The Origin of Moral Evil as Revealed in the Word of God

 

This article is an expansion of my previous article “A Brief Thought on the Origin of Moral Evil”.   

The origin of moral evil has baffled many Christian theologians throughout the ages. For many years, I have been thinking much about the topic of theodicy. If God is good, why is there evil? Many Christians concluded that God is the creator of everything except sin or moral evil because the infinitely good God cannot be involved with sin in any way. Satan and man are the sole causes, founders, and creators of sin. For many Christians, that’s the safety mark. However, I am not satisfied with that cowardly answer. I heartily agree with the famous Christian Counsellor, Jay Adams, who laid out the most basic theodicy question in his book “The Grand Demonstration: A Biblical Study of the So-called Problem of Evil”:

 

“To say that all evil is the result of the fall of Adam is perfectly true—but piteously inadequate. That response merely moves the question back a step: how could there be a fall? To suggest that Satan is the cause of the fall, again, is true, but only pushes the inquiry back an additional step: how could the devil exist in a sovereign, good God’s world? That is the so-called problem of evil.

The Christian is not left speechless; God has revealed Himself concerning this matter. And, He has done so unequivocally, satisfyingly. The problem is not stated properly. It should be put this way: when God has given an unmistakably clear and sufficient reply to such questions, why do theologians persist in saying that He has not? Why do they go through the foot shuffling routine only to hem and haw about a fact that is as plain as the way of salvation itself? The answer, I am afraid, is that they are so heavily loaded with humanism that they are either blinded to the truth, or, understanding it, refuse to teach it out of fear of what others may say.”

 

Before any false accusation comes in, I would like to insist that this article is by no means to give anyone a license to sin. This article is nothing but a meagre attempt to explain the most controversial eternal metaphysical working of God which I believe the Bible has revealed but ignored by many. Many theories have been thought of in the attempt to protect the goodness of God from the stain of sin or moral evil. However, many have intentionally or unknowingly denied His omnipotence, omniscience and absolute sovereignty. 

 

Hypo- or Moderate Calvinism

Moderate or hypo- Calvinism is the most common (unhistorical) form of Calvinism in most reformed circles today. The moderate Calvinists say that God has eternally decreed evil to happen without causing and creating it i.e., He merely permits or allows evil to happen. They often say “God permits” without defining further. How does the omnipotent and omniscient God eternally decree something by merely permitting it without the act of creation and causation? They would appeal to mystery. Did God create man and then just merely and passively permitting man’s will to run independently of Him? 

“Here they have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because he so wills. But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills? Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that “the will of God is the necessity of things,” and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass.” (John Calvin)

The moderate Calvinists do not have problem in saying that God is the cause of election, salvation, and good thoughts and actions of men, but they have difficulty in saying that God is the cause of man’s reprobation, and sinful thoughts and actions of men. While I am not denying that it is the will of man that immediately sins and indeed it is not God that sins, however who ultimately caused the existence of evil inclination in men? Is it out of nothing and totally self-determined? If man wills anything (including evil) out of nothing with total self-determining ability in any sense, God has lost control. Most moderate Calvinists also do not have problem in believing that God is the cause of natural evil such as earthquakes, Tsunami, diseases, etc. But how about moral evil? The Westminster divines, however, explicitly said that God is the first cause of all things (without exception) and His providence extends even to the first fall and all other sins of angels and man, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation.

Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves – to say they can, is to postulate an uncaused effect. “Ex nihilo nihil fit” – nothing cannot produce something (A.W. Pink)

The late Dr R.C. Sproul always claimed ignorance to the origin of moral evil. He famously shared that his late mentor John H. Gerstner (who was unashamedly a High Calvinist) rebuked him for being arrogant i.e., thinking that he has reached the climax of his knowledge on the origin of moral evil (R.C. Sproul: What Is Evil & Where Did It Come From? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzrC7KuMj6o). The gist of the shared video lecture is just to further his “I don’t know”.  

