Often when discussing Calvinism with my Reformed friends, I hear them use language like “God allowed/permitted sin.” This kind of rhetoric seems strange, though, coming from a group of people who believe, as the Westminster Confession of Faith says, that “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”
Logically consistent Calvinists recognize this problem and concede that God must have ordained and caused evil as well as good. As John Piper has said, “Everything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly.” That is, God didn’t merely “permit” sin or “allow” it; He actively caused it as its Primary Cause.
John Calvin (as quoted by Piper) even goes on to chide those “inconsistent” Calvinists who want to use “permit” and “allow” language when it comes to sin, “John Calvin denies that there is any “mere permission” in God: From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely [= idly] permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.”
Now, to be fair, Calvinists believe that God ordained, indeed determined and caused, sin to come into the world without in any way morally implicating God. Essentially God is the Primary Cause of sin and human agents are the Secondary Cause. God determined before creation that humanity would Fall, but because God is only the Primary Cause and not the actual agent committing or having the desire to sin, God cannot be held culpable.
Let me loosely, if not inefficiently, illustrate this*
God Determines (Primary Cause)
↓
Humans Have the Desire (The Immediate Cause) which God has Determined**
↓
Humans Sin (Secondary Cause)
The logic of this aside (for we will concede the point just for the moment and assume that a God who punishes people for actions that they could not have in fact chosen otherwise is actually good) I think it is important to note that nowhere in this model is there room for “permission” language. God does not permit anything; He causes everything – in such a way that He is not responsible for any of the negative results (but curiously all of the positive ones).
Now, when Calvinists slip into “permit” language, not only does it violate the Compatibilistic Freedom model they cling so tightly to, but they are actually employing Libertarian Freedom language. Indeed, John Piper has made this very point, “But we should not assume, as Arminians do, that divine permission is anything less than sovereign ordination.” In other words, it is logically inconsistent and theologically misleading for a Calvinist to say that God “allowed” instead of “caused” something just so it will sound more palatable to their audience.
Of course, there are many Calvinists who do not fall into this trap – as I have just demonstrated with Piper and Calvin. But this post if for those who think is permissive to do so – If you do indeed find “determination” and “causation” language morally abhorrent when it comes to evil and sin, then you would do well to become an Arminian or Open Theist – for that is exactly their complaint! If you do not believe in a God who caused the Holocaust or little girls to get raped, then by all means, abandoned your Reformed views.
In either case, let us not continue employing Calvinistic rhetoric and “permit” language together. For if Calvinism is right, God is not being glorified by such a denial of His Sovereignty.
However, if you are Reformed and you wish to retain your right to “permit/allow” language, you should at least understand that you are falling outside traditional, classical Calvinism, and your position is logically incoherent within that system This ought to tell you something as well b/c for your classical Calvinists, like John Piper, have no problem saying, “It is not wrong to say that God causes evil and sin.”
*Calvinists, I’m trying to be fair in this illustration, so if you think something could improve it, then please let me know – I don’t want to be misleading.
**Calvinistic/Compatibilistic Freedom maintains that a person makes a free choice so long as that choice is immediately caused by an inner state (desire). The person acts according to their own desire, and is therefore making a free choice. They could not act otherwise, but they do act according to their desire, and are therefore responsible for their decision and action.
21 Comments
Hi Tom,
Speaking as a non-Calvinist who is desperately trying to maintain some degree of respect for Calvinists, let me say something in their defense.
Here is the Confession:
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.
This, of course, makes no logical sense, as Piper notices. However, the authors of the confession knew what Piper apparently does not - namely that it is better to leave some mystery between Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom than to blasphemously ascribe evil to God or diabolically suppose that evil is a necessary ingredient for the fullness of good (This is decisively shown by Ivan in the chapter “Rebellion” of The Brothers Karamazov).
You’re right - it’s a logical problem. But for a Calvinist to affirm the goodness of God in a recognizably classical Christian sense, he has to take refuge in mystery, rather than call evil good.
