for their obstinate
rejection of Him; but that is what they want. Franz Delitzsch says, “It is not
only the loving will of God which is good, but also the wrathful will into
which His loving will changes, when deliberately and obstinately resisted.
There is a self-hardening in evil, which renders a man thoroughly incorrigible,
and which, regarded as the fruit of his moral behavior, is no less a judicial
punishment inflicted by God, than self-induced guilt on the part of man. The
two are bound up in one another, inasmuch as sin from its very nature bears its
own punishment, which consists in the wrath of God excited by sin.” [16] They
sin as an expression of their hearts in defiance of God and He judiciously
hardens their hearts against salvation.
This concept is in perfect harmony with the Reformed doctrine of Double
Predestination. In fact, in Rom. 9:14-24, Paul shows us this exact thing and
even uses the example of Pharaoh to do so. All of mankind is fallen; we are all
totally depraved sinners worthy of God’s wrath. Yet God chose some in mercy,
through no merit of their own, for salvation, and others He has justly punished
for their sins and sentenced them to eternity in hell. We all deserve the
latter but a gracious God has given some the luxury of the former. It is the
exact same thing being shown in our current consideration. God did not cause
them to sin but He does justly punish them for that sin and an immediate
display of that wrath is found in His abandoning them to the wicked desires of
their own sinful hearts. But, this is not to be misunderstood as only a bare
permission to sin. God justly punishes them for their sin and actually hardens
their wicked hearts that they will not repent of their sins and thus displays
His wrath against them that they may never taste the sweetness of His mercy.
Calvin says, “The word hardens, when applied to God in Scripture, means
not only permission, (as some washy moderators would have it,) but also the
operation of the wrath of God: for all those external things, which lead to the
blinding of the reprobate, are the instruments of His wrath…” [17]
I think it is obvious to us all that we would be in great
error is we were to think that the hardening of the wicked was the cause of
their sin rather than the just punishment of their sin. To assume that the
hardening caused these men to sin is to put the cart before the horse. As a
result of their sin, the hardening of their hearts leaves them hopelessly lost
in their sins, though for the time they are perfectly content to have it be so.
If the opposite were true then the God of the Bible would be a brutal beast
that makes man sin and then punishes him for what he neither wanted nor
willfully enacted himself; make no mistake about it, this is the sure and
undeniable result of any doctrine of God that forgets to include the vital
truth of God’s justice. What He exercises in wrath against sinful man is well
deserved and long sought after.
It cannot be denied that sin exists in the world. It also
cannot be denied that God is sovereign and in control of all things, to include
sin. But those two things don’t mean that God is the author of sin. Within the
Reformed faith this truth has always been zealously guarded. Yet there is an
ever increasing number within our ranks that are arguing that God is indeed the
author of sin. John Calvin called men who embrace such heresy “fanatics,” and I
tend to agree. I can recall a couple of years ago I was attempting to show a
man that God is not the author of sin and being that he attended a PCA church I
attempted to persuade him partially through reasoning that the Reformed faith
has always embraced such truth. His response was shocking in that he told me
his church actually preached that God was the author of sin and that neither he
nor they cared whether or not it was a Reformed doctrine. I leave room for the
fact that he may have exaggerated or may have even been just plain wrong as to
the view of that particular church, but this much remains true: something he
has encountered within the Reformed faith has left him to comfortably assume
his position and to assume his church does the same. That may be a result of
inadequate preaching or it may be the result of willfully skewed doctrine, I
don’t know. Whatever the cause this is a problem that we are seeing advance
within our ranks and one that for the glory of God and the good of the Church
must be stopped dead in its tracks.
To begin with I want to take a moment to consider a specific attribute of God.
This attribute is so vital to this consideration that should we refrain from
addressing it we will have failed to adequately consider the matter before us.