 

Libertarian Free Will

The most common theory is libertarian free will i.e., man has the power to will anything independently of God’s control. Man is totally autonomous, having a freedom to govern and rule himself. God has zero say over man’s will. Evil totally comes out of the devil’s and man’s independent free will, without God’s involvement. It is the devil's and man's abuse of free will that causes evil to come about. Evil is just an inevitable consequence of free will, which God didn’t pre-ordain and could not overcome. God, even if He can control man’s will, will not violate and control man’s will. It's clear that if man wills and acts anything outside of God's will, God has lost control and this is a denial of His omnipotence. If the will controls itself and acts by itself without God's involvement whatsoever, then man's will is sovereign and the will is an uncaused cause of man's action. 

Ravi Zacharias used to say: “Where there is freedom, there is the possibility of love”. Really? My question is freedom from what? If a man’s will is free from God’s absolute control, God is no longer omnipotent and He has lost control. What does the Bible say the basis of love is? Ezekiel 36:26-27 tells us the basis: “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” Christians can love God because He gives us a totally new heart, a spiritual heart transplantation. Therefore, He causes us to be willing to love Him. Our love of God has nothing to do with our freedom from God i.e. a will that is free from the absolute rule and determination of God. The elect can love Him, because He first loved us before the foundation of the world (1 John 4:19).

Furthermore, to them Jesus died for all men without exception however it is up to man’s independent free will to claim that sacrifice of Christ which makes salvation merely possible and not a guarantee. To say that man’s will has the power on its own to choose Christ is to teach that man still has an intrinsic goodness in him, and he can work towards making Christ’s death efficacious for himself. This is a work-based salvation, a denial of the Gospel of salvation by grace alone and a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation and sanctification.

I am very sure that the libertarian free-willers have at least once asked God in prayer to open up the hearts of their friends or family members that they may be saved. Suddenly, where did their doctrine of free will go? For many times, I have also heard them saying “God is in control”, but can they really say that in view of their doctrines of libertarian free will? Their theory and practice can be contradicting one another. They are Calvinist in practice, and libertarian-free-will in theory. We all know that a consistent Arminianism leads to open theism, a denial of God’s omniscience and omnipotence. Many say that the libertarian free-willers are saved by “blessed inconsistency”. These free-willers, if they are consistent, cannot have any sense of hope that their souls are secured in God’s hands because everything is up to man’s sinful free will.

 

Deism

I have also heard another theory (an extension of the libertarian free will theory) from my conversation with someone, that is either close to, or is Deism. God allows the universe to run by itself. He even likened the universe and the will of man to his autonomous robotic vacuum cleaner. He cannot believe in a God who is micro-managing. He literally said to me that the Calvinist God is like Asian parents (who are stereotypically well-known to be micro-managing of their children’s future) and the Arminian God is like angmoh (westerner) parents (who is stereotypically well-known not to be so demanding on their children’s future).

To him, salvation is just a contingent plan (plan B) of a God who was not in control of the fall of man. All occurrences in the universe and their consequences are nothing but a result of nature and man’s free will acting independently of God’s causation. 

Can a God who has the power to stop evil but does not stop it be any better? Can a God who respects man's freedom so much be any better? 

 

God is Ultimate Cause of All Things without Exception

I would like to propose a theodicy that only few throughout history have held, but by no means unbiblical. God is the one who created moral evil. Yes, I dare to say that. He is the ultimate and first cause of sin or moral evil. He did all this for a purpose. It is just a truth that is hard to swallow, and man’s emotion cannot take it. If God did not create evil, then who did? What independent force out there that created sin? Did Satan and man sin ex-nihilo, or out of nothing or nowhere like how God created the universe ex-nihilo? Sin did not come out of nothing or nowhere in Satan and man because God was the one who put the sinful inclination in them and decreed that they would succumb to that inclination for His glorious purpose. He ultimately caused sin, created the totally depraved will in man and He controls it that man will do evil (immediate cause).

For every event, whether good or evil, there must be a metaphysical cause. If there is no cause, then that event would itself be God (Vincent Cheung)

 

Many would say that this view leads to the conclusion that God is the author of evil. Well, yay and nay, depending on their definitions. There are two definitions of it, 1) traditional and 2) non-traditional: 

1) God is not the author of evil in a sense that He is not the actor and doer, the immediate cause of, or the committer of moral evil because by definition God cannot sin and whatever that God does (including creating sin) is always righteous and just. By His standard, God decreeing, creating, originating and causing evil is good, though evil is evil in itself. God cannot be a sinner. Satan and man are the doers and actors, the immediate cause, or the committer of moral evil.