Thanks Wonders…
I hope I didn’t sound disrespecting in any way - after all, that was what my first footnote was attempting avoid.
Indeed, this is why I didn’t quote the entire statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith - precisely b/c I knew that it was logically incoherent and I wanted to use Piper’s more consistent voice instead. I can see how using a partial quote from the Confession may have been misleading - but I had no ill intent here, I was just trying to emphasize a more reasonable citation without “going off” on the inconsistency’s in the Confession.
Finally, in that light, I hope it is clear that there’s no need to ‘defend’ anyone in this post - I’m really not attacking…I promise. I’m simply putting this out there for the sake of this unending discussion - If we’re going to gain any ground in this conversation there needs to be a nuanced look at our rhetoric. This is an attempt at just that.
So, even if someone disagrees with Piper, I still can’t let them use ‘permit’ language simply because it incoherent. That neither furthers the discussion nor helps their argument.
Thanks for the kind and gracious response.
I still can’t let them use ‘permit’ language simply because it incoherent.
For the Piper-style Calvinists, you are right - they should not use the term “permit”. But I’m not convinced you can say that of the WCF, which specifically says that one must not call God the author of sin. At least, I like to think this, in that it lets me be more charitable toward Calvinists.
Tom - good summary.
I do like this quote as I think it gives a great summary:
“Everything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly.”
I also don’t like when people use the Permit language. God doesn’t need our approval.
Edgar.
Edgar,
I also don’t like when people use the Permit language. God doesn’t need our approval.
So you attribute the evil and sin of the world to the direct agency of God? If we are forbidden from doing evil that good may abound, shall not the judge of all the Earth do what is just?
All I am saying is that - to be consistent as a calvinist - you have to hold that statement.
The proof texts for Calvinism are there.
And just to mention one of my favorite texts, consider the Lazarous Resurrection. Did Jesus violate his free will by bringing back from the dead? Jesus didn’t ask him if he wanted to come back. He simply said - get up and walk.
Thoughts?
p.s. I’ve always wanted to use this illustration and see what others thought of it. I may be wrong.
All I am saying is that - to be consistent as a calvinist - you have to hold that statement.
I wonder if the framers of the confession might take issue with such a consistency. But I am no Calvinist, so there is only so many words I can put in their mouth. I do know that some Calvinists maintain the mystery between Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom, and do not call God the author of sin. And these Calvinists I will defend - for mystery is often far more profound than logical syllogisms.
And just to mention one of my favorite texts, consider the Lazarous Resurrection. Did Jesus violate his free will by bringing back from the dead? Jesus didn’t ask him if he wanted to come back. He simply said - get up and walk.
Thoughts?
I suppose Lazarus may have laid there and remained still, though alive, but that would have been foolish and Lazarus was no fool. But to act as if there is no true “father-son” relationship between God and man - trumping all agency by “potter-clay” language I think undermines both the dignity of man and the sovereignty of God (envisioning his sovereignty according to the pattern of the rulers of this world, and how they lord it over their subjects).
But, again, I’m no Calvinist.
Agree on the logical syllogisms bit. I was just about to write something about that on our blog… modernity is driving me nuts. Why must we be so impressed with great logic and science, and phds, and doctors, and stuff?
anyway, that’s another story.
Thanks Wonders, for the insightful conversation.
When I see a Calvinist back of off sovereignty language when it comes to Holocaust or pedophilia , I realize their a chink in that armor - they really don’t believe in the absolute sovereignty of God.
As I noted at the end, some may wish to retain this language, but all that means to me is that they want to hold onto something because it is safer than the alternative - and this, to me, means they don’t fully buy the system - and that is exactly what I am trying to prove to them.
sorry for the typos….
“the Holocaust…”
“there’s a chink…”
Calvin-admiring site: TheAmericanView.com; please visit/comment. I dare you.
JLof@aol.com
This is an interesting post you have here Tom. Here are some initial reactions, speaking as a Calvinist.