The attribute that must be considered here is God’s holiness. Herman Bavinck
says that God’s holiness is “said to consist in ‘moral perfection, purity’…
When the word holy is ascribed to God it does not signify one definite
attribute. On the contrary, God is called holy in a very general sense: in
connection with every revelation which impresses man with God’s exalted
majesty. Holiness is synonymous with divinity. Jehovah is God, and not man…,
the God or the Holy One of Israel. God’s holiness is revealed in His entire
relation to His people, in election, in the covenant, in His special
revelation, in His indwelling among them, etc… God is… what His law reveals Him
to be… Holiness, which is the very foundation of Jehovah’s peculiar relation to
Israel, and which claims Israel’s undivided service, finally culminates most
gloriously in the fact that in Christ God gives Himself to the church, which He
redeems and purifies from all iniquities.” [8] Holiness isn’t just a base
concept that determines one attribute of God; it is a culmination of other
attributes as well, such as His goodness and His righteousness. Holiness
expresses the relation of God to man and gives us the idea of being set apart;
it places His moral perfection in contrast to the depravity of sinful man. He
does not partake in sin and as a picture of His holy sinless character He gave
us the law. The law showed us that a perfect God expects perfect obedience to a
perfect law which displays His perfect character. So important is this attribute
of God that it is the only attribute that is mentioned repetitiously three
times (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8). R.C. Sproul says, “The Bible says that God is holy,
holy, holy. Not that He is merely holy, or even holy, holy. He is holy, holy,
holy. The Bible never says that God is love, love, love; or mercy, mercy,
mercy; or wrath, wrath, wrath; or justice, justice, justice. It does say that
He is holy, holy, holy, that the whole earth is full of His glory.” [9] I have
been reading for hours trying to find a way to adequately describe and condense
what other men have written on this topic. I must admit that my heart burdens
me as I write this and try to accomplish that definition, one that is exceedingly
difficult to provide. Yes, we have the base concept within our language that
holy means pure, and it does; it just means so much more than that. It is a
word that is beyond our finite ability to totally grasp. The nature it
expresses in God is not a nature that He shares with man; holiness is a foreign
concept to us. We gain a glimpse of it and we gain a partial understanding of
it, but we have to admit that in order to comprehend this to any satisfactory
degree we have to wait until we reach heaven. It may be altogether impossible
to consolidate this into one paltry paragraph; it is just too expansive of a
term. But, where we will use this is in relation to the ethical nature of God
wherein He is sinless perfection. How does a perfect God, untainted by sin, who
provides a perfect law and demands perfect obedience to that law become the
author of sin? Keeping this attribute in mind, let us look to the word of God
to see what it says.
To say that the proposition that God is the author of sin is ludicrous is to
put it nicely, for if we call it what it is then the truth is that it is
nothing more than blasphemous heresy. In the history of the Church I do not
know of a single reliable Reformed theologian or pastor that asserts such a
thing… not one. In fact, I am willing to say that if you come across one that
you have thought was so and this is what they claim you may immediately cast
them into the other pile. The simple fact is that the entirety of the Reformed
faith has always claimed that God is not the author of sin, nor can He be, and
have always defended this truth with vigor. Whether we are to look to our
Confessions, or read the mountain of books they have left for us, one thing
always comes back as true, we do not ascribe to such a debased philosophy of
sin and God. For the Reformed mind we have always recognized God’s holy nature
as opposed to the sin of man; a reality which leaves man exclusively
responsible for his sin and he alone bears the guilt for his transgression.
Louis Berkhof shares the Reformed view as follows, “God’s
eternal decree certainly rendered the entrance of sin into the world certain,
but this may not be interpreted so as to make God the cause of sin in the sense
of being its responsible author. This idea is clearly excluded by Scripture
(Job 34:10). He is the holy God, Isa. 6:3, and there is absolutely no
unrighteousness in Him, Deut. 32:4; Ps. 92:16. He cannot be tempted with evil,
and He Himself tempts no man, Jas. 1:13. When He created man, he created him
good and in His image. He positively hates sin, Deut. 25:16; Ps. 5:4; 11:5;
Zech. 8:17; Lu.
Calvin says with regards to Jas.
I could go on indefinitely sharing from reliable Reformed
authors that agree with the witness of the word of God and declare the utter
impossibility that God is the author of sin. But what is more pressing is that
this is now being vehemently attacked from within our ranks; the devil has made
his way inside the walls and is slaughtering souls from within. Lorraine
Boettner shows how the opponents of Calvinism have always used this
argumentation as an attempt to stop the march of the doctrine of
Predestination. He says, “The mere fact that sin exists has often been urged by
atheists and skeptics as an argument not merely against Calvinism but against
theism in general.” In fact, says he, if it was not for the assault of these
men we would not even need to be contemplating such a thing. “[…] were it not
for the fact that some persons persist in declaring that the doctrine of
predestination makes God the author of sin, we could let the matter rest…” [12]
What used to be the assault from the lost and Arminian alike is now the assault
from those who claim to have the same mind as we. They search the Scriptures
over trying to find any scrap of text they may divorce from the rest of the
Bible and use to explain their view. Reason does not persuade them, the doctrine
of the Church does not persuade them, and the character of God does not
persuade them; they have hardened themselves to believe that God is the cause
for their sin.
One of the things they claim is that the Bible says nowhere that God is not
the author of sin so it must remain a possibility that He actually is. I would
argue of course that the Bible does say that precise thing, though not in those
exact words. Their vulgar hearts lead them to seek a self-demanded precision
where the Scripture isn’t willing to provide it. Nor do I think it odd that the
Spirit saw fit to leave such a precise declaration out of the Bible. The entire
word of God stands as a witness to the positive doctrine that God is holy,
perfect, cannot sin, and that He sanctifies His people. What would be the
reason for the negative declaration when the entire thrust of Scripture
declares the same by default? Of course there is no reason at all to put such a
thing in the Bible because it is already easily understood as the antithesis of
biblical truth.
One of the passages that I have recently seen our opponents
use is found in Isa. 45:7, after all it does say, “I form the light, and create
darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” That
then must be proof that God is the author of sin. But you would think with even
a marginal understanding of Scripture we would read a passage such as this and
realize that if that assessment is true then the rest of Scripture is a liar.
If the rest of Scripture is right then such a conclusion must be wrong;
Scripture interprets Scripture. We can start with looking at some translational
issues first. I think perhaps anyone interested in studying this verse must get
their hands on a copy of the Amplified version. Here we will see that the
context and the definition are both accurately portrayed in a way that our
modern English translations will often miss. It says, “I form the light and
create darkness; I make peace [national well-being. Moral evil proceeds from
the will of men, but physical evil proceeds from the will of God], and I create
[physical] evil – calamity; I am the Lord who does all these things.” That puts
a different spin on this altogether. Physical evil, or calamity, is what they
are addressing where the KJV leaves off simply at evil. If you go back
to the original word which is ra’ah you will see that there are a number
of variants which can apply to this word such as trouble, adversity,
affliction, or harm, to punish; in fact the root word means to spoil.
It is not speaking of evil in the sense of sin but is used more in the sense of
a malediction. We see the same word used in the same way by Naomi, even in the
same context, in Ruth
It is not as if the word of God doesn’t tell us in plain
language that God cannot sin or be associated with sin in any way; in fact, not
only is He not the author of sin, but He utterly hates sin. Everything we see
from God is perfectly pure, even in creating man we were created good.
(See this in passages such as Gen. 1:27, 31; Job 34:10; Ps. 5:4-6; Jas.
1:17-18; I Jn. 1:5.) And this is a truth which the Reformed Confessions are all
equally harmonized in attesting to. We will take a look at these now:
WCF 3.1: 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.
WCF 5.4: The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and
infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it
extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men;
and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise
and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a
manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof
proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and
righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.
WCF 6.1: Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety
and temptations of satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their
sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having
purposed to order it to His own glory.
Boettner explains, “The Westminster Standards, in treating
of the dread mystery of evil, are very careful to guard the character of God
from even the suggestion of evil. Sin is referred to the freedom which is given
to the agent, and of all sinful acts whatever…” [12]
The Belgic Confession, Art. 13: We believe that… God, after
He had created all things, did not forsake them, or give them up to fortune or
chance, but that He rules and governs them according to His holy will, so that
nothing happens in this world without his appointment; nevertheless, God
neither is the author of, nor can be charged with, the sins which are
committed. For His power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible, that
He orders and executes His work in the most excellent and just manner, even
then when devils and wicked men act unjustly…
The Canons of Dordt, Art. 5: the cause or guilt of…
unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is no wise in God, but in man himself…
Heidelberg Catechism, LD 3, Q. 6: Did God create man so
wicked and perverse? By no means; but God created man good, and after His own
image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his
Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal happiness to glorify
and praise Him.
Heidelberg Catechism, LD 3, Q. 7: Whence then proceeds this
depravity of human nature? From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,
Adam and Eve, in
Heidelberg Catechism, LD 4, Q. 9: Does not God then do
injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot
perform? Not at all; for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the
instigation of the devil, and his own willful disobedience, deprived himself
and all his posterity of those divine gifts.
