WCF:

Of Providence

5: 5. 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 hath 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.

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof:

6: 1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation 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.

LC 19:

Q19: What is God’s providence towards the angels?

A19: God by his providence permitted some of the angels, willfully and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation, limiting and ordering that, and all their sins, to his own glory; and established the rest in holiness and happiness; employing them all, at his pleasure, in the administrations of his power, mercy, and justice.

Contra: “…permission in the case of the Almighty has no specific meaning,” Gordon Clark.¹

____________________

¹Gordon Clark, What do Presbyterians Believe?, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1965), 67. Perhaps this work should have been entitled, What do Hypercalvinists believe?

Bullinger:

Chapter 8: Of Man’s Fall, Sin and the Cause of Sin

God Is Not the Author of Sin, and How Far He Is Said to Harden. It is expressly written: Thou art not a God who delights in wickedness. Thou hatest all evildoers. Thou destroyest those who speak lies (Psa. 5:4 ff.). And again: When the devil lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). Moreover, there is enough sinfulness and corruption in us that it is not necessary for God to infuse into us a new or still greater perversity. When, therefore, it is said in Scripture that God hardens, blinds and delivers up to a reprobate mind, it is to be understood that God does it by a just judgment as a just Judge and Avenger. Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man’s evil into good, as he did in the case of Joseph’s brethren, or because he governs sins lest they break out and rage more than is appropriate. St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion: "What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly. But he who is good would not permit evil to be done, unless, being omnipotent, he could bring good out of evil." Thus wrote Augustine.

Blake:

Argument 5.

Fifthly, from verse 25, “If the breaking of the Jews be by blinding; ten the engrafting is by giving Faith, but the former us true, ver. 25. Ergo the latter.

Answer. Here is the third Argument, I grant conclusion, and return to the same answer. Jewish blindness keeps them out of a church-state, and so from all the Faith in the Covenant; and when the veil shall be taken away, they shall be reinvested in a church-state and Covenant-condition. For proof there is added, porosis, “blinding or hardening is,” verse 7, “opposed to that state which the Election obtained, by which,” ver. 8, “they had a spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, ears that they should not hear,” verse 10, “Whereby their eyes were darkened that they might not see,” from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation, Ames animad. in Remom. Script. Act 1. Cap. 16. Hoc ipsum ad reprobationen spectare Apostolus Paulus claré Opposition opposita sunt attributa: “If the blinding be the effect of reprobation, and the breaking off to be by blinding, then the engrafting is by enlightening, and that enlightening is according to Election, and so is all one with giving of Faith.”