2) God is the author of evil in a sense that He is the ultimate cause, creator, and originator of the existence of moral evil, without being the doer of sin or the sinner. Nothing exists outside of God’s divine commands.

 

However, the former is the traditional meaning of “the author of evil” and one must be careful how the term is used. I concur with the Westminster divines that God is not the author of evil as far as the traditional definition is concerned. Hence, if there is anyone who accuses me of making God the author of evil, he better defines his words more accurately.

 

It must be emphasized that God decreeing, originating, creating and causing moral evil is not evil, but rather good. He does not sin in creating sin. How is that possible? Simply because whatever God does is good as He is the very definition of good. We can see the manifestation of that goodness in His eternal decree of all things without exception and His fulfilment of them in time and space. For God, the end (which is His glory) justifies the means. Whatever that God does is good simply because God does it. He defines what is good and man cannot judge Him by his own standard of goodness. God is not bound by the Ten Commandments which are only for men. God has the power over the clay to make a vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour. It is simply His act of absolute and unrestrained sovereignty upon the world He created for His own glory and pleasure.

Since God is the one who defines good and evil, for him to commit evil, he must first define something as evil for him to do, and then go ahead and do it. In other words, unless God disapproves of himself, then whatever he does is righteous by definition. It is not up to theologians to define evil for him. (Vincent Cheung)

The world is the arena of God’s divine drama. God is the writer. We are the conscious actors (not a robot or puppet on a string, but willing and rational actors made in the image of God).

 

Biblical Proofs

Consider God’s act of causing sins in men to fulfil His purpose in Deuteronomy 2:30-33 - “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.” On prima facie, these verses mean that the Lord caused the obstinacy to exist in the heart of Sihon King of Heshbon (as sovereignly decreed from eternity) so that he will not let the Israelites pass by him and therefore Israel would have a just reason to destroy him and possess his land. This is an active hardening where God caused the wicked reprobate to be more obstinate.

2 Chronicles 18:21-22 - “And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee”. It says that the LORD directly shall be a lying spirit and has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these false prophets. It doesn’t say that a lying spirit or the devil go to the mouth of the false prophets by his own power, independent of God’s causation. Neither does it say that the false prophets’ independent free will allowed or caused the lying spirit to go to their own mouths.

Psalm 105:25 says God turned the heart to hate His people, to deal subtilly with His servants. The Psalm explicitly says that God turned their hearts to hatred; He made them think evil thoughts; he controlled their decisions (Gordon H. Clark, Predestination). God, with much pleasure, moves and causes the will of man to do evil (which is a pre-ordained means) to fulfil God's next pre-ordained step in history. Think about how God moved the will of men to do the most evil thing in history i.e., the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the sake of the elect's justification. God has pre-ordained and caused the means (including consequences) and the end of all things.

Consider how Jesus came into this world to die for elect sinners according to prophecies. Prophecies are future events (future in man’s view, and always present in God’s view) that are exhaustively determined and caused by God, informed to His people in His written Scripture. If God does not determine and cause all worldly events (past, present and future), then the whole universe is just sovereignly moving itself uncaused, and therefore Jesus’ first coming is just God’s panicky mitigating attempt to solve the fall of man which happened by itself outside of God’s control. If the universe rules itself without God’s exhaustive control, the universe is a God unto itself. This is a road towards pantheism.

