Tim Staples on Calvinism

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White.

Upcoming Travel, Teaching, and the Tim Staples Discussion

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning after a week's hiatus. Good to be back with you on the program. We have much to do if you have looked at my blog. You know that over the next six weeks or so actually even longer now into March.

But especially the next six weeks very very busy. Next week just just a reminder just to give you an idea, especially those in the Phoenix area. We have so much to do today I'm rushing. But on Saturday, I will be speaking three times at Sovereign Grace Bible Church in Phoenix on Sunday both services at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church on Tuesday and Wednesday I will be on with Michael Brown on his radio program discussing Calvinism.

On Thursday Tim Staples will be my guest here on the dividing line for a 90-minute edition of the dividing line to discuss first Corinthians chapter 3 and Purgatory and Friday and Friday night Saturday morning I'll be speaking at the Arabic Baptist Church in Phoenix with Sam Shamoon and George Saig and others on the subject of Islam.

The weekend after I'll be in Conyers, Georgia and already put the information on the blog about that and then just a few weeks after that heading for London and Ministry there so a very very very busy time and I already have a number of things coming up in March and April as well, so Good good times in the sense of having lots to do but so lots of preparation wide variety of subjects.

We're going to be addressing during this time period. So please pray for us as we pursue these opportunities of ministry. It's always good to have the opportunity to discuss these things. Given that well, we can't expect the media to discuss them and we can't expect much in the Christian media to discuss some of these issues either.

Today I am Joined on the air. I appreciate his taking the time to do so by the man of mystery the king of the blogosphere none other than my fellow blogger and really not. It's it's not really fair because Turretin fan has his own blog that is about 14 times more active than mine is and so He he makes my my pittance of output looks so Small and insignificant that I think we need to move him into the Morpheus position in the prosopology on graphic on the.

Because Turretin fan Seems how many do you type at about 300 words per minute something along those lines? Well that I can even type faster and you know I still can't produce the amount of material that you do.

It's it is an amazing thing, but I asked the the great Turretin fan to join me. I was trying to figure out a nickname for you, but tur just doesn't work. And I was thinking Francis, but that doesn't really work these days either.

Frank is right out. So we'll just call you Turretin fan. Yeah, well that's that sounds like you're a rapper, and I just really can't. I can't hear you doing rap at all. Anyway, I asked her to fan to join him today because about I don't know ten days or so ago I forget exactly how long ago it was now I was listening to Tim Staples series on purgatory.

I found a very very interesting in a 5 CD set. That very little the information was specifically on the doctrine of purgatory. I at least appreciated the fact that mr. Staples recognizes that purgatory is a synthetic doctrine in the sense that it is Based upon preceding concepts that you have to accept for it to make any sense whatsoever and I discovered that in the midst of his discussion of purgatory was a fairly lengthy about half an hour critique of Calvinism that I found Just fascinating for many many reasons.

I generally find the criticism that's offered by graduates of the Jimmy Swaggart Bible College of Calvinism to be extremely interesting if not generally very accurate and It does seem to me that converts no matter what they convert to tend to bring a lot of what they left with them.

And I think that happened with with mr. Staples as well, and so I provided the the audio file to a turret and fan and said if you would like to join me and responding to some of the things that Tim Staples said especially because These tend to be issues that you have dealt with on your blog over the years in in a great deal of depth.

So wouldn't you said be the case?

Yes, some of them of course. Some relate specifically to Calvinism there. There's other issues as well some philosophical issues that come up and a little bit of patristic.

Argumentation as well. Yeah a lot of a lot of The really ages-old debate now of exegeting Augustine which again illustrated I think the various stages in Augustine's life and and the problems that one encounters when attempting to bring him into Conformity with with anyone's exact position You're going to find that to be really impossible to do but still Not exactly a fair representation of everything that Augustine had to say so unfortunately even Having done a little editing.

I see 38 minutes on my screen here as far as Mr. Staples were obviously not to get to everything he had to say In in this program, but I want to get started especially because sadly When when someone like Tim Staples or Jimmy Akin Addresses Calvinism for many Roman Catholics, this is all they're ever going to hear about John Calvin and so a Shall we say an unfair representation is going to stick with them for a very very long time.

