God's Decree and Man's Judgment

God's Decree, Secondary Causes, and the Author of Sin

Yesterday I posted a video on the YouTube channel the 371st I think we ought to have a pizza party or something for number 400 when we get around to it but the 371st video a response to someone on YouTube in some prophecy channel or something that he took a clip a brief clip from the Bible ants a man broadcast and Posted it in regards to one of the questions that had been asked of me by both the folks I was debating at that time and It had to do with the rape of children.

It was one of those emotional You know things try to get your emotions going so you don't actually think very clearly in regards to God and his sovereignty over the universe. I'm not gonna repeat what I said on that.

It's about a 25 minute long video. You can watch that for yourself. But I did want to address some further issues that sort of flow out from that and in the process respond to some questions that have been asked in other venues as well.

Try to Use my time as best I can in providing a response to some of these questions. And so we read in the Westminster Confession of Faith God from all eternity did by the most wise and Holy Council of his own freewill of his own will freely and Unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass that is the fundamental assertion of the nature of God in regards To the Reformed Faith, of course.

But it says yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin this is where the issue is joined by most people because they don't want to consider or Really allow the issues of secondary causes to come into into the picture if in God's Decretive will evil would exist from their perspective that makes God the author of it.

They don't seem to understand that God decrees to bring about those conditions whereby evil will certainly come into existence. However, he is not the one who commits the acts of evil. He is the one that creates the conditions in which that evil will come into existence.

But he judges Individuals based upon their desiring to do these things. His desire is bringing about his greater glory. Their desire, of course is their own personal promotion fulfillment of lusts. Whatever, you know, there's a myriad of human desires that are fulfilled in sin.

But when people go yeah, but that doesn't matter because if if God ordained that it would happen. Then the the person doing it is irrelevant. Well, no, it's not irrelevant especially when we emphasize as I did in the video given the biblical data that in the one action of Joseph's brothers selling him to slavery in Assyria coming against Israel in the crucifixion of Jesus and there are so many others that we could then expand that out to in that one action you have God's just and holy desires being Fulfilled and then you have man's sinful desires being fulfilled and God does not judge us based upon a presumed knowledge of his decrees.

The only way we know God's decrees is either by looking at the past because that's always what happens or By those few times when God gives us the content of those decrees as they impact the future hence prophecy and things like that, but we do not have general access to the decrees of God we have his Prescriptive will that has been revealed to us in Scripture and we are held accountable for our obedience to that prescriptive.

Well, we are not judged on the basis of a knowledge of God's decrees. And that's important in recognizing that we don't know who the elect are all those other things that flow from them as Someone just to point out well in channel Deuteronomy 29 29 the secret things belong unto the Lord our God.

But those things which are revealed belong into us and to our children forever that we may do all the words of this law very very important things to keep in mind, but when we say that God is not the author of sin one correspondent has asked as He ordained the existence of evil in the sin.

How can he not be considered on some level the creator of it at least indirectly well in the sense that Scripture itself. Has God saying in Isaiah? I have Created light and darkness. I have created Shalom and raw.

Then in that overarching sense, yes, but the Westminster Confession of Faith says author and an author. That flows from that author's heart it reflects what that author is sin. Reflects the creatures rebellion against God and so when we talk about author of sin we are talking about a First level source not not secondary sources.

Or bringing secondary sources into existence that will certainly do XY or Z Satan and demons or mankind or whatever else it might be. In the sense that God's a creator of Everything than any theistic system unless you have a completely ignorant God who has no knowledge of anything at all.

Would in some way shape or form have something to do with the existence of evil no matter what theistic system you have you have? To deal with that in some some fashion. The reformed person is saying well in God's divine decree evil is to exist.

Yes, but that does not make him the author thereof. He is not the one committing it. He's not taking innocent human beings putting a gun to their head say do this or die. That is that is what is being protected and was being said another question.

I understand the nature of second causes. But as he is the first cause then how then is he not the author? Well again because secondary causes do this on the basis of their own desire for rebellion God's Purpose in all things is always holy and just and using those secondary causes he can do so perfectly because they likewise are condemned sinners.

Any extension of grace to them any time that they have in existence after really after the fall of Adam given? You know the the federal representation of mankind in Adam is an extension of God's grace.