Think of Acts 2:22-23 – “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”. God’s determinate counsel means God’s predetermination of all things without exception according to His wise counsel. God’s foreknowledge means God’s knowledge of everything that He has predetermined. The doctrines of determinism and foreknowledge of God are inseparable. They cannot work without God’s act of causation. God knows all events in the world (omniscience) because He knows what He has determined and caused. If He does not determine and cause all events in the world, then God does not know them and there must be a time when He must learn or gain knowledge of the events that would independently occur in the future. Hence Jesus’ first coming is just God’s panicky reaction to the occurrence of sin that God found out by looking through the windows of time. That is a denial of omniscience, a denial of the eternality of His knowledge. It is also a denial of the supralapsarian purpose of Christ’s coming, that He came into this world ultimately for the glory of the Triune God alone, not for elect sinners per se, because God’s chief end is to glorify Himself and to enjoy Himself forever. Man and sin is just a means to that chief end of God. God determined and caused all the minute details that would lead to the crucifixion of Christ, including the sinful thoughts and action of men. God caused all the evil acts of the pharisees, Judas and Pontius Pilate. God is the ultimate cause of evil.  

Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:37-38). God is the one who caused the sufferings of the Jews during the Babylonian captivity. He created hunger, thirst, famine, drought, and diseases. Not less in degree, God moved the evil hearts of the Babylonians to commit evil against them. The Babylonians could not have done all this evil against the Jews if not for God’s creation and ultimate causation of the Genesis fall and total depravity in men’s hearts. The moderate Calvinists often would argue that man is already totally depraved, therefore God does not have to create a new and fresh evil in men. That I agree, but I would also add that God is the one who created, originated and ultimately caused the Genesis fall and original sin, and God is pleased to sovereignly sustain that post-adamic sin in all of Adam’s descendants. Post-adamic sins in all of Adam’s descendants wouldn’t have existed if it’s not For God’s sovereign active providence. How is it logically possible for God to decree something without the act of originating, causing, or creating? The moderate Calvinists would rather keep silent and refuse to accept the necessary consequences of this harsh aspect of His revealed Word. Again, I would ask the question: If God did not create evil, then who did? What independent force out there that created sin? Did Satan and man sin ex-nihilo, like how God created the universe out of nothing?

“Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6). All the evils that were done in the city, be it natural or moral evil, were caused, created, and decreed by the Lord. Amos 3:6 makes no exception. The Lord has done good in creating evil. It is good that the good Lord has caused all these evils in the world for the good of the elect and for the condemnation of the wicked reprobate (Romans 8:28).  

Let’s see what God did to king Saul. “But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him (1 Samuel 16:14)”. “And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand (1 Samuel 18:10)”. The devil and his demons cannot do anything apart from God’s exhaustive causative act. These two verses explicitly tell us that God commands an evil spirit to trouble Saul which is expressed outwardly in his wilful sinning, angrily throwing a javelin towards David (1 Samuel 18:11).

In 2 Samuel 24:1, the Bible says that God caused David to sin by taking a census of Israel and Judah. Then, in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it says that it was Satan who incited David to do it. It’s easy to reconcile. God caused and moved Satan to commit the evil of tempting David in sinfully taking the census. Satan would not be able to tempt David if it’s not for God who originated the sin in him. Likewise for David. 

Let’s now go to the most famous Calvinistic verses. Romans 9:11-21 - “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” 

God eternally reprobated Esau and Pharaoh, and caused them not to believe in the Gospel that the purpose of God’s creation of vessel unto dishonour may be fulfilled i.e. the destruction of the wicked reprobate. God has only hatred towards the wicked reprobate and never shows any iota of grace and mercy to them. Without God creating sin and causing them to sin, the decree of God’s eternal reprobation could never be fulfilled because unrepentant sinning is the pre-ordained manifestation of God’s eternal reprobation. Is God unrighteous in doing all these? Is God unrighteous in calling moral and rational man responsible even though He is the ultimate cause and creator of evil? Whatever that God does is always righteous.