So let's just go ahead and dive into this. Let me let me start With with what he said, especially concerning his assertion that from Calvin's perspective in essence what he communicates and and this He doesn't use these exact words, but we'll see the words.

He does use in essence. He communicates that in Calvinism God In essence forces men to do evil and that God is actually working this evil within them and Hence that God is is in some way Directly committing evil.

Let's listen to what he has to say here. Dr.

Merrill Unger, for example who did great work in demonstrating the veracity of Scripture through actually.

I was going to start a little bit in that because we're short on time for the Lutheran human cooperation is necessary.

But there's an emphasis on faith alone to the exclusion of good works as being necessary. With that comes a skepticism concerning any thought of merit at all for the Calvinist Cooperation is virtually non-existent.

But in both cases works becomes almost a bad word with reference to justification when all this then filters down to the thousands of Non-denominational ecclesial communities and various denominations who are not as theologically sophisticated.

As are the more traditional Lutheran and Reformed communities. You have a real mess.

Well, I guess we should start a stop and just for a moment say well, thank you. Mr. Staples for recognizing Communities that are a little more theologically sophisticated than others. I think it's about the last positive thing I can come up with as far as that goes.

But he did at least admit and I think it is interesting. Francis Beckwith likewise Recognizes that it's it's the Reformed folks that provide the most cogent objections to his own position, even though he was never reformed.

It's it's fascinating and reading his book that he's constantly responding to the very positions. He himself allegedly never held. I find that interesting.

But anyway, the filtered down theology usually and almost predictably includes an immediate negative response if anyone posits Cooperation with the grace of God or good works to be essential for salvation for believers who have reached the age of accountability.

Anyone and of course that would include us Catholics. But anyone who speaks of good works as necessary for salvation? Well, they're immediately accused of teaching a work salvation. That is opposed to Ephesians chapter 2 verses 8 and 9.

I.

Just stop right there and say this is why I've always always always said from the time I was a skinny college student with hair It's not Ephesians 2 8 through 9. It's Ephesians 2 8 through 10. Don't you remember that you were in.

You were in that class when you we both looked very different and.

I.

Kept em. I looked more different than you did. I. Okay, that's fine I'm talking to rich here. Not not to a terrorism fan. Everybody's going. Oh, that's a clue. No, it's not But anyway, I have always told people don't memorize Ephesians 2 8 and 9 memorize Ephesians 2 8 9 and 10 and you'll be cutting off the vast majority of objections that People will be able to throw at you because it is right there that you have the proper relationship Between faith and works that is lined out for you.

And if you don't Give the doll story then people are gonna trip you up just as Tim Staples has done with many an unsuspecting person.

But now before we get to a Catholic response to all of this Consider this as well when I speak of the passivity of the will in Lutheran thought which has been and still is. Problematic though as I mentioned some progress has been made in the dialogue.

Strict Calvinist take this that Luther called the bondage of the will even further folks when Luther and Lutheran say man's will is powerless to cooperate in his own salvation or of course Not to mention the salvation of others.

They did not and do not go so far as to say that God predestines for evil or damnation or that God Operates the will of men whether it be to good or evil. At least I should say here Lutherans Do not go this far.

However Luther himself is another question. He seems to have held a more Calvinist view at least in times in his writings. But that's beyond the scope of what we're doing here. I'm gonna stop right there.

I.

Please feel free to to comment on what he says here but it does strike me as interesting that someone in his position would recognize that there was a earlier Luther view found the bondage of the will that is is significantly stronger than what we might call the developed Lutheran view of Melanchthon and others that came after him.

He at least is recognizing that strong that strong emphasis, but he's going to get into this this idea of in essence Arguing that God is the author of sin. And that that Calvin actually makes those statements by quoting from The Institutes of the Christian religion.

So if you have your institutes nearby if you have a copy of the Institute's he's not using the best translation, but at least in my opinion, but You might want to grab it because he will actually I think in each instance give the reference.

You can actually look it up yourself follow it along and you will see What sections he's quoting and also what he's missing In in each of these comments, should we just press forward from there Turgeon van?