First, the Calvinists I know use “permit” and “allow” language to delineate the idea of God as (in your terms above) the Primary cause and man as the secondary cause. For God to “permit” or to “allow” he must decide to allow it. He decides not to intervene. The reason behind the “allowance” is because he desires that it should happen.
Second, can you provide the source material for the quotes by Piper and Calvin, and the internet links if possible? I ask this because I know several people who will take single lines of Calvinists that remotely sound like one thing and make them prove something the context of the statement won’t allow. It would just put me at ease.
Third, I feel like you, as an Arminian(?), are deciding the terms for a system you do not hold. I don’t think it is right for you to decide what terms a Calvinist uses as long as the Calvinist provides what he/she means by the term. If I were to try to apply this principle consistently I would tell Arminians that they really can’t say that God is sovereign because that would conflict with humanity’s libertarian free will. To speak of God being sovereign over all is to start sounding like a Calvinist and it isn’t consistent. If I may be so bold, it almost feels like you are trying to get the Calvinist to start speaking as a Hyper-Calvinist so as to trap him/her and strike their blasphemous theology down. I would never try, knowingly and intentionally, to make an Amrinian speak in Open Theistic terms if they do not hold that position. I would only ask that you define your terms. I would not question if whether or not you buy what you claim to believe. But you might not be doing that, I don’t know. It just feels that way.
Fourth, does your post allow for the differences in the lapsarian debate within Calvinistic circles? Depending upon where they fall on that whole discussion will determine their language.
Finally, I follow Piper and Calvin, as quoted in the post, and don’t think that Christians need to use these kinds of terms–even though my former Arminian worldview will slip words into my mouth. I spent six years using that language and it takes a while to fully remove a former vocabulary.
Thanks Hank, I’ll try to take your objections point by point. *And thanks for the graciousness of your response - you disagree without being disagreeable, and that is always helpful.*
First, I understand that Calvinists use “permit” language b/c its a way of communicating the Primary Cause factor in the compatibilisitc model. However, I think the use of this language is unclear - and this neither helps their arguments (for, as Piper says, it undercuts it), and it doesn’t help further the discussion (either with Arminians or with their attempts to explain themselves to people they are introducing to their theology). Thus, I believe they need to use more clear and specified language so as to not be misleading.
Second, I went to http://www.desiringgod.org, and googled different words about God and evil. Under this I found a number of sermons by Piper on God’s sovereignty in causing/ordaining evil. These quotes were taken from a number of sermons, but if you just go to the page you can find it easily enough there.
Third, I am saying nothing that John Piper is not already saying - so I do not feel like I’m making any decisions for Calvinists that the best of them have not already recognized. That said, I do not think the “sovereignty” example you cited really works - for in that example, its a matter of how to define sovereignty, not whether it fits in a system. I believe in sovereignty just as much as you do - I just define it differently.
With my topic, both Calvinists and Arminians mean the same thing when the use “allow” language. Thus, I maintain that the term is misleading when coming from a Calvninist - if for no other reason than that “allow” language is more at home in the libertarian model as opposed to the compatibilistic model (this is not hyper-Calvinism b/c I’m, again, not saying anything that Calvin or Piper haven’t already noted). I’m just asking for consistency.
Fourth, you may have a good point, here. I don’t necessarily think I had the different lapsarian perspectives in mind when I wrote this, but that may be something I’ll need to consider at some point. However, a Calvinist will need to be clear from the outset, with me, which position they take and how they will influence their arguments.
Finally, if you agree with Piper and Calvin, what is your catalyst for the previously asked questions? I would think, as it seems you are consistent in your application (even if sometimes accidentally slipping into libertarian terminology) and therefore I would have expected a hardy ‘amen’ from you. Just a quesiton, not that it dismisses your questioins, which I hope I have adequately answered.
Thanks, again, for the quesitons. They were insightful and thorough. Much appreciated.