 

Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness (Psalm 69:27). An imprecatory prayer is not a pointless complaint towards God. Imprecatory prayer is the saints’ holy desire for the destruction of the wicked reprobate that God’s decree of eternal reprobation may be fulfilled, even as God desires for them to be destroyed forever. In the manifestation of God’s decree of eternal reprobation, God must make sure that the wicked reprobates continue to sin and He hardens their hearts every single day even as they hear and willingly reject the truth of God. God adds iniquity unto iniquity in the hearts of the wicked reprobate, especially through the preaching of the truth. This could not happen if God had not created, decreed and caused moral evil. The Gospel saves the elect, and hardens and condemns the wicked reprobate. See Jesus’ doctrine of eternal reprobation in Matthew 13:13-15 -“Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”

 

Proverbs 16:4 is quite explicit: “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil”. The LORD made everything including wicked man for His glory. One may surmise that God only made the wicked, but He did not make his wickedness. That argument is basically saying that God created everything but there is an exception. How to make a wicked man without first creating the wickedness in that man? That's logically impossible. The wickedness which makes man wicked logically must first be created by God. Proverbs 16:4 makes no exception in God’s creative act. God created wicked men with their wickedness that they may be destroyed forever. Still not explicit enough?

Isaiah 45:7 is even more explicit: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” The Bible says that God created moral evil. Some say that the Hebrew word “ra” only means natural evil and does not mean sin or moral evil. Such an attempt at re-interpretation is out of intentional ignorance. Gordon H. Clark, in his book Predestination, did a good commentary of Isaiah 45:7. I shall quote him verbatim below:

The two theses most unacceptable to the Arminians are that God is the cause of sin and that God is the cause of salvation. In both cases the Arminians look to free will. Man is the first cause of his sin, and, still independent of God, man is the first cause of his conversion. Isaiah in this verse makes Arminianism Biblically impossible.

The Scofield Bible is a good example of how Arminians try to escape from the plain meaning of the verse. Scofield says, “Heb. ra, translated ‘sorrow,’ ‘wretchedness,’ ‘adversity,’ ‘afflictions,’ ‘calamities,’ but never translated sin. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

Now the most remarkable point about Scofield’s note is that he told the truth when he said, “ra… [is] never translated sin.” How could he have made such a statement, knowing it was true? The only answer is that he must have examined every instance of ra in the Hebrew text and then he must have determined that in no case did the King James translate it sin. And this is absolutely true. But if he compared every instance of ra with its translation in every case, he could not have failed to note that ra in Genesis 6:5 and in a number of other places is translated wickedness. In fact ra is translated wickedness some fifty times. Scofield could not have failed to notice this; so he says with just truth, ra is never translated sin. Since Scofield favors the word evil, a partial list of verses in which this translation occurs will be given; and second there will be a partial list where wicked or wickedness is used.

Going through the Bible, Scofield must have read as far as Genesis 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; 6:5; 8:21; 44:4; 48:16; 50:15, 17, 20. The knowledge of good and evil is not simply a knowledge of sorrow or calamity; it is primarily a knowledge of disobedience and sin. Similarly, Genesis 3:5, 22 refer as much to sin as to its punishment. In fact Genesis 3:22 hardly refers to punishment at all. True, Adam was banished from the garden; but the word evil in the verse refers to his disobedience and sin.

Whatever lame excuse can be given for excluding sin and retaining only punishment in the previous four verses, Genesis 6:5 is clearly and indisputably a reference to sin. God did not see “adversity” or “afflictions”; he saw sinful thoughts. Ra, in this verse at any rate, means sin. The same is true of Genesis 8:21. In fact, sin and its punishment are separated here. God will not again curse or smite, as he had just done, for man’s heart is evil. The flood was a punishment, but the evil was the sinful heart of man.

Toward the end of Genesis ra refers to an alleged theft, many sins from which the angel had redeemed Jacob, and three times the brothers’ sin against Joseph. In 50:17 again the sin is easily distinguishable from the feared punishment.

Is it necessary to plod through all the Old Testament to show that ra often means sin as distinct from its punishment? It should not be necessary; but to show the pervasiveness of the doctrine and the perverseness of Arminianism, something from 2 Chronicles will be listed: 22:4 ; 29:6 ; 33:2,6 ; 36:5,9,12. Ahab did evil in the sight of the Lord. Our fathers have trespassed and done evil in the eyes of the Lord. Manasseh did evil in the sight of the Lord. He wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord. Jehoiakim did evil in the sight of the Lord. He did evil in the sight of the Lord.

Evil, ra, is not once translated sin. Very strange, but true.

Then there are Isaiah 56:2; 57:1; 59:7, 15; 65:12; 66:4. All instances of ra, or evil.