Yes.

I would just before we press on you notice that he Even brings up this word bondage of the will and he does. He says that God operates men's wills to do evil. But he doesn't. He doesn't provide any explanation to help the listener figure out what Luther's position was.

He makes it sound as though God is, you know, driving the man like a human would drive a truck and If you read what Luther has to say It's the man's nature is corrupted by sin and that man's corrupt nature is what leads him into these sins.

It's not as though God is forcing him to do things against his will or driving him like a truck. It's it's nothing like that, but unfortunately what he just Presented in such a way that you don't find out those type of important details.

Well, I also noted in a quotation is coming up here in a moment from book 1 chapter 18 section 1 That he left off in the middle of a sentence and the end of the sentence would have Thrown light on the exact same subject.

So it does make me wonder about one of two possible things I have found Roman Catholic apologists and I found apologists in general Who are more than happy to even when the original material is available to them if they really have a disrespect for a particular perspective they are willing to utilize secondary material and not check the original citations and it frequently is attached to whether they have a respect for what they're talking about or not and so I have seen certainly with the folks the Catholic answers a And and don't don't miss Use this term.

I'm using this in a particular way here an incestuous self citation where you have one person quotes the next person and then he gets quoted by the third person and the third person gets quoted by the first person again.

And it creates this false idea this false sense of multiple citations and multiple sources. But it's really just a bunch of circular self citation. Of course we can all think of one particular internet apologist that is the king of this Who basically just recites himself so many thousands of times that he has now taken over about a third of the Internet.

Just simply to store all the stuff that's written, but that's neither here nor there. Let's get into the citation that he makes of Calvin here coming up now, of course.

The Catholic Church teaches that God could never He could not ever Directly will or cause moral evil. However, the Calvinist argues that God positively wills and Predestines only certain souls for heaven while also willing the rest for the damnation of hell.

Not only is it impossible for men to cooperate with God for his own salvation. But it is God who actually operates his will to either good or evil. I mean, well you talk about Purgatory going out the window, of course.

But we've got all kind of problems here. John Calvin claimed that nature is so totally depraved and he viewed God as so absolutely Sovereign that free will was nothing but a farce to him. The will cannot be free according to Calvin.

Calvin stated for example in his Institutes of the Christian religion in book 2 chapter 2 paragraph 13 he says. Quote. The grace offered by the Lord is not merely one which every individual has full liberty to choose to receive or reject.

But a grace which produces in the heart both choice and will close. Quote. See for Calvin man is too depraved to even be able to cooperate with God's grace after conversion and God's sovereignty renders free will and impossibility of course.

The Catholic response is that God is powerful enough to create man with a will that is truly free and though man Cannot choose God without God's assistance. We agree here. God does assist man so that he may choose he does not compel and there is certainly no inner Necessity here.

There is nothing in other words There's nothing in God's nature that would render his creation of man with free will impossible.

All right, sir. It's van.

Well, you heard him start with the idea of the operating the will that that our line he's already used before. But then he he brings it in in a kind of negative way. He says we as Catholics. That's how he describes himself.

He says we we don't believe that man is compelled by an inner necessity to do various things. And he makes it sound as though God is forcing somehow inwardly forcing unbelievers to be unbelievers to act in an inner Sinful way.

And he also confuses as you may have caught there. He confuses the issue of total depravity. Which is really related to the state of the unbeliever before regeneration with the state of the believer after regeneration.

Yes, he did and that's a vital problem with his analysis. If you miss that Detail that total depravity isn't applicable to a regenerate believer. He still has Corruption, but now a believer actually can do things which while they're always tainted by sin they are pleasing to God in some sense.

Well, and that's especially relevant to the fact that he is attempting to defend the Roman Catholic concept of purgatory which in and of itself is related to what Allegedly regenerate people do in cooperating with the grace of God and even he would say in purgatory itself in voluntarily undergoing these Punishments that sanctify them before entering the presence of God and all the rest of these things that he's working on here in this series.

To establish the lay the foundation for the concept of purgatory. So it does strike me as odd that he would not recognize the difference between what we believe about an unregenerate person and a regenerate person and the relationship between a person's will and being either still under the slavery of sin and Unregenerate or or now in dwelt with the Holy Spirit.