Zacharias Ursinus explains, “[…] in the first pace…, God
created man without sin, and is therefore not the author of sin, or of our
corruption and misery… Man, by the instigation of the devil, violated this
command of God; and from this proceeded our depravity and misery… But God, by
creating man in His own image, gave him the ability to render that obedience
which he justly requires from him in His law. Wherefore if man, by his own
fault and free will, cast away this ability with which he was endowed, and
brought himself into a state in which he can no longer render full obedience to
the divine law, God has not for this reason lost His right to exact the
obedience which man is duty bound to render Him. God therefore justly punishes
us, because we have cast away this good by transgressing His commandments, and
because he threatened punishment in case His law were violated.” [14]
It is an unmistakable truth that the entire witness of the
Reformed faith attests to the fact that God is not, cannot, and will never be
the author of sin. He does not create sin and He does not cause sin. Because He
permits sin and has ordained to use it to His glory in spite of its existence,
is not the same thing as being responsible for it. Yes, God is sovereign; we
all consent to that fact. But that sovereignty doesn’t mean that He so stifles
man’s will that they are not themselves guilty for their own sin.
God permits sin to exist, He permits men to willfully commit
sin as a direct violation of His declared will, and He justly holds them
accountable for doing so. If those that claim that God is the author of sin
were right then God would have no claim on justice; He would be the most unjust
deity imaginable. Operating under such a false concept, the wicked charge that
God fabricates sin, causes man to sin, and then sends them to hell for doing
what He has forced them to do. To claim such a thing is to deny the entire
nature of God; to claim such a thing is so utterly repugnant to Christianity
that there can be no doubt but that we must always defeat such a proposition
every time it rears its demonic head.
The evidence is clear regardless of where you seek to find
your proof: God is not the author of sin and He neither tempts man nor causes
him to sin. It is vital to the health of the Church today that we stand just as
staunchly opposed to such claims as godly men have done throughout the history
of the Church. But more than that, we are not just making a stand against
something; we must realize that what we stand for is the pure and undefiled
character of God as He has revealed it to us in His word. If God is not pure,
and we are not advocates of that purity, then all of the doctrines we have
embraced are for naught.
In the beginning of this study I proposed that if all of the
evidence is clearly presented and one were still to embrace such heresy then
they were, in my belief, guilty of the unforgivable sin. Such obstinacy would
at the very least show that one should fear for the security of their soul. I pray
that if you have been struggling with this you will fear for your soul and
succumb to the plain truth of Scripture and reason. Cast yourself before the
Lord in an utter abandonment of this doctrine and self in hopes that He will
have mercy in light of your ignorance. If you see all of the evidence provided
and still wish to insist that God is the author of sin then my reply is that your
blood be upon your own heads (Acts. 18:6). Now and forever more may God
be true, but every man a liar (
Works Cited:
[1] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, vol. 2,
Baker Academic,
[2] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Supper, Banner of Truth Trust,
Carlisle, PA, 2009, pp 35
[3] Matthew Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. 3,
Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 2010, pp 55 – 57
[4] David Brown, JFB Commentary, vol. 3, William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, 1993, pp 73 – 74
[5] Thomas Watson, All Things for Good, Banner of Truth
Trust,
[6] Simon Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, vol. 11,
Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2007, pp 48 – 50
[7] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 20, Baker
Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2005, pp 325 – 333
[8] Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, Banner of Truth
Trust,
9] R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc,
[10] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, 1968, pp 105; 220
[11] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 22, Baker
Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2005, pp 288 – 291
[12] Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of
Predestination, Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co,
[13] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 8, Baker
Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2005, pp 402 – 403
[14] Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the
[15] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, vol. 6,
Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2007, pp 194 – 195
[16] Franz Delitzsch. Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the
Old Testament, vol. 7, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI,
1969, pp 199 – 201
[17] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 19, Baker
Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2005, pp 362
Scripture Cited:
Old Testament:
Gen. 1:27, 31; 3:12; 22:1; Ex. 7:13-14; 9:16; Num. 11:11;
21:6-9; Deut. 25:16; 32:4; Ruth 1:21; Job 1:12; 2:6; 34:10; Ps. 5:4-6; 11:5; 78:29;
92:16; 106:15; Isa. 6:3, 9-10; 45:7; Hosea; Mic. 4:6; Zech. 8:17
New Testament:
Matt.
| Danny Wyatt is a Reformed Christian, self-described 5 Point Calvinist, from Clemmons, North Carolina. He is both husband and father, and is the author of the Christian blog, reformedmeditations.blogspot.com. |