Now, if Scofield knew that ra was never translated sin, he must have known that it was often translated wickedness. Wickedness or wicked, as the translation of ra, occurs in Genesis 6:5; 13:13; 38:7; 39:9. Also in Deuteronomy 13:11 and 17:2. Also in 1 Samuel 30:22; 2 Samuel 3:39; 1 Kings 2:44; Nehemiah 9:35; Esther 7:6, 9, 25; and Proverbs 21:12; 26:23, 26. Nor are these the only instances.

Scofield told the literal truth when he said ra is never translated sin. But nothing could be more false than his statement, “God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

The Scriptural meaning of the word ra has now been abundantly made clear. But there is another point too. If ra means simply external calamities, then the word peace, which God also creates, can mean only military peace. The phrases are parallel. But this interpretation reduces the verse, or this part of the verse, to triviality. Even verse 1 can hardly be restricted to purely political matters. Verse 3 speaks of treasures of darkness, hidden riches, and the knowledge of God. Jacob my servant and Israel my elect are not phrases to be restricted to politics and economics. Verse 6 speaks of the extension of the knowledge of God throughout the world. Then comes “I make peace and create evil.” Merely military peace? Not peace with God? The next verse speaks of righteousness dropping down from Heaven, not like dew, but like pouring rain. Bring forth salvation, let righteousness spring up together. I the Lord have created it.

O, Arminian, Arminian, you that distort the prophets and misinterpret them that are sent unto you; how often have I told your children the plain truth…and you would not let them understand!

There is still more in this chapter from Isaiah. Once again we find the Potter and the clay. It indicates that God is not responsible to man. Woe to the man who complains that God has made him or anyone else a a vessel of dishonor. The clay has no rights against the Potter. Nor does it have any free will to decide what sort of a bowl or jug it shall be. [end of quote]

 

Common Objections Answered

I know there are objections to this view. One most common example is the use of James 1:13-15. Let’s see why James 1:13-15 is not an objection to this view.

James 1:1-3 implies that God is the one who ultimately decreed and caused: 1) the scattering of the twelve tribes which has caused many to suffer, 2) the existence of temptations pre- and post- fall, and 3) the trying of a Christian’s faith which works patience. There is nothing in the text that imply 1), 2) and 3) are independent of God’s sovereign predetermination and causation. Temptations are not random but are carefully arranged by eternal providence of God and James knew that. Evil men wouldn’t be able to tempt Christians if it’s not for the evil which God created and decreed. If it’s not God, which independent force created evil? Can anyone answer that, other than just appealing “mystery, mystery”? James knew that nothing exists apart from God’s causation. Men cannot will all by himself without any cause and out of nothing.

James 1:4-11 then speaks of God’s practical wisdom for Christians facing these temptations which God has ultimately decreed and caused to occur.

James 1:12 speaks of God’s command to His elect to endure the temptations which God has placed in their lives. The elect’s obedience to that command is God’s pre-ordained means to God’s reward which He has pre-ordained to give unconditionally to His elect.

Then comes James 1:13-15 - “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.” James knew that many scriptural passages speak of God as the ultimate cause and creator of moral evil (see the biblical proofs above), and he knew that temptations and trials are of God. It would be strange then for James to suddenly claim that God is not involved whatsoever in the existence of moral sin. James, as a man moved by the Holy Ghost to write the Holy Writ, cannot contradict other parts of Scripture. Vincent Cheung in his article “The Lord of Temptations” explains James 1:13-15 well and I shall quote him verbatim:  

[brackets mine]

Returning to our text, how does all of this fit with verse 13, which says that “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone”? The verse is true, and it is consistent with the rest of Scripture. In the other passages we have just examined, although God decrees sin and evil, he does not become the tempter to entice the people, but he sends evil spirits and false prophets to deliver the actual temptation. Again, this does not distance God from sin and evil, since “in him we live and move and have our being” [Acts 17:28] and he must be the direct energy that propels all sin and evil. Nevertheless, as I have explained, God does not become identified with what he creates and what he causes. When God creates a stone, he does not become the stone. When God destroys a planet, he himself is not destroyed. Those who are desperate to oppose the biblical teaching of absolute divine sovereignty assert that this doctrine amounts to pantheism, but when they make this assertion, it becomes an assumption in their own system, requiring them to either accept at least a partial pantheism to preserve some control for God, or to deny God any control at all in the universe. Either option would make them non-Christians. But we are undamaged simply by rejecting the stupid assumption. God is not the same as what he creates, causes, and controls.