So yes, he did Mix that in there and I think if I recall correctly Right now he's going to go to the second quotation where he's going to continue this drumbeat of God working this evil. In a primary way not just simply through secondary means as a result of his decree.

But in a primary way where a man is basically being forced to do something that he really doesn't want to do.

At any rate. This understanding leads to the characterization of man as little more than God's puppet. Thus John Calvin attributes both the good and the evil actions of men to God. Now I know at this point some of my Catholic hearers are saying this is unbelievable.

But folks to John Calvin and Calvinists the Catholic and biblical notion of God permitting evil and Working all things together for good is absolutely rejected. The strict Calvinist says God performs evil folks.

Let me quote from John Calvin's own words. Again from the Institutes. I'm going to quote from book 1 chapter 18 Paragraph 1 and it says. And I quote. Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting.

Because to many it seemed altogether Inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God That he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases. Close quote.

Now I hope everyone heard the chuckle in in Tim's voice there as he said closed quote. The problem is he didn't finish the quote and so both turrets and fan I have comments here. Let me let me give you a fuller quotation because unfortunately a lot of folks would only have that much to listen to.

This is a chapter 18 from other passages where God has said to bend or draw Satan himself and all the wicked to his will. There emerges a more difficult question now remember he's addressing a particular question here.

He's already laid the establishment in the previous section from numerous biblical texts about God's sovereignty and his decree. And of course we don't get anything from mr. Staples about how he can make the statements he does that that God is sovereign and yet We have this this free will of man this autonomous will of man and all the rest of these things.

But anyways for carnal sense can hardly comprehend how in acting through them He does not contract some defilement from their transgression and even in the common undertaking can be free of all blame and indeed Congestly condemn his ministers.

Hence the distinction was devised between doing and permitting. Because to me this difficulty seemed inexplicable that Satan and all the impious are so under God's hand and power the directs their malice to whatever end seems good to him and Uses their wicked deeds to carry out his judgments.

That's the part he didn't read and perhaps the moderation of those whom the appearance of absurdity alarms would be excusable. Except that they wrongly try to clear God's justice of every sinister mark by upholding a falsehood.

It seems absurd to them for man who will soon be punished for his blindness to be blinded by God's will and command. Therefore they escape by the shift that this is done only with God's permission not also by his will.

But he openly declaring that he is the doer repudiates that evasion. However that man that men can accomplish nothing except by God's secret command. That they cannot by deliberately a cop that they cannot by Deliberating Lee accomplish anything except what he has already decreed with himself and determines by a secret direction is proved by innumerable and clear testimonies and the next Two pages is Nothing, but examples of this including one.

We're gonna hear later on acts 428 that is Cited here and he concludes by saying yet from these it is more than evident that they babble and talk Absurdly who in place of God's sovereign providence Substitute bear permission as if God sat in a watchtower Awaiting chance events and his judgments thus depended upon human will.

Yes, sir, so that that's the full quotation which actually provides a lot more context. But remember the the thesis that he's trying to support is his comment. The strict Calvinist says God performs evil folks, right?

That's his that's his thesis and and his support is not that God performs evil. But but but that God decrees that evil will happen through the agency of wicked men. Not that God will do it, but that the wicked men will do it, right?

It's.

It's a little upsetting or more than a little upsetting that he does this because he if he's going to quote from the Institute he's suggesting to the listener that he has some familiarity with the Institute.

And. If you read the Institute's and read book 2 chapter 3 section 5 It tells us should anyone give utterance to the profane jeer that little praise is due to God for goodness to which he is forced. Is it not obvious to every man to reply?

It is not owing to a violent impulse but to his boundless goodness that he cannot do evil. Therefore if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded because he necessarily must do good. If the devil who can do nothing, but evil nevertheless sins voluntarily.

Can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning. This necessity is uniformly proclaimed by Augustine who even when pressed by the invid excuse me The invidious cavil of celestial hesitated not to assert it in the following terms man through liberty became a sinner but corruption ensuing as the penalty has converted Liberty into necessity.

And The you know that that argument that Calvin's making not only from Augustine's authority, but even just from common-sense God is naturally It's of his nature that he only does good. And Calvin is very clear there when talking about what God does what he actually performed.

He makes it absolutely clear that it's Impossible for God but by his nature to do anything evil any moral evil. And he contrasts that with the devil who in his opinion can only do evil and can't do any good.

And those that kind of comment where Calvin speaks clearly to the matter of what God does and contrast it with other willing agents such as the devil and human beings that that really shows that Staples is misrepresenting what Calvin's position is when he tells people that Calvinists say that God performs evil.

Well, and it it does raise the question in everyone's mind does Tim understand the distinctions that Calvin himself raises in the Institutes and.

I.

Don't know how to answer that it has not been my experience in my interactions with mr. Staples over the years that he was a careful student of the Of the statements that he would make. I point people to Colin Smith's refutation some of the comments he made when he and I were on the Bible Answer Man together back and I think it was 2000 on the the subject of the genitive case in Greek it seemed that he was drawing from secondary sources at that point and We certainly have encountered in various contexts people quoting Calvin and not allowing him to define his own terms in all sorts of books written by Protestants and others and there's plenty of Protestant writings that you would find these same citations to be found in.

So I just don't have any way of knowing Whether Tim has actually taken the time to read Calvin. But I certainly don't see any evidence that he's trying to allow Calvin to define his own terms In in regards to this this subject and as as a result He is in essence charging Calvin and Calvinists with beliefs that we simply don't hold and hence this entire criticism becomes one that is Really not not relevant to to What he's trying to raise and hence does not defend purgatory against the Reformed objections to it.

As we're gonna see he keeps bringing in this idea of the work of Christ the work of Christ none of this undoes the work Of Christ, but when he does that basically what he says is well, it's the work of Christ.

It is the first cause. It's the grace that comes from the death of Christ that allows us to do all these things. But we still have the same questions. It would be great to ask Tim and who knows maybe.

Maybe after next week, he'll want to do some some more some more programs on some related subjects. But I would love to ask him how he says. Well, yes God is sovereign and no one can be saved apart from God's grace and God's grace has to be first and all these things.

But does that then not mean that you what you're saying is God is trying to save everyone equally. But he's failing and so how does that have to do with his? Affirmation that God does not only for know all things but That this that God does have a sovereign plan that he is accomplishing.

How does you know? There's there's specific questions that have to be asked here. And I've just never heard him give a meaningful response as to how all those things fit together. So did you want us to continue on from there yes, can we continue on.

I'm pressing for doers.

Do not commit acts of depravity in spite of the command of God as Catholics understand. But because of the command of God according to John Calvin. Now that we've got it.

I've got to go back just a moment. So you hear the entirety of that because that really is I think a Major statement on his part and it is clearly where he is attempting to communicate communicate to Catholics.

A vast difference Between the Reform view and the Catholic. You listen again ever and he pleases. Close quote.

Evildoers do not commit acts of depravity in spite of the command of God as Catholics understand. But because of the command of God according to John Calvin. Now right there.

You just simply the equivocation there is. Is so blatant? Because he is he is Confusing the general command of God that says do not sin with the decree of God that is. That the forms the very fabric of time.

But he's using them as if they're synonyms to make it sound like what Calvin is saying is that God? Commands men to sin and also commands men not to sin. So he becomes this this celestial. Celestially confused being that of course us Catholics recognize doesn't exist.

But that's what that's what you Calvinists have to have. Yeah, and we're going to get to it in just a minute Lord willing and if time permits.

He.

Groups among the various things that God permits the evils that God permits and just permits in his view. Which he contrasts here with with his commands. In other words, he commands He commands these Righteous acts and despite those commands certain bad things happen.

The the primary example he's going to give us the crucifixion and to say for anyone to say that God did not want the crucifixion to happen is really just fundamentally misunderstands the whole point of Both the Old and the New Testament if you don't see that the crucifixion of Christ was of the primary importance to God.

Well, I happen to have that very section marked. So let's let's skip to it. Let's listen to what? The illustration here in from Acts chapter 4 bring good out of that evil.