And so I think recognizing the difference between first the secondary causes and the what author means is relevant there. Since God is able to stop the evil and not only chooses not too many cases. But even more he decrees the evil enabling it to happen.

I'm not sure I'd go there. How is God not considered the very least an accessory before and during the fact and therefore culpable along with man who pulls the trigger? Well again, I think that God actually does Restrain the vast amount of man's evil as we discussed last time I think that mankind in hell is the perfect example of What happens when that restraint is removed from man?

And he is allowed to sin as he as he sees fit without any restraint. So when it says Decrease the evil enabling it to happen the only way I can understand that is that he brought creation into existence if he didn't bring creation into existence.

Then evil could not be enabled to happen. So I'm really not certain of exactly what what that means. But how is God not considered the very least an accessory before and during the fact? He's the judge.

That's why and He determines the categories in which judgment is going to take place and he has said that his intentions and his purposes are always just holy and righteous and they are and we see that in the examples given to us in Scripture and We see that he restrains evil.

Remember this story in Genesis 20 where he withholds the king from committing evil. We we know that the Holy Spirit is involved in doing this and using the the law to curb men's evil in many ways but even more than that the the important thing is to is to keep in mind is that the arena of judgment that God has Created he is a creator of this universe.

He has the right to determine the categories in which things happen. It's not a matter of our laws or anything like that being applied to God. That he has decreed that the arena in which judgments that happen is that?

Regarding our desires what we do and why we do it. While mankind it's dangerous very dangerous to give to mankind the Right to and shall we say re hearts and minds? That's what these hate crimes laws are all about.

We can't see into the hearts and minds of men. God can see in the hearts and minds of men. Perfectly and in the judgment, he will demonstrate this will be part of what the judgment is all about as a demonstration.

That in every action he was righteous and just in what he did and mankind was was not. The Westminster Confession goes on to say nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures. This of course is where the Westminster Confession is Asserting that God is not taking innocent people who desire to do good.

Who want to turn to God or do not want to do evil and he forces them to do evil? This is in no way shape or form the case even in fact regeneration itself. When when people like Norm Geisler and others who will be listening to later in the program today Complain and in some senses mock the biblical representation of the Regeneration of the heart of man raising man to life Freeing him from the bondage to sin.

They say well, you know, God's God's saving you against your will. He's forcing you to do something against your will we actually have been enslaved to sin it is a freeing of man from those bonds a Resurrection to spiritual life that is actually being discussed there.

That is not a Even that is not doing violence to the will of the creature by changing his nature. The will decides based upon the choices presented to it by the nature to change that nature of course is to then is what the Holy Spirit of God does in regeneration, but in reaction to that line from the Westminster Confession.

Nor is violence off the will of the creatures, but if the individual is persuaded by irresistible means IE God's decree man's own intellection Limitations parental training habits and the power of sin.

How is this much different? Well, of course that whole list of things are all completely different for one another. And I don't understand individuals persuaded by irresistible means I I don't know what that means.

And none of those would in any way Violate what the Westminster Confession says nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures. This is not a situation where that that that in is that some innocent person?

Is there such an innocent person existed is being forced to do something against his or her desire at that point? In fact, I think the only argument you might make about Violence being offered all the creatures is how many times God restrains evil?

And I guess you might make an argument at that point Continues on saying man is acting With the consent of his will but how could he act? Otherwise as all the conditions were to lead him to act in accordance with what God had already determined.

That's not the point. The point is that he's acting in accordance with his will that's what his that's what this heart desires. The other possibility is well, there just has to be libertarianism. There can be no divine decree.

God cannot know the future. Really it's there can be no theism at this point and God has no right to determine that the realm of judgment is going to Be the realm of judgment. That is in fact within Temporal constraints within time and man is to be judged on the basis of his response to That revelation God has made of his law within man's heart and externally in in the Word of God.

That's simply God's right to do that. That's how he's set it up. I don't know if there's anything more to be offered than that. In answer that question It says how is this ultimately different from a fatalistic or mechanistic view of reality in man's will because God is personal he is accomplishing his personal Will and that is his decree in glorifying himself and that the creatures that are involved in so doing act upon their desires.

And they do so under his decree and he glorifies himself in saving a particular people unto His own glory and for his own purposes. And the Westminster Confession goes on to say Nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away.

