We have all probably encountered objections to the doctrine of Divine sovereignty that show a genuine lack of understanding – not in a mean or callous fashion, but that simply don’t understand how God’s freedom works. Most of those objections will be prefaced with “but it doesn’t make sense!” These might even be accompanied with tears, or with all the signs of genuine incomprehension. We don’t serve these churchgoers well by giving them a good lambasting. It’s all well and good when a militant Arminian, out to “take down” Calvinism is in view, or when an arrogant atheist places us in his sights – but when it comes to those inside the church, to who we are accountable as teachers, or within our own family – those to whom we have bonds of affection, it doesn’t behoove us to go nuclear – or to act like a cage-stager on a rampage.

Gentleness is something we often forget. Do we forget that before talking about casting down fortresses, destroying speculations – Paul urges his readers by the gentleness of Christ to take heed? Do we forget that we are to “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” with all humility and gentleness? Before the injunction to Timothy to “fight the good fight”, he is enjoined to “pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness.” We are all about being wise, yes? Then, do as James says – “Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom.” You don’t need to be a pushover – but you don’t need to be a jerk, either. Sometimes people struggle to understand. Gently correct, guide, and teach. Even with our opponents we are to be gentle in correction – with the hope of repentance foremost in our minds. (2 Tim 2:25) That’s probably just an intro, though.

So, what about when someone just doesn’t understand the relationship between God, freedom, and evil? When the Confessions say that God is not the author of evil, but “common sense” (whatever that is) tells you “well, He has to be! I don’t want Him to be, but I don’t understand how that can’t be true!” Common sense is a bit of an urban legend. There’s a kernel of truth to it, in one sense. We are all created in the image of God, and in Him we all live, move, and have our being. We have minds, we live in His world, and we have to deal with His creation on His terms. Still, those of us who have taken a few more trips around the sun than some know that “common sense” is neither common, nor as sensical as we sometimes imagine, when we’re younger. People have discussed the relationship between God, freedom, and evil for a very long time. Yes, there are solid answers to be found, but we often forget, especially in this faux-literate age, that what people read is very, very rarely suitable for training them how to think. What to think – possibly – but how to think? We expect the schools to teach them that – but they don’t. Those of us who teach in the church need to recall that God uses means – and that “being transformed by the renewing of your mind” also involves means – and training in righteousness. Where does that training in righteousness primarily take place? In the home, and at our churches. If we don’t take the time to do so in either place, we cripple those for whom we will have to give an account.

With all that being said, what is the answer? In one sense, it is complicated. It isn’t a simplistic notion, or a simplistic answer – because it requires a variety of categories to be properly understood, and placed in the proper context. It requires a systematic theology. On the other hand, with the proper categories in place, and understood – it actually *is* simple – but only in a sense. Simply, when asked “is God the author of sin?,” the answer is “No.” The whyfores of that are what makes it complicated. When asked “does man have free will” – we can answer “yes and no” – in two different senses. Yes, man is free to do precisely what he desires – but those desires are enslaved to his nature – which means he isn’t free! What helped me, however, is asking the corollary to that – “Is God free?” Yes, of course He is. When the follow-up question “is God free to sin?” is asked, that often clarifies matters – because then you have to define sin. It’s where we have to define things, and be precise, that clarity begins.

When you ask “is God free to sin?”, you have to ask several things: “what is sin?”, “what is freedom?” and “what (and who) is God?” The answers to those questions should, if you do so carefully and precisely, bring you directly to the correct answer. Freedom in English, has a few meanings – primary is this:

The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

One Greek term for “freedom” is ἐλευθερία (eleutheria) – derived from ἐλεύθερος. It has the connotation of “one who is not a slave”, or, on the other hand, “free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation”.

Secondarily, the English term is defined as follows:

the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

Thus, we can see that “freedom” has a duality of meaning, in either language. It can mean “without restraint” – but it can also mean “not a slave.” When we speak of being a “slave to sin”, we refer to the latter – but someone who is a “slave to sin” will also be doing precisely as he desires – because what is enslaved are those desires.

What is sin? Sin, at bottom, is “an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.” Etymologically, it typically carries the connotation of “falling short” or “missing the mark” – which speaks to the nature of the thing itself. What I mean by that is that sin is a lack – something which is lacking, or missing, in comparison to perfection or completion. Any shot at a target which misses the bullseye is lacking, in comparison to the perfect shot.

The question of “Who is God?” is an enormous one – but if we take it in a limited sense, and contextually, we can answer from our Confession, and note that God is a) “most holy” and b) “most free”, c) “abundant in goodness”, d) “infinite in being and perfection”. God is holy – set apart. God is without constraint – limitless. God is good – and, we are also told, has a “most righteous” will. God is infinitely perfect. Since God is these things, he cannot be “like us” – sinful. He cannot be limited by the chains of slavery to sin. Those chains are, indeed, limitations.

So, if we examine this question, we find the answer lies in the question itself. If “sin” is a lack of perfection – a transgression of God’s own law – and is slavery – then God, by being God, cannot be subject to sin, and “free” thereby. “To sin” is the opposite of freedom – so “free to sin” is an oxymoron – the question is self-refuting.

The “bigger” question to follow, though, is this: “How can we be said to be free, if God ordains all things whatsoever that come to pass?” The Confession once again answers this question.

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;

LBCF III.1

We usually grasp that intellectually. What is often harder to grasp is how, given that to be the case, the following is also true:

yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

LBCF III.1

We can grasp that others believe this – it is often harder to grasp (and hold!) that belief ourselves – especially on an emotional level. Many never grasp it – and instead turn to poor alternatives that give a more superficially acceptable answer – and that causes even more issues. This doesn’t mean it is impossible to grasp – it just means that it is difficult. Most things worth understanding are difficult.

There are several avenues of argument to which we have recourse, at this point. There is the argument from the nature of man and the nature of God. There is the argument from first and second causes. There is the argument from prescriptive and descriptive will. There is, further, the argument from purpose. Lastly, there is the argument from mystery.

Argument from Mystery

Many simply resort to the last – and there is a point at which all argument, when it relates to the infinite God, has to rest there. After a certain point, we just don’t know, and will either have to await further insight, in sanctification, into what Scripture already reveals – or wait until we see Him face to face, and understand all clearly. It really is okay if we just don’t understand, but trust God in faithful obedience. We might come to understand more – and it’s perfectly acceptable to do this in lieu of speculation. I do think, however, that there is a bit of ground to travel before we have to resort to mystery simpliciter.

Argument from Natures

The nature of man, as created, was very good. Man was free to act as he willed, and his will remained un-enslaved. Man, however, chose to be less than he was initially. When he first sinned, he chose slavery to sin. While this corresponds to the nature of finite man, it cannot correspond to the nature of the infinite God. There is no attribute of God which allows God to be less than He is. God cannot be less transcendent, less simple, less righteous, less infinite, less powerful, less wise, etc – and sin doesn’t affect merely parts of a person – but the entirety of a person. As such, God being sinful, or the author of sin, is impossible, in every respect. It is possible, however, and actual, in the case of man, who is finite, and who is not simple, but composed of parts. All of man’s parts are affected by sin, while none of God, who is One, and not composed of parts, can be.

Bavinck has some interesting insight for us, as to what is the nature of man’s first fall, and the subsequent change of his nature thereby. We often view the “knowledge of good and evil” as if it is “additional” information. What it actually is, is a corruption of information by an illegitimate categorization.

“In Genesis 3, the issue is not primarily the content of the knowledge that humans would appropriate by disobedience but the manner in which they would obtain it. The nature of the knowledge of good and evil in view here is characterized by the fact that humans would be like God as a result of it (Gen. 3:5, 22). By violating the command of God and eating of the tree, they would make themselves like God in the sense that they would position themselves outside and above the law and, like God, determine and judge for themselves what good and evil was. The knowledge of good and evil is not the knowledge of the useful and the harmful, of the world and how to control it, but (as in 2 Sam. 19:36; Isa. 7:16) the right and capacity to distinguish good and evil on one’s own. The issue in Genesis is indeed whether humanity will want to develop in dependence on God, whether it will want to have dominion over the earth and seek its salvation in submission to God’s commandment; or whether, violating that commandment and withdrawing from God’s authority and law, it will want to stand on its own feet, go its own way, and try its own “luck.” When humanity fell, it got what it wanted; it made itself like God, “knowing good and evil” by its own insight and judgment. Genesis 3:22 is in dead earnest. This emancipation from God, however, did not lead and cannot lead to true happiness. For that reason, God by the probationary command forbade this drive to freedom, this thirst for independence. But humanity voluntarily and deliberately opted for its own way, thereby failing the test.

Bavinck, The Origin of Sin, Reformed Dogmatics – Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Chris

That “freedom” the serpent promises is enslavement. Independence is chains, and self-rule is self-abasement.

Argument from First and Second Causes

“For the man who honestly and soberly reflects on these things, there can be no doubt that the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things.”

Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 177.

“But of all the things which happen, the first cause is to be understood to be His will, because He so governs the natures created by Him, as to determine all the counsels and the actions of men to the end decreed by Him.”

Calvin, Ibid, 17

Calvin, rightly, distinguishes (and defines) the “first cause” as the will of God. What is often trickier, however, is the definition of “second cause.” God indeed determines all the counsels and actions of men – but does so by means of second causes.

“The question of God’s will in relation to sin is vexing. Those who speak of God’s permission with respect to sin rightly seek to avoid making him the author of sin. However, because this formulation risks denying God’s full sovereignty, Reformed theology, following Augustine, was never satisfied with the idea of permission. At the risk of using “hard sayings,” Reformed theologians insist that while God does not sin or cause sin, sin is yet not outside his will. In addition, God created human beings holy and without sin; sin’s origin is in the will of the rational creature.

Bavinck, The Origin of Sin, Reformed Dogmatics – Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ

What else is interesting is that this doesn’t try to “soften” the blow by affirming one bit less than God’s sovereignty over all things whatsoever. What it does do, however, is place the onus for sin squarely in the camp of those capable of it. To be less, one must be capable of less. Only the finite can be less than they should be. To be the author, one must have the capability for it. God does not.

As Edwards puts it:

“If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.”

A “second cause” can be defined as Robert Shaw does here:

“Since all things were known to God from the beginning of the world, and come to pass according to the immutable counsel of his will, it necessarily follows that, in respect of the foreknowledge and decree of God, all things come to pass infallibly. But, by his providence, he orders them to fall out according to the nature of second causes. Every part of the material world has an immediate dependence on the will and power of God, in respect of every motion and operation, as well as in respect of continued existence; but he governs the material world by certain physical laws,—commonly called the laws of nature, and in Scripture the ordinances of Heaven,—and agreeably to these laws, so far as relates to second causes, certain effects uniformly and necessarily follow certain causes. The providence of God is also concerned about the volitions and actions of intelligent creatures; but his providential influence is not destructive of their rational liberty, for they are under no compulsion, but act freely; and all the liberty which can belong to rational creatures is that of acting according to their inclinations. Though there is no event contingent with respect to God, ‘who declareth the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things which are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure;’ yet many events are contingent or accidental with regard to us, and also with respect to second causes.”

Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition Of The Westminster Confession Of Faith

In other words, second causes are those things which follow by necessary consequence – in the material world – in creation. They are not identical to the infinite will of God, but necessarily occur within creation as a result of the exercise of His will. The particular thing about sin, however, is that, along with Augustine, we confess that “all sin is voluntary.” All sin is a defect in righteousness, not something in and of itself, which exists and survives independently of righteousness. Will is necessary for sin to be defective in its righteousness. Since God’s will is infinite, eternal, simple, and unchanging, the only will in which sin can be said to exist is in that of rational creatures, as only such creatures can be said to have a will which is either more or less righteous, instead of infinitely so – thus, we can also pair this argument with the Argument from Natures above.

Argument from Prescriptive and Descriptive Will

“The decretive will of God concerns his purposes, and relates to the futurition of events. The preceptive will relates to the rule of duty for his rational creatures. He decrees whatever he purposes to effect or to permit. He prescribes, according to his own will, what his creatures should do, or abstain from doing. The decretive and preceptive will of God can never be in conflict. God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do, what He forbids. He may, as we see He does, decree to permit what He forbids. He permits men to sin, although sin is forbidden. This is more scholastically expressed by the theologians by saying, A positive decretive will cannot consist with a negative preceptive will; i. e., God cannot decree to make men sin. But a negative decretive will may consist with an affirmative preceptive will; e. g., God may command men to repent and believe, and yet, for wise reasons, abstain from giving them repentance.”

Charles Hodge, The Will of God, Systematic Theology

As we have already seen, we don’t see “permission” as bare permission. When God decrees something – ordains what comes to pass – this is not the same as decreeing what men should do. This is, in my estimation, the weakest argument, however. It tends to rely heavily on a distinction between “allow” and “command” – which, considered properly, is fine, as far as it goes – but it doesn’t explain. If it helps you, that’s fine – but it is not a distinction on which I rely overmuch.

The Argument from Purpose

This argument is primarily exegetical – and as such, perhaps the strongest. It seeks to answer why sin is in the world. To sum this argument up, we should make three statements. 1) Sin showcases God’s glory in His Justice toward sin and sinners 2) Sin is the backdrop against which righteousness is most evident 3) Christ’s substitutionary death is only substitutionary if man is not righteous.

Genesis 50 has one of the strongest examples we can make. Joseph’s brothers are called before him, after the death of their father, Israel. The brothers were understandably afraid, because they had sold Joseph into slavery – after contemplating simply murdering him.

They send Joseph a message, after speaking amongst themselves:

So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father charged before he died, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to Joseph, “Please forgive, I beg you, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did you wrong.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him.

Genesis 50:16-17

When they stand before him, Joseph immediately assures them:

But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place?

Genesis 50:19

What he says next is the kicker, however.

“’As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. So therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.’ So he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.”

Genesis 50:20-21

Note several things about this passage. Why does Joseph weep? First, they had lived with the consequences of their actions for many years now. Second, they still showed very little understanding of the God their father claimed that they served. They knew even less of their brother.

Joseph’s response is a masterpiece of compassionate theology. He does not excuse their action, or the consequences of it. What he does is explain about God – and that while their intentions were evil, God’s were not. He forgives them, promises his own protection to them, and to their families, and speaks kindly to them.

They meant evil toward Joseph. This is not in any way diminished by Joseph’s response. His initial answer underscores that they are responsible to God for their actions, despite the fact that Joseph has no intention of judging them for those actions. Joseph is not in God’s place. The very fact that they are standing before him does nothing but underscore the fact that without their actions, a) they would not be standing before Joseph now at his mercy b) they wouldn’t even be alive to stand before Joseph now at his mercy. Joseph’s response underscores something else, however. While their intentions were for evil – God’s intentions were for good. God turned a heinous evil into an indescribable good. It doesn’t make their evil any less evil. It doesn’t excuse his brothers. It doesn’t excuse Potiphar’s wife, or the injustice of his imprisonment, which provided him an opportunity to come before Pharaoh to interpret his dreams. It doesn’t even excuse his father for letting those sons of his run wild and commit all the heinous acts that hardened them to the point that they were willing to kill their own brother, and the best they could manage was to “merely” sell him into slavery, and convince their elderly father that he had been killed by beasts, to cover up their crime. Their purpose was to get rid of their insufferable, righteous younger brother who told them they would bow to him, as his vision from God attested. Bowing in front of him now was not their intention – but it was God’s. God brought them out of the wilderness alive – as a result of their own actions – but not in accordance with their own intentions. God’s purposes, as Scripture repeatedly attests, are always good – and even evil can be suborned to God’s good purposes – contrary to the intentions of those who commit those evils.

How about Assyria? Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom, and was, by any objective standard, an evil empire. Yet in Isa. 10, they are said to be the rod of God’s anger. Even more interestingly – a woe is pronounced on them – for their actions in being the rod of God’s anger!

Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger
And the staff in whose hands is My indignation,

I send it against a godless nation
And commission it against the people of My fury
To capture booty and to seize plunder,
And to trample them down like mud in the streets.

Yet it does not so intend,
Nor does it plan so in its heart,
But rather it is its purpose to destroy
And to cut off many nations.

Isaiah 10:5-7

See, Assyria is being used as the instrument of God’s punishment – but it has no intention of being used as such. Assyria will, in turn, be judged and punished – as we see in the same chapter, in verses 12-17.

“So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, [He will say,] “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.” For he has said, “By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did [this,] For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down [their] inhabitants, And my hand reached to the riches of the peoples like a nest, And as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth; And there was not one that flapped its wing or opened [its] beak or chirped.” Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? [That would be] like a club wielding those who lift it, [Or] like a rod lifting [him who] is not wood. Therefore the Lord, the GOD of hosts, will send a wasting disease among his stout warriors; And under his glory a fire will be kindled like a burning flame. And the light of Israel will become a fire and his Holy One a flame, And it will burn and devour his thorns and his briars in a single day.”

Isaiah 10:12-17

When the Lord has completed His work in Mount Zion and Jerusalem, He will punish the Assyrians for their intentions. He will first afflict the King’s warriors – but then He will “burn and devour his thorns and briars in a single day.” What day is that?

1 And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard [it], that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the LORD. 2 And he sent Eliakim, who [was] over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz. 3 And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day [is] a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and [there is] not strength to bring forth. 4 It may be the LORD thy God will hear the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God, and will reprove the words which the LORD thy God hath heard: wherefore lift up [thy] prayer for the remnant that is left. 5 So the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah. 6 And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say unto your master, Thus saith the LORD, Be not afraid of the words that thou hast heard, wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. 7 Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour, and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. 8 So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. 9 And he heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee. And when he heard [it], he sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying, 10 Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God, in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. 11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by destroying them utterly; and shalt thou be delivered? 12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, [as] Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which [were] in Telassar? 13 Where [is] the king of Hamath, and the king of Arphad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? 14 And Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up unto the house of the LORD, and spread it before the LORD. 15 And Hezekiah prayed unto the LORD, saying, 16 O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest [between] the cherubims, thou [art] the God, [even] thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth. 17 Incline thine ear, O LORD, and hear; open thine eyes, O LORD, and see: and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which hath sent to reproach the living God. 18 Of a truth, LORD, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the nations, and their countries, 19 And have cast their gods into the fire: for they [were] no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them. 20 Now therefore, O LORD our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou [art] the LORD, [even] thou only. 21 Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent unto Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Whereas thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib king of Assyria: 22 This [is] the word which the LORD hath spoken concerning him; The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, [and] laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. 23 Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted [thy] voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? [even] against the Holy One of Israel. 24 By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said, By the multitude of my chariots am I come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon; and I will cut down the tall cedars thereof, [and] the choice fir trees thereof: and I will enter into the height of his border, [and] the forest of his Carmel. 25 I have digged, and drunk water; and with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers of the besieged places. 26 Hast thou not heard long ago, [how] I have done it; [and] of ancient times, that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste defenced cities [into] ruinous heaps. 27 Therefore their inhabitants [were] of small power, they were dismayed and confounded: they were [as] the grass of the field, and [as] the green herb, [as] the grass on the housetops, and [as corn] blasted before it be grown up. 28 But I know thy abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy rage against me. 29 Because thy rage against me, and thy tumult, is come up into mine ears, therefore will I put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest. 30 And this [shall be] a sign unto thee, Ye shall eat [this] year such as groweth of itself; and the second year that which springeth of the same: and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof. 31 And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward: 32 For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this. 33 Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the king of Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shields, nor cast a bank against it. 34 By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and shall not come into this city, saith the LORD. 35 For I will defend this city to save it for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake. 36 Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses. 37 So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. 38 And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia: and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.

Isaiah 37:1-38

Assyria destroyed the Northern Kingdom, as God decreed – but when they came against the South, and against Jerusalem, they were destroyed – by the Angel of the Lord, no less – and the woe came to pass, recorded by the same prophet. The same kingdom which, by its own intentions, came to devour and destroy, was used as a punishment for Israel’s unfaithfulness, and wiped out the Northern Kingdom. However, as a judgement on its arrogance, God Himself destroyed the great army of Sennacherib outside the walls of Jerusalem – and he was murdered by his own sons upon his return. They meant it for evil – but God meant it for good.

Lastly, there is the case of the crucifixion itself. Acts records a prayer, presumably by Peter or John, which says the following:

27 “For truly in this city there 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, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. 29 “And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, 30 while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.”

Act 4:27-30

In this prayer, we are told that the Father predestined the crucifixion – as well as all the actions of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the other Gentiles, as well as the peoples of Israel. The most heinous act in the history of the world – the murder of the Messiah – was committed exactly as God predestined it to be. Every single one of the parties named meant it for evil. God meant it for good – to bring many out alive, with a deliberate nod to the foreshadowing of Joseph. Rome’s conquest of Israel brought about the conditions that made the crucifixion – a Roman practice – possible. What they meant for evil, God meant for good – and the greatest good in the history of the world was brought about by the commission of the greatest evil in its history. Man’s purposes are brought to naught by the purposes of God. The Savior rose from the grave, conquering death and sin – because death and sin were decreed by God. Israel was judged. Rome was judged. Herod was judged – and all of them received their woes in full measure – as Christ prophesied they would. Nonetheless, God brought good out of their evil – and it shone all the more brightly against their evil. We can only go so far with this explanation of why evil happens – but isn’t that far enough to go on with? We can finish up with Romans’ explanation of this same issue.

16 So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And [He did so] to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 [even] us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. 25 As He says also in Hosea, “I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, ‘MY PEOPLE,’ AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, ‘BELOVED.'” 26 “AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, ‘YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,’ THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD.”

Rom 9:16-26

There are a significant number of newly “converted” (to presup, at least) folks that are quite zealous for the defense of the faith. This, I consider good. On the other hand, Scripture warns us against “zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge”, in Rom 10:2. This is especially important for us to consider. All too often, we have a tendency to “jump right in,” whether we are prepared to do so, or not. Zealousness leads us, with inadequate preparation, all too often to imbalance, and from or along with imbalance, to a sub-Biblical defense. Additionally, there is the problem of not knowing what it is you are to be defending! As putative apologists, we must not overestimate our own abilities, knowledge, or proficiency. This isn’t to say that I consider myself to be “perfect” – or that anyone else should, this side of glory; What I am saying is, we must be very watchful that our desire doesn’t outrun our wisdom.

When we have something we desire to do, we often run ahead, to the detriment of our preparation for doing so. Similarly, we often dismiss preparation for either pragmatic or pietistic aims, at the expense of doctrinal orthodoxy. Part of an adequate apologetic is the ability to teach. If you aren’t convinced of that, I would point you to the instances of apologetic encounters in Scripture. If you are defending the faith, there are certain preconditions for doing so. Principally, there is the precondition of knowing what you are defending. Secondarily, there is the precondition of an ability to teach what Christian doctrine is, so that it may be clear to your audience what in fact it is to be defended. Thirdly, it must be clearly said that there is the precondition of grace; and that graciousness is the product of sanctification, not of formal study. None of these aspects can be overlooked or dismissed; and they must not be dismissed, because Scripture clearly commands them of us. In fact, dismissal of these requirements is tantamount to rebellion. To overlook these requirements is a function of ignorance – but the intent of this post is to render you, the apologist, without excuse – and hence, repentant. We cannot afford ignorance in the cause of Christ.

So, let us look at what we are called to do. Those who are called to apologetic ministry must be within, and under the authority of, the local church. They cannot be “lone rangers,” and they cannot be “loose cannons”, or “independents”. If we are of those who believe, we must be within the fellowship, and be in fellowship (Acts 4:32). If we are of those who believe, we must be under the authority of elders (Acts 14:23). Apollos, we know, was a powerful advocate for the cause of Christ. Yet, he was amenable to being instructed by those who were older and wiser than himself. In addition, he was willing to be sent, and not to send himself. It was the brethren that sent him, and encouraged him – and in that fellowshipped sending, he in turn encouraged the elect, and refuted their opponents. (Acts 18)

Next, we must see that only those with adequate preparation should be engaging unbelievers. Apollos had been instructed in the way of the Lord. Paul, of course, had intensive training as a Pharisaical student – but even that did not suffice, did it? He spent 3 years being “taught of God” before he began his ministry – interestingly, roughly the same amount of time the other Apostles spent with Christ. I’m not trying to say we should all go be desert dwellers of some sort – or that we are all called to be seminarians, either. What I am saying, however, is that we cannot neglect an intensive, intentional course of study in the foundations of our faith, if we are to be apologists. This is not negotiable. In order to defend the faith, we must know what we believe, and be unshakably convinced of the truth of what we know before we are involved in ministry of this sort. Apologetics is no ministry for neophytes. The Christian life is likened to warfare, in Ephesians and elsewhere. Front-line troops are experienced, well-trained soldiers. They know precisely where they fit into the ranks, what their duties are, and have undergone systematic training in the art of war. No soldier learns his trade by osmosis. His trade is soldiery. Soldiers are trained; so must we be. This training is primarily not in the assemblage of arguments, philosophical justifications, or evidenciary studies. Those of you who are in the military; where did your training start? It started with the discipline a soldier required. Next, it moved to the care and operation of your equipment. Then, training moves to the proper movements of troops, of which you are a part.

The disciplines required of the apologist are both mental and spiritual. The primary discipline is the systematic study of the Word of God, and the doctrines therein. We must also be as fervent and constant in prayer and the confession of sin as we are fervent and constant in study. We must systematically practice the spiritual disciplines along with the mental disciplines we work to cultivate.

We must also be able to teach. In a Biblical apologetic, we are responding to the anti-Christian from, and with, Christian doctrine. As I have said for some time, it seems to be the case that the vast majority of objections stem from a fundamental ignorance of Christian doctrine. As Christians, we must admit that this is often the fault of those whom we have championed; and those champions themselves are either unable, or unwilling, to defend the Christian faith as a system of doctrine, rather than a philosophical abstraction. The defense of “a god” flies directly in the face of the Scriptural testimony. Keeping the doctrines of Christianity at “arms length” in their putative defense is nothing more than folly, if that is what we are truly defending. We cannot make an arbitrary distinction between what we believe and what we defend. We can do only damage to the doctrines we love by defending an abstraction rather than the reality. If you do not know, love, and cherish the doctrines of Scripture, you are simply fighting for yourself, not the fellowship of Christ. If what you defend is unrecognizable in comparison to the God you claim to know – it is readily apparent, and worse than useless. The knowledge of the Holy is understanding, and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Do not forget it for an instant.

When we as apologists engage in the defense of the faith we must be able to both recognize and correct the misconceptions that are foundational to, and undergird the objections raised to that faith. When we hear an objection, we must compare it to what it is we know. We waste an enormous amount of time responding to things that we know are inapplicable, or false. We waste so much energy that could be better used in teaching these objectors what it is they need to know about the God they reject. Objections should be filtered through the matrix of sound doctrine – and responded to as they warrant, not as the unbeliever assumes. We all too often consider the unbeliever’s conception of God to be “plausible”, or “possible” – while in reality, they are objecting to a man of straw. Instead of letting this pass unchallenged, take the opportunity to correct their misapprehensions. This is helpful to your fellow believers, as well! It is quite a redemption of the time (that unbelievers waste for themselves in their ignorance) to grasp that opportunity to teach what it is they should be addressing, and to outline for your fellows (and for other unbelievers) where it is they went wrong in their approach. Granted, we know that unbelievers both applaud and prefer their ignorance – but in responding in such a way, we leave them without an excuse, don’t we?

Lastly, we are to answer with gentleness and reverence. This does not mean that we do not step up boldly to answer; it does, however, mean that we are not to savage our opponent on a personal level, or to respond in kind when we are personally attacked. This does not proscribe a righteous zealousness for the doctrines of God; it does, however, proscribe an unrighteousness zealousness for personal vengeance and returning offense when it is given. It is often the case that unbelievers act like fools. We are to answer a fool according to *their* folly – as it deserves – but NOT to become like them. This is a trap many fall into – myself included. We are to be reverent of God, and mild in our responses.

We must also see that the Lord’s slave must NOT be quarrelsome; must be able to teach; must be patient when wronged; and must gently correct those in opposition. They must not engage in foolish or ignorant speculations – they produce the quarrels warned against.(2 Tim 2) Be mindful of your limits. Be watchful of your temper. Be wise concerning where and when you engage with unbelievers. Be discerning in your responses, and teach whenever and wherever it is appropriate. Be patient when you are attacked, or offended, or wronged. Do not engage in endless quarrels; know when and where to enter, and when and where to leave a discussion.

All of this I have given above is the product of the work of God, friends, not of your own efforts. It is the work of God; sanctifying and preparing you for His own work, not your own. We are bought and paid for – we are not our own possession, but His. Whatever you think you might be, you are either His, or you are your own – and God surely knows His own. You think you’re a presuppositionalist? Let me tell you what a presuppositionalist is.

We are to be those who have a deep, abiding love for the Scriptures, and the God whose revelation they are. We are to have a healthy, humble assessment of where we are in our relationship to God, and a deep understanding of whose we are. We are to immerse ourselves in the doctrines of Scripture; We are to flee speculation, and embrace the certainty Scripture provides us. We are to teach patiently, correct patiently, and learn patiently. We are not to be self-serving, not arrogant, and always mindful of the grace which we ourselves have received. We are to understand that what we have, is ours by the grace of God, and by no other means. We are not to coddle doubt, but to destroy it by the means God has provided. We are to know, to the depths of our soul, that what we defend is that which God has given – and how we are to defend it is also given by that same grace. Does all of this humble you? Does all of this make you feel inadequate? Does it remind you that we are, indeed, bought with a price, and not our won, and must thus work to the benefit of His church? If so, you might be a presuppositionalist – but be wary, lest you fall. We are all warned, and we must heed those warnings.

I’ve mentioned before that Presup is Sola Scriptura in an apologetic context. If you study Ephesians 6, the only weapon we have is Scripture. Hence, that is the only weapon we use. All of defenses are also God-wrought, so we have nothing to fear. Fear not – and stand.

A short review of “Divided”, with some questions for the folks watching or the folks who created it:

1) Is it honest to present this film as a young man trying to “find answers” – to say it “shocked” him – that this was somehow a “journey”? Is it truly the case that Phillip was not an FIC proponent when he made this movie?

2) The first section talks about his father already having questions about the youth ministry – is this a “neutral” perspective, as seemingly presented to begin with? In fact, his parents pulled him out of the youth program, and later on it is revealed that Scott Brown was influential in his parent’s move. Scott Brown is presented as an “author and pastor”, when he is the director of the organization putting out this film. The manager of operations for that same organization is listed as the writer for the movie, in fact. So, are we to believe this is some “exploratory” film?

3) Instead of directing his look at Reformed churches, as the FIC movement is generally Reformed, his first stop is a massive youth gathering, at what looks like a carnival atmosphere.

4) After several fairly typical answers, from evangelical young people, he goes into his own experience with youth ministry, and “dropout rate” of teens. Hardly a “neutral” perspective, is it?

5) A “Christian concert” (in his words) is flatly called ‘music of the world’. He sees “no distinction between worldliness and Christianity”. He gives NO argument for this, whatsoever. None.

6) “Young Earth or Old Earth” is unaccountably segued to, with no explanation, other than a very short Ken Ham spot about bible teaching. First, “young earth” is not a biblical position, that I can see, not that “old earth” is either. That terminology is a modern novelty, and hardly the test of “bible teaching”. More importantly, I’d make the test to be concerning ex nihilo, 6 calendar day creation. This precludes “Old Earth”, “Theistic Evolution”, and other nonsensical positions of the sort, while not diverging into speculation, as many modern “creationist” groups tend to do. Second, we are *never told what Christian denomination he is interviewing, at any time that I can see*. My position on the subject of creation is very clear, as you can see if you read elsewhere on this blog, and because I’m confessionally Reformed, but the way that “young earth or old earth” is made a doctrinal test, without the *context* of who is being asked even defined is troubling.

7) These kids are being asked, in the context of general evangelicalism, questions their elders fail just as spectacularly on in general evangelicalism. In what sense is this an indictment of youth groups in particular? It’s a non-sequitur.

8) Reformed churches, I’d imagine, would be the target audience of this video, given who it’s seemingly directed at, and the *actual* presuppositional commitment of the makers of the video. What would induce a typical evangelical church to abandon a practice in line with it’s stated doctrinal path? This video? Hardly. If it’s targeting Reformed church practice, why aren’t they addressing Reformed youth pastors or Sunday School teachers?

9) By this point, 17 minutes in, WHO is being addressed is still unclear. Who is your audience, director?

10) My one question remains – did the film maker *really* just set out to “find answers” here? As it seems to me, he has an actual goal he is setting out to demonstrate, and is not merely being an “objective journalist”. This is a persuasive film, not merely a documentary.

11) The complaint has been made about “worldliness” earlier – is this same standard being applied to filmmaking? Are we making a persuasive film under the guise of “neutral” reporting, or investigative journalism? As a presuppositionalist, I teach about pretended neutrality. That seems to be precisely what is going on in this film.

12) The amazing leaps of logic made by Scott Brown to link Plato and Rousseau to the Sunday School movement are truly something to behold. The ahistorical conspiracy theories made by the people they interview concerning Sunday Schools and link to a rogue’s gallery of “bad guys” is truly remarkable. If you do a bit of digging, you can find most of the same ideas in Rushdoony, and the modern theonomist movement. Would you care to tell some Reformed elders about this?

13) RC Sproul Jr and Doug Phillips are used as proponents, without, again, any examination of their background, or the “axe to grind” that we all know they have. The *producer* of the movie is interviewed, and not “For 1800 years the assumption was, children are with their parents in the meeting of the church, and parents disciple their children” – Here’s a few questions – where did you go to read? Where did you learn to read the Bible, in particular? Who had all the books? How did apprenticeship work, for instance? When did that start, historically?

14) In what sense does the wholesale abdication of the authority of the elders to teach children apart from parental guidance have a historical basis?

15) Age segregation is “borrowing from an evolutionary platform” – can you demonstrate this, instead of asserting it? Would it be your assertion that, say, Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, is “borrowing from an evolutionary platform” by teaching church history or teaching through books of the Bible, in Sunday Schools? Would you like to tell the OPC, for instance, how “evolutionary” their Sunday Schools are? We’re waiting to hear the response to that, with bated breath. Further, if age-segregation is intrinsically evolutionary, is there a reason that Baptists, along with other Reformed denominations, have historically had a separate catechism for younger children? (Our church does as well.) Can Mr. Phillips demonstrate this breathtakingly daring assertion in any way, shape, or form?

16) Again, for a Reformed group, they aren’t exactly open about who and what they are, or who, exactly, they’re critiquing. Why is this? Why aren’t we hearing some specific critiques of *Reformed* denominations, or interviews of *Reformed* young people and adults in the making of this video? My modest proposal would be that, quite honestly, it wouldn’t make these practices look very bad. It’s much easier to go to an evanjellyfish “Christian rock” concert, call it “worldly”, then spend the rest of the video having “experts” making assertions.

17) There is a concerted effort to be “presuppositional” in this video, in one respect; however, it is founded on a false neutrality. There is no statement of a *presuppositional commitment* – you are drawn into that commitment *by* the video – but whatever good things they have to say are poisoned by the deceptive manner in which it is presented.

18) To be truly presuppositional, there would need to be a presentation of the commitments of the proponents making the video, a critique of the other position, which attacks the *strongest* proponents of the position, not the *weakest*, and the antithesis would need to be clearly and unabashedly presented. It has done none of the above. Instead of dealing with who would have necessarily have the *strongest*, and most *Biblical* approaches to the movements they are decrying, they pick off low-hanging fruit, without any identification of what SORT of fruit it is. If they’re interested in a GOOD answer, why didn’t they ask Ligon Duncan, James White, or R.C. Sproul why they have Sunday School in their churches? Youth ministry, I’ll grant, but if they’d read their Van Til, and paid attention to Church History, they’d know that MANY things with worldly beginnings were adopted and transformed by the Church. Take the use of “transcendental”, as an example. Why aren’t the people who could give them SOME sort of answer to their questions being asked? Why not ask R.C. Sproul what is meant by “not a program-driven church but an ordinary-means-of-grace-driven church”?

In short, while I do appreciate the look into “general evangelicalism”, and it’s problems, we already knew it had problems. That’s why most of us are Reformed. If you’re going to take a position with the implication that folks like R.C. Sproul are “borrowing from an evolutionary platform”, it would serve your position well to interact with something other than low-hanging fruit, and deal with the ones most likely to be able to critique your position after the fact. That would be the Reformed proponents of at least Sunday School. I’d invite you to take a gander at James White’s Church History series *he taught in Sunday School* and say that it’s “borrowing from an evolutionary platform” with a straight face. Making an argument after that should be easy.

For full disclosure, I attend a family-integrated church. I’m quite comfortable with the way they do things, and critiquing their practices is not, I repeat, NOT the intent of this review. What I’m not comfortable with is the manipulative, at very least, direction of this particular film; nor am I impressed with their commitment to a Reformed defense of doctrine, given the pretense to neutrality it bases itself around, and the utter disregard for dealing with the opposition’s stronger champions. I’m sure I could set up some great strawmen out of their general doctrinal context too; but that does not a valid argument make. Even if everything it said is true, which I’m by no means convinced of, they poisoned the well by dipping into methods we would call, again, at the very least manipulative. There’s my take. (Incidentally, while Challies’ now-infamous review might have been a bit more nuanced, and been researched a bit better, it was by no means empty of real content, or of valid critique. Another can be found here. A ready respondent to the FIC movement, as well, can be found in Sam Waldron, whom I wish the makers of this movie had interviewed.)

Don’t have all the links, files, etc ready yet, but it will be coming, and available here. I’ll update this post when it is.

Week 1 – Introduction and Definitions
Week 2 – The Sufficiency of Scripture
Week 3 – The Reliability of the New Testament Text
Week 4 – “Theology and Apologetics”
Week 5 – “The Myth of Neutrality”
Week 6 – “Common Ground”
Week 7 – “How to Defend the Faith”
Week 8 – “A Biblical Exposition of Acts 17”
Week 9 – “The Law of Eternal Progression – Mormonism”
Weeks 10-14 10: Intro to Islam; 11: Answering The Watchtower; 12: Atheism; 13: Naturalism; 14: Evolution
Week 15 – The Shack
Week 16 – How to Answer Objections

Update: all the files are up, but weeks 15 and 16 have some audio problems I need to fix. Week 15 cut off early, and week 16 has quite a bit of noise.

Week 10, here is a video playlist:

Week 11, you can find the audio here.
Week 12, we used Dr. White’s first debate with Dan Barker, which is under copyright. You may purchase it here. Preview below:

Week 13 can be found here.
Week 14 can be found here.

This week, I went through Dr. James White’s video on the “LDS Law of Eternal Progression”, as a short intro to Mormonism.

Same video I used, but unedited for time. I took out several stories, since I only had 1 hour. This video is around 1.5 hours.

This week’s topic was “A Biblical Exposition of Acts 17”.

Here’s the audio.

This week’s topic was “How to Defend the Faith” – it included many sub-topics, which will be of interest to the student of apologetics, and came almost exclusively from Greg Bahnsen’s “Always Ready”, as did the previous class.

Here’s the audio.

Week 6 of the class covered “Common Ground” – where and how we have a point of contact with the men to whom we give an answer. It came almost exclusively from Greg Bahnsen’s work “Always Ready”, which I am using as a primer on methodology.

Here’s the audio.

Week 5 of the class covered “The Myth of Neutrality” and the immorality of adopting a neutral position when arguing for the truth of God and His revelation to men.

Here’s the audio