 

So God directly controls all aspects of temptation, but he himself is not the tempter. He does not tempt people in the sense that Satan tempted Eve and the Lord Jesus. He does not speak and instruct people to do wrong. In fact, it is impossible for him to be the tempter because of his very own nature – since he is the one who defines right and wrong, whatever he tells someone to do would be the right thing to do. If he had told Eve to eat the fruit, then it would have been right for her to eat it. There would have been no temptation, since by telling her to eat the fruit he would have lifted the original prohibition. But if he had directed and caused Satan to say it, then it would have been a temptation. And that was what happened with Eve, with David, with Ahab, and so on. Likewise, if he had told Jesus to turn stones into bread, it would not have been a temptation; in fact, if it had come as a statement or command, Jesus would have had to do it in order to perform the Father’s will.

 

Therefore, God is the author of sin [not in its traditional meaning; see explanation in section “God is the ultimate cause of all things”], but he is not the tempter. It is obvious that this does not in any way distance God from evil, but it only specifies his relationship with it. So we must assume that when James stresses that God does not tempt, it is not his intention to distance God from evil. This becomes even more clear when he does not name Satan as the tempter, but turns the focus to a person’s evil desire, which is the spiritual and psychological factor that moves him to succumb to temptation. If James is interested in identifying the tempter, why does he not point at the devil? Scripture portrays him as such in Genesis, when he tempted Eve, and in the Gospels, when he tempted Jesus. And later in the letter, James shows that he is conscious of the devil when he writes, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (4:7). If his intention is to identify the tempter, especially in contrast to God, this would be the place to do it. But he does not mention the devil here because he has a different purpose.

 

Thus to assert that God is not the author of sin [not in its traditional meaning] on the basis of verse 13 misses the point of the text, and such a misuse ends up robbing the students of Scripture of its valuable instruction. If James wishes to distance God from evil, even if this is possible, what he writes here would not be the way to do it. One can complain that, even if God is not the author of evil [not in its traditional meaning], and even if he is not the tempter, why does he permit evil, and why does he permit temptation? If it is indeed necessary to distance God from evil in order to exonerate him, the only way to do this in a meaningful sense and to an adequate extent is to dethrone God, and to set up Satan as a competing force who directly controls evil. But if Satan is free from God’s direct control, then Satan himself is another God, even if we can still say that either one is God at all. For this reason it is so dangerous and blasphemous to deny that God is the author of sin [not in its traditional meaning]. It is not that we are especially interested in connecting God with evil, but that we are especially interested in affirming that God is truly God, that he wields direct control over all things, and we must insist that this control includes evil when people attempt to deny it, as if to do God a favor.

 

All of this is to remove false religious traditions so that we may read the passage and learn what it really teaches. Satan was the tempter in Genesis, and when he spoke to the woman, he appealed to her evil desires: “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it” (3:6). James is not talking about metaphysics, and he is not trying to identify the tempter. He wishes to make us take responsibility and confront temptation. This is not accomplished by blaming God’s sovereignty. The divine decree is not something that we can dictate or negotiate with. And it is not done by blaming the devil as the tempter, either. We have no sovereignty over the devil, and we cannot stop him from being the tempter. However, we are responsible to examine our desires, and if they make us susceptible to temptations, we must resist them. We ought to be always aware of our thoughts, motives, and desires, to cultivate those that keep us on the way of righteousness, and to annihilate those that would draw us away from God and into the way of rebellion and transgression. This is the way to master temptations.

 

 

I will let one of the profoundest Christian philosophers, Gordon H. Clark, to answer why man is still responsible even though God is the ultimate cause of evil in his book Religion, Reason and Revelation:

[brackets mine]

Let it be unequivocally said that this view [context: “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it…”] certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. There is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent. He alone is sovereign. Not only is Satan his creature, but every detail of history was eternally in his plan before the world began; and he willed that it should all come to pass. The men and angels predestined to eternal life and those foreordained to everlasting death are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Election and reprobation are equally ultimate. God determined that Christ should die; he determined as well that Judas should betray him. There was never the remotest possibility that something different could have happened (Psalm 135:6, Daniel 4:35, Isaiah 45:7, Proverbs 16:4, Romans 9:19-21, Romans 11:22).

 

One is permitted to ask, however, whether the phrase “cause of sin” is the equivalent of the phrase “author of sin” [Clark coming from the traditional definition]. Is the latter phrase used to deny God’s universal causality? Obviously not, for the same people who affirm causality deny the authorship. They must have intended a difference. An illustration is close at hand. God is not the author of this book, as the Arminians would be the first to admit; but he is its ultimate cause as the Bible teaches. Yet I am the author. Authorship, therefore, is one kind of cause, but there are other kinds. The author of a book is its immediate cause; God is its ultimate cause. This distinction between first and secondary causation – explicitly maintained in the Westminster Confession – has not always been appreciated, even by those who are in general agreement. John Gill, for example, who is so excellent on so much, failed to grasp the distinction between the immediate author and the ultimate cause. For this reason there are some faulty passages in his otherwise fine work. Such is the difficulty of the problem and so confused are the discussions from the time of the patristics to the present day, that some of the best Calvinists have not extricated themselves completely from Scholastic errors. Not only Berkouwer, but even Jonathan Edwards, in spite of Calvin, still spoke about God’s permission of sin.

 

When, accordingly, the discussion comes to God’s being the author of sin, one must understand the question to be, Is God the immediate cause of sin? Or, more clearly, Does God commit sin? This is a question concerning God’s holiness. Now, it should be evident that God no more commits sin than he is writing these words. Although the betrayal of Christ was foreordained from eternity as a means of effecting the atonement, it was Judas, not God, who betrayed Christ. The secondary causes in history are not eliminated by divine causality, but rather they are made certain. And the acts of these secondary causes, whether they be righteous acts or sinful acts, are to be immediately referred to the agents; and it is these agents who are responsible.

 

God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact that he does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Judas to betray Christ, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition God cannot sin. At this point it must be particularly pointed out that God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. But God is “Ex-lex” [Above the law].

 

True it is that if a man, a created being, should cause or try to cause another man to sin, this attempt would be sinful. The reason is plain. The relation of one man to another is entirely different from the relation of God to any man. God is the creator; man is a creature. And the relation of a man to the law is equally different from the relation of God to the law. What holds in the one situation does not hold in the other. God has absolute and unlimited rights over all created things. Of the same lump he can “make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor. The clay has no claims on the potter. Among men, on the contrary, rights are limited.

 

The idea that God is above law can be explained in another particular. The laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine “nature”. They are applicable only to human conditions. For example, God cannot steal, not only because whatever he does is right, but also because he owns everything: There is no one to steal from. Thus the law that defines sin envisages human conditions and has no relevance to a sovereign Creator. 

 

As God cannot sin, so in the next place, God is not responsible for sin, even though he decrees it. Perhaps it would be well, before we conclude, to give a little more Scriptural evidence that God indeed decrees and causes sin. 2 Chronicles 18:20-22 read: “Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will entice him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee.” This passage definitely says that the Lord caused the prophets to lie. Other similar passages ought easily to come to one’s remembrance. But that God is not responsible for the sin he causes is a conclusion closely connected with the preceding argument.

 

Another aspect of the human conditions presupposed by the laws God imposes on man is that they carry with them a penalty that cannot be inflicted on God. Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme power can punish him for disobedience. God, on the contrary, cannot be responsible for the plain reason that there is no power superior to him; no greater being can hold him accountable; no one can punish him; there is no one to whom God is responsible; there are no laws which he could disobey. The sinner, therefore, and not God, is responsible; the sinner alone is the author of sin. Man has no free will, for salvation is purely of grace; and God is sovereign.