But in order but rather a staff a questioner says in other words man's free will is limited or contingent upon God's decree. Well, everything is is contingent upon God's decree. It is God's decree that man will function in this way and therefore Satan cannot for example take away Those faculties and turn him into a mere robot.

He certainly as a fallen creature and as a rebel is Limited in comparison to Adam at that point. But still it is it is God's decree that keeps man from Ceasing to be human and ceasing to have the imago Dei the image of God.

Then The Westminster says although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions. Yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw his future or that which would come to pass upon such conditions, which?

Interestingly enough would be a repudiation of Molin ism. In other words God has chosen what will happen based purely upon reason sufficient to himself and not based upon anything independent or outside of himself ie man's will and Yes, that would be the case man's will as a part of that decree and Again, man is only judged within the temporal realm not in the realm of having knowledge of God's God's existence.

Just a couple other questions in regards to this perspective one question was asked. God certainly has the right to create something and then to destroy something Romans 9 20 to 21. However, when it comes to the issues of blame and punishment It appears to human reason unfair to blame or punish with someone for doing something if that person is quote unable and quote to do.

Otherwise, what am I not understanding here? Well again, God has not taken away man's ability To act in a righteous fashion. That is a part of his fallen Adam. This is primarily an argument against federalism and against God's dealing with man in a federal fashion and that is dealing with man as the fallen children of of Adam and then positively dealing with Men as they are united with Christ and Christ and becomes their heads with his righteousness is their righteousness.

Etc, etc. Again, the issue is blame and punishment is based upon the desires of the heart. None no one has has desired to not do these things and so that's where the judgment comes in not based upon. Well, you know since they've fallen in Adam and they've become enemies of God and they're no longer capable of doing spiritual good.

Because they have spiritually died. Therefore they can't be blamed anymore and that's like saying the person who has you know Drunk himself into a stupor can no longer be blamed. For what he does when he's in a drunken stupor well, our law says no, this is the realm of in which a person is to be judged and if you've put yourself in that position and You then lose your faculties or control of your faculties.

You're driving a car and somebody we're still going to blame you for that. Despite the pre-existing condition of your drunkenness. One more question as you can tell we've got got one call on hold and lots of other things to deal with today.

But you can always slow the recording down if you want to second question, how does our will even work. Understanding that it is voluntary spontaneous contingent yet not indifferent since it is not free to determine itself.

From an extra volitional vantage point and since God's decreed of will cannot be thwarted Ahab was persuaded even after God's Revelation Judas also was worn in the similar way and yet was possessed by Satan and betrayed Jesus.

Anyway I'm not fully following the question. There's a far better discussion of the functioning of the will of man than I can give you. In Jonathan Edwards, he went about as fully into that is I think you can if you go that that direction.

But again, the the point is the will functions on the basis of the desires presented to it by the nature of man and As such that then becomes the realm of which judgment takes place acting upon our desires and what what our heart wants to do.

I'm not exactly certain. I mean certainly in regards to Judas I Don't know what it is about Judas a lot of people just really get very uptight about but there's a lot of folks that are pro Judas. They want to make sure Judas gets a fair shake, you know.

And I guess it is part of the humanism of our day that that people would be so Focused upon quote-unquote individual rights. I'm not talking about this particular email but so focused upon an individual rights that you can take someone like Judas who is a sinner who is Rightly under the wrath of God and be more concerned about his quote-unquote being treated Justly than the role that by by divine decree He is to take in bringing about the greatest act of redemption in the crucifixion of the Son of God.

It is amazing to me how many people just just oh, you know, we just gotta be. I have so I don't like the stuff about son of perdition, you know, and you're just like wow You this is I really think this is primarily a modern Western thing.

I don't think the people of the ancient world who had a much more holistic view of man and a much less Individualistic view of man Would have ever even understood what those what those complaints are about to be perfectly honest with.

I think they would have gone. What are you folks talking about? And finally, the question is asked. How will Christians be judged differently than unbelievers yet still responsible every thought word indeed.

Well Christians are judged regarding their sins in Christ. That that is that is a past tense reality and so that the judgment of the Christian is in regards to our utilization of the the gifts and the blessings that God has given to us and It is a very different judgment than the unbeliever who is standing there responsible for his sins we have had a sin-bearer who has borne our sins and that is not the same situation as As the unbelievers, so there's a major difference between those.