This truth is most obviously and profoundly demonstrated through the greatest evil in the history of the world the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Through this greatest evil in history. God brings about the greatest good the redemption of the world.

God did not kill Christ nor did he impel anyone to kill Christ Christ. But by virtue of his omnipotence, he does bring good out of the evil acts committed.

Yeah, so there's there's his commentary. He says he does not impel. But he brings good out of the evil acts committed. I don't know if you have acts for there. I Have it here if you want me to read it so we could take a look at it.

How do you want to handle that. Well, I if you don't mind I'd like to read something from Acts 2. Okay, Acts 2 in there's this. There's a sermon here it says 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 you yourselves also know him being delivered by the Determinant counsel and for knowledge of God.

He have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain whom God hath raised up having loosed the pains of death because it was not possible that he should beholden of it and That inverse that the 23rd verse there which says being delivered by the determinate counsel and for knowledge of God It has to mean something more than bear permission and and that God just seized on this Occasion to work some kind of great good use.

It's contrary to any possible understanding of the text any reasonable understanding of the text.

Most definitely and of course we would like to find out what the infallible interpretation. But that's just one of those things you you can't come up with it is interesting the the acts for text likewise Which he was referring to let me go ahead and read that for folks so that they're they know what we're referring to.

The the early church after a persecution gathers together. They pray to God and they say for truly in this city They were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate Along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur and Now Lord take no other threats and grant that your bond service may speak your word with all confidence.

So here the early church is Absolutely convinced as you saw in the sermon from Acts 2 23 That the crucifixion of Christ was not merely something that That God has seized upon to try to make something good out of it.

The only way to understand either text is that it was God's purpose That Christ died at this time in this way in this manner for a specific purpose. I mean it specifically says that what these men did they did because your hand and your purpose predestined it to occur and.

So it's no wonder then that one of the very first examples that Calvin uses in the same section. That's Staples was quoting from. This is again Book 1 chapter 18 first section the Jews intended to destroy Christ Pilate and his soldiers complied with their mad desire yet in solemn prayer.

The disciples confessed that all the impious ones had done nothing except what the hand and plan of God had decreed. So Peter had already preached that by the definite plan and foreknowledge of God Christ had been given over to be killed acts 2 23.

It is as if he were to say that God to whom from the beginning nothing was hidden Wittingly and willingly determined what the Jews carried out. Now, there's just there's no way around this unfortunately.

And this is why you know people say why do you like? debate so much because listening to the 5 CD set of Tim Staples on purgatory you don't get to ask these questions and If someone you know I think it would be wonderful if someone would call up Catholic answers when Tim Staples is on and ask him this question.

I'm probably not gonna get a chance to it next Thursday because it's not directly relevant. 1st Corinthians chapter 3. But at least in a debate you get to ask questions and cross-examination and say all right.

You say this is how this is your interpretation. Could you explain to us where it came from show us from the text how you get mere? permission or God coming along afterwards and Sweeping up the mess and and making you know recycling the mess and getting something good out of it.

When the specific purpose of the text is to say that what they did was under the very sovereign decree of God and that I just noticed and I'll stop preaching after this becomes then the basis upon which the church says now Lord take note of their Threats and grant that your bond servants may speak your word with all confidence.

How could they say that if God does not have control over whether they will be able to continue to continue to speak his word? With all confidence or Whether he will be involved in these things. They have to believe in the sovereignty of God in these things.

They see God's sovereign certainty in his action in the past and then in The future then they can trust in him. I don't know how you can have trust outside of that. So there was my small sermon on that lots of other things here, I'll go back to before the acts for Because he continues to discuss that issue and then I before we finish up and we've we've only got about two 20 minutes.

I wanted to get to some quotes toward the end. Like I said, there's 38 minutes worth of citations here. So there's more than we can get to especially when we're responding to things. Let me quote to you from Calvin's Institutes.

He says quote. God is the author of all those things which according to these objectors Happen only by his inactive permission. Now, of course, he's referring to us Catholics there. He testifies that he creates light and darkness forms good and evil Referencing Isaiah 45 7 that no evil happens which he hath not done.