Tom
I appreciate the response. You state,
The “catalyst” is that these points were just the initial response from reading the post last night and today. Also, I have friends who would, as Calvinists, take issue with your post and I felt to be fair to all Calvinists that these points needed to be raised.
I do want to say that I wish Calvinists would use language that better fits the system. I have had many a discussion with those same Calvinists on them using the terms. I even take issue with my pastor on this. Heck, even John MacArthur blows it on this in my view, especially with his translation and interpretation of Romans 9:22-23. So I say to the request of consistent language, “amen!”
I think point 3 in my above comments still stands, though I understand what you are saying. I’m just not seeing much difference in what you said about “sovereignty” and the “permission” language that you (and I) are objecting to. Terms are being defined in the context of the given theological/soteriological system. “Permission” means something else to a Calvinist than it does an Arminian; the same is true for “sovereignty.” I would say that as long as each participant in the discussion is allowed to define the terms he or she is using, there shouldn’t be much of a problem. That is usually a question I make a point to ask, “What do you mean by that?” when I am talking so someone who might not have the same view as I do about an issue.
Thank you for your kind words about my response. I have learned to treat this topic as treading on egg shells.
thanks, again, Hank.
Let me clear up what I said about #3. I apologize for being unclear….
Sovereignty is a word that, in itself, has multiple possible meanings - it can mean meticulous determination, or it can mean just general rulership without reference to determination. Thus, the word can be defined along either lines - and therefore both sides can use the word so long as they are clear what they mean by it. It is not misleading for either group to use this word b/c people CAN have BOTH meanings in mind as legit possibilities.
However…
I do not believe this is the case with ‘permit’ or ‘allow.’ What people generally mean by this word is what the libertarians mean by the word, not what the compatibilists mean. Thus, I think the compatibilists need to choose another word. While there is some semantic range to these words, I think, when used by a compatibiliist it can be misleading - and often, is a cover up (though I do not always assume this is intentional) for the apprarent, if not real, “harshness” of the Calvinistic system.
Whereas there would be no room for denying that a Arminian believes in sovereignty (only sovereignty as defined by Calvinism), there is a very real sense in which Calvinists do not believe God ‘permits’ anything - he causes them, ordains them, determines them - even if He is only the Primary Cause. This is a huge leap from what people generally assume by the word ‘allow.’
I hope I have cleared up why I maintain my answer to your question. If not, well, I’m afraid I’ve probably just repeated myself a few times - which is not beyond me….urgh.
Thanks, again, man. Good question.
Tom,
Thank you for this post! Is there anything more fun than making theological/philosophical distinctions? I can’t think of anything. :)
First, concerning the quote by Piper, the Calvinist has an easy answer: Piper is wrong. God is NOT the author of sin, nor is he the primary cause of sin. I believe Calvin and Augustine both would refute such a claim as blasephemous (I am not claiming that it is, I just think the two would). Thus, your diagram, though acurate to what Piper said, needs to be revised in order to truly reflect Augustianism. Here is a possible revision that I think is fair:
God creates (Libertarian) Free Creatures
↓
Creatures Sin and the Fall Occurs (Primary Cause)
↓
Humans Have the Desire to Sin (i.e. Original Sin)
↓
Humans Sin (Secondary Cause)
In this way, the Cavlinist is able to escape the doctrine of God being the author of sin in His Creation. What do you think?
I don’t have it all work out in my head yet so help me out here…
God has existed forever
God is all good, all loving.
Before God, nothing existed. He is all that there was and will be.
Where is Evil here? If God is not the creator of Evil? Where did Evil come from?
1 - At this point, you may say: free will. But where did we get Free Will? We got it from him. He created us. Romans 9?.
2. - Through out History, God has killed people (through human or natural agents) such as Noa & the flood, and such as asking Joshua to take care of his neighbors. Yet God is said not to be evil. He was just being “righteous”
However, if I blow up a damn and drawn a town, or I blow up a town, I would be evil.
Thoughts? Where did Evil come from?
By romans 9, I meant - is that our best answer to that question?
Travis, thanks for the response - it was actually quite thought provoking. Here are my thoughts, though…
First, you say that Calvin would diapprove of what Piper has said, but in one of the citations above, Piper is quoting from Calvin who chides as incocnsistent those who want to hold onto the Calvinisitic system and use ‘permit’ language. So, maybe Augustine would disagree with Piper, but Calvin would not.
I think your re-write of my model is compelling - if you’re not a Compatiblist. The model I drew up was of Compatibilistic freedom - which in no way has room for libertarian freedom (per your first point on your diagram). Thus, I’m not sure any Calvinist is going to approve of your re-write. Just a thought, but I’d certainly be interested in hearing further thoughts on how you can combine Compatibilism with your model which begins with libertarian freedom.
Again, wonderful thoughts!
Hey Travis,
Great thoughts.Very interesting view.
On a lot of libertarian views (mine for instance:) your model could still have God being a partial cause of human sin. This is because a lot of libertarians want to say that beliefs and desires are still partial causes of our behavior. So a free act is an act that is partially caused by beliefs/desires and also meets some other conditions (like being partially agent caused).
So take the libertarianly free choice(s) that caused the fall. The causal story would look like this: God creating the person in a certain way-> the person having certain beliefs and desires-> the beliefs and desires + agent causation (or the equivolent requirement)-> the choice that causes the fall. So there would still be a direct causal chain from God to the fall and then from the fall to human sin, it would just be and indeterministic causal chain.
Of course you could just say that the relevant act wasn’t even partially caused by background conditions (such as beliefs and desires). That seems a little strange to me but I don’t know if there is a good argument against it.
I (like Tom) would like to here more about your idea here. If compatibilist freedom gets us what we need for moral responsibility, why would God give pre-fall humans libertarian freedom when knowing about (or risking) their falling into sin? Why not just determine them to behave perfectly? I’m not saying there aren’t good answers here, just wondering what you think.
-Philip
Tom and Philip,
Excellent points. I need to clarify. First to Philip, I see what you are getting at concerning the fact that libertarians want to say that beliefs and desires are partial causes to sin. Obvisiously, you mean that beliefs and desires are partially sufficient for an act, but are they also partially necessary for an act? I just needed to clarify.
Concerning the indeterminism of Adam’s sin, I want to say that this is were libertarian freedom works perfectly Adam was not determined by anything to sin. So I agree with you there. (However, on a big side not, Plantinga’s transworld depravity seems to imply that although Adam’s particular instance of sinning was not necessary, at some time some morally free agent would necessarily sin. How is that non-deterministic?)
So is compatabilism relevant to the Calvinist? Yes and here is why. I think that Calvinist should be compatabilist with respect to acts/thoughts/beliefs of sin and to beliefs of salvation (there are not acts of salvation done by humans, lest we are exponents of works salvation). In the case of sin, we all necessarily sin. What is the direct cause of our sin? The sin of Adam and our Orignial Sin. But of course the Calvinist still maintains that we are free to sin. The choice is still ours. But, our wills are in some kind of terrible bondage. In the case of salvation (for only some), our wills are freed from that bondage. The efficient cause in this freedom cannot of course be our wills, for our wills are in bondage. (Analogy: it would be like a surgeon who tries to sew his own hands back on.) The efficient cause for the release of our wills and the loosing of the chains is the effecutal calling of the Holy Spirit. But this is only sufficient for regeneration and then faith. It is then faith and faith alone that is the efficient cause of our salvation, a truth which is one of the true treasures we have recieved from the Reformation. Likewise with sin, we have a choice to be saved or to not be saved. But the calling of the Holy Spirit is necessary and sufficient for our regeneration, and a fortiori, our salvation. Sufficient being the key word.
Where does this leave us concerning the state of the regenerated Christian and the glorified Christian during the Kingdom of God? More on this later.
All to Him,
Travis