The proposition being; if the blinding be the effect of reprobation, and the breaking is by blinding, then engrafting is by enlightening, and that according to Election, then the assumption can be no other, but that blindness is the effect of reprobation, and the breaking off is by blinding. No one of the Contra-Remonstrates worthy the name of an adversary has taught this doctrine: It that which their adversaries indeed charge upon them, but that which they unanimously do disclaim. I have heard that reprobation is the antecedent of sin, but never that it was the cause; and that sin is a consequent of it, but never the effect. Reprobation is the Act of God, and in case it be the cause of blindness, then God is the cause of blindness; so that the Contra-remonstrants have got a sweet Advocate to cast that upon them, that none of their adversaries (though they have turned every stone to do it) could never prove by them. And the other member, that casting away is by blinding, is little better. The Apostle speaks in another manner; Blindness was their guilt, and casting off, “because of unbelief they were broken off,” verse 20, upon this account “God did not spare them,” as it follows in the next verse. The work, and the wages, the guilt, and the punishment are not one: Unbelief and breaking off, are the work and the wages, the guilt and the punishment: breaking off then, as not blinding. The Apostle lays all at man’s door, makes this blindness the moving case, according to that of the Prophet, “Thy destruction us of thyself,” and God only the severe, but just Judge. Our Author lays all upon God, God’s reprobation causes blindness, and their breaking off is by blinding; here is no hand but God’s, in their destruction. And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied, so that blindness is no effect of reprobation, breaking off is by blinding; here is no hand but God’s, in their destruction. And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied, so that blindness is no effect of reprobation, breaking off being not by blinding; what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced? Election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation, do not per omnia quadrare, otherwise as Election leads to salvation without any merit of works, so Reprobation should lead to destruction without any merit of sin, which Contra-remonstrants unanimously deny, though we find it here affirmed. It is further said, that from verse 8, 10, of this chapter. Anti-Arminians gather absolute Reprobation, and then explaining what this absolute Reprobation is, in the words spoken to. But though much be spoke of the irrespective decree both between us and Arminians, and also among ourselves: yet I would fain learn what one Anti-Arminian ever made Reprobation absolute in this sense; Amesius is quoted, but the word [absolute] is not found in him; And Gomarus, a man for the irrespective decree as much as any (and upon that account entered his dissent in the Synod of Dort, where respective to reprobation was denied, and Sublapssarian opinions established) yet he peremptorily denies any reprobation absolute in this sense; “(a) Neither does God,” (says he) “absolutely and barely destinate any man to destruction, without subordinate means; but he destinates him to just destruction, that is by, and for, sin justly to be executed.” Analysis Epist. Ad Rom. Cap. 9, p., 60. Neither will he have this decree to effect the sin; that is the just Medium of destruction. In the same page he says; “(b) God does not decree to effect sin, but to suffer, or not to hinder, and to govern for his glory; Neither does God effect all that he doth decree, but those things which eh decreed to effect, of those he is the author, us all the good that is done: “But the evil which is decreed not to hinder in his creature, that he does not effect, because he did not decree to effect them; but only permits, and governs them; and at least justly according to his decree, punishes them.” And Doctor Prideaux, Lect. 1. de absoluto decreto. “(c) That necessary distinction between the effect and consequent (viz., of reprobation) loses not a few knots; which many understanding, or not duly heeding, are brought into straits by their adversaries. The condensation of water (that I may use Augustine’s instance), is consequent of the absence of the Sun, not an effect. The ruin of a house, of itself tending to decay, necessarily follows upon the want of repair, which the Master might do in case he pleased, but will not, neither is he bound. Sin, no otherwise follows upon reprobation; not as a cause efficient, but deficient, not whereby any thing is removed that is present, but that is not supplied which is wanting.” And Master Ball in his larger Catechism, p., 57, “Sin is the effect of man’s free will, and condemnation is an effect of justice inflicted upon man for sin and disobedience; but the decree of God which is good, is the cause of neither.” The signs of Reprobation may appear in those that are thus dischurched, according to that which is quoted out of Ames, but not as an effect of it. The severity which God shows in not sparing, but breaking off these natural Branches, is explicitly no more then that which Jesus Christ did threaten against them, Mat. 21:43. That the Kingdom of Heaven should be taken from them, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof; the same which he threatens against Ephesus, Rev 2:5, in taking away their Candlestick, which is the effect of their own sin, and not of God’s decree.

Thomas Blake, Vindiciæ Foederis; Or, A Treatise of the Covenant of God Entered with Man-Kinde (London: Printed for Abel Roper, at the Sun against St. Dunstins Chirch in Fleet-street, 1658), 340-342  [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; Latin marginal references not included; square brackets original; and underlining mine.]

[Notes:  Fristly, the author Blake alludes to was Tombs.  Secondly, I have used the earlier edition, even though the later 1562 edition adds material, the comments which are of interest here on Reprobation and the causation of sin are identical.]

Thomas Blake (1596-1657) was a Puritan minister in the Church of England, who wrote and published a number of works in the middle of the 17th century. Blake was also closely connected to the Westminster Assembly, involved with debates arising out of the committee that examined the issue of infant baptism. Moreover, his writings on baptism carried the endorsement of several members of the Assembly. Source: sacra doctrina

Taffin:

1. Sam. 1:6.
Amos 3:6.
Jere, La. 3:38.
Job. 30:39.
Psalm 104,
& 105, & 106,
& 107, & 136.
Math. 10:29.

18. Moreover, as concerning the transgression of Adam & Eve, it is certain that the same never came to pass without the decree and ordinance of God. And indeed, the Holy Scripture in infinite places does testify, that all things depend upon his providence & decree. If a sparrow falls not to the ground without the will of God, shall man, so excellent a creature, created after the image of God, take so horrible a fall without his providence and decree? A man may give a little child some small stripe with a rod, without the parents’ appointment, which notwithstanding they would peradventure dissemble and wink at: but none dare undertake to cut him off the stone, or to cut off any limb, without his Father’s good will and authority: even so, the greater that the importance of Adam’s transgression was, in that it tended to destroy & overthrow so excellent a work of God, namely, man created to his image: the more are we to believe, that it was never done without his counsel or decree. Moreover, if in his providence he has ordained what he will have done with all other creatures, has he not, think you, ordained what shall be done with the principal and most excellent, for which he created all the others? Again, if God creating all the world, and man to his own image, purposed that the principal end of his work should be the manifestation of his glory: did he not also ordain means and a preparation, to declare his love in his redemption through Christ, & to make manifest his mercy to his elect, & his justice to the reprobate. And in this especially does the glory of God appear. If there were sin in the fall of Adam, so was there in the pursuit against Jesus Christ: And yet lo, the Apostle speaking unto Almighty God does say:

Doubtless against the holy Son Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel gather together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel had before determined to be done, [Acts 4:27.].

Again, speaking to the Jews an in express words, they object unto them, that by the hands of the wicket they took Jesus Christ and crucified him, being to them delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, [Acts 2:23.]. Albeit they cannot comprehend that Adam’s transgression wherein there was sin, came not to pass without the providence and decree of God, and yet that God is not the author of sin. Must they therefore deny his providence, & those places of Holy Scripture, wherein the Holy Ghost does so often and so evidently testify the same? Or contrary to so many testimonies of his word will they make God the author of sin? They do not murmur, blaspheme, or reply against us, but against the Holy Ghost? Must they, because they cannot comprehend how it should be possible that God should prohibit Adam that thing, which nevertheless came not to pass without his decree, will, and eternal counsel, or maliciously gather, that in God there should be two contrary wills? Let us believe so much as he testifies in his word, and reverence so much as we do not understand. If we should conjoin the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ with the fall of Adam, we should soon confess, that as well as the one as the other came to pass by the providence of God.

19.Yet if it were requisite to consider some reasons, the same which Saint Augustine does note might well content us. We safely do confess, says he, that we do well believe that God, the Lord of all, who created all things good, and who both did foresee that from that they should digress to bad, or knew that it did better beseem his almighty goodness to make of evil good, than not to suffer the evil, has so determined to lives of Angels and men, that in the same he would manifest, full what free will was about to do: next, what his grace, with the judgment of his justice, were able to bring to pass [Augustine of reproving & grace, c. 10.]. First Saint Augustine says, in that he calls God the Lord of all, he does show that he had power and authority to dispose of his creatures as he would. Secondly, in that he says, that God created all things good, he notes that God is the author of the goodness that has been in all his creatures, namely, in man, created to his image, but not of the sin afterward committed. Thirdly, in that he knew, that from good they should degenerate to evil, and yet that voluntarily he permitted it, he propounds this reason: that it better beseemed him to show his almighty goodness, in making of evil good, then in permitting evil: And then he shows that the good God gathered out of the fall of Adam. Firs, that it served to show what free will was able to do, thereby signifying that there is no steadfastness but in God: and yet that Adam was inexcusable in his fall. For having created man with free will, his sin was not upon compulsion, but voluntarily: and, indeed, he did eat of the forbidden fruit, not to the end to obey the decree of God, where of he was yet ignorant: but at the instigation of Satan, and upon a lust to be like God. And therefore, when God reproved him, he complained not of God’s decree but of his wife Eve, and his wife of the Serpent : and God in his sentence pronounced against them, he denounces them all to be guilty and worthy of punishment [Gen. 3:6, and 3:12, 13, 14.].

John Taffin, The Amendment of Life, Comprised in Fower Books: Faithfully Translated according the the French Coppie (Londini: Impensis Georg. Bishop, 1595), 439-441. [Some spelling modernized, some reformatting, underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »