One of the most popular, if not the most popular, approaches to the solution of the question of evil within the confines of God's sovereignty is the idea of permission. Open any commentary or theology book and you are sure to find the author telling us that God "permits" evil to happen or come to pass. Somehow the idea of permission is supposed to remove God from being involved in moral evil and exonerate Him from the charge that He Himself is either evil or else He is the author of sin. Permission would have us to understand that, although the omnipotent God could have created a universe without evil and could step in and eradicate it in a moment, He has chosen to "allow" evil for His own wise reasons. Permission  would somehow allow God to assume a "hands off" policy within the confines of the sinful acts of the creature and allow Him to still be God. Even if this were true, which I shall show is not according to Scripture, it still would not address the real question as to the origin of evil which, as I have already shown, finds its roots in the Decree of God Himself. Even if God stood back and "permitted" Hitler to act "on his own" without any Divine influence or intervention, it is still true that God determined in His own mind, in eternity, before Hitler was ever a gleam in his pappy's eye... that he would rise up and gas six million human beings.
How does permission give any relief or satisfaction in this light? It does not!

     Let it be clearly stated and understood at the very outset of this paper that the idea of permission, as applied to God within the framework of His absolute sovereignty in both the Decree and Providence is unbiblical. In this setting it is an expression of Arminian theology! This is so because any idea of permission usually allows for the exercise of the (free) will of the agent. The will, it is claimed, is beyond the direct control and influence of the Deity! When we properly understand the magnitude of the problem of evil the idea of permission is nothing more than an attempt to place a band aid on a bullet hole wound and hope it goes away. It is a weak attempt to palliate a malady that requires major surgery! I say folks, of all the problems found in God's universe evil, from which all other problems stem, is by far the greatest. After all, it took nothing less than the spilling of the blood of the Son of God to conquer it... and men think that permission is the answer?! Not a chance!
 

CIRCUMSTANTIAL PERMISSION:
     One approach some take is to say that God so orders and determines circumstances that, given the sinful nature of the creature within those circumstances... the creature will infallibly act in the way God so desires. Thus the act, albeit sinful, comes to pass exactly as God has "determined" without God in any way "forcing" the agent or causing him to make his choice. He merely "allows" the agent to follow the inclinations of his own sinful nature within the confines of circumstances calculated to produce such action. The agent makes his choice on the basis of his (free) will alone which is in turn influenced by nothing else but circumstances and his sinful nature. God controls and influences circumstances, even directly, but does not touch the agents will. God then has direct control over the circumstances, resulting in His indirect control over the agent. God stands back and "permits" the agent to sin by "not hindering" him. By this it is said that God can have no immediate and/or active part in the sinful actions of the creature while at the same time He is able to maintain His sovereignty over all things including evil and Rom 11:36 and Eph 1:11  can still be true! Is this an accurate representation of the Almighty God of the Bible? I answer an emphatic NO!

     For one thing, the above does not answer the question of how Adam sinned! Before the fall Adam's circumstances were perfect; there was no sin or curse! And theologians have yet to prove that Adam possessed a sinful nature before he fell! These two facts alone wreak havoc with Circumstantial Permission! How can a non-sinful agent in a perfect environment sin? And as if this were not enough, after we solve the Fall in the human realm we are still left with the question of Satan's fall! How could angels, created "good" in a "good" environment fall? Nor does this relieve the tension of how God and evil can co-exist! Suppose you knew that a certain bank was going to be robbed. You knew the exact time and day and the identity of those who would commit this crime. You also knew that in the process someone would be killed. Further, you had the ability to control circumstances and even prevent the crime from taking place! In fact, you were in perfect control of all circumstances related to this crime and could have prevented it if you wanted to; but you stood back and "allowed" the bank be held up and an innocent person be killed! Who in his right mind would then say you were a "benevolent" person? Suppose the person killed was your son or daughter and I was the one in control who allowed this to happen. Would you then shake my hand for being a "benevolent" guy? Circumstantial Permission I say is no answer at all. One is hard pressed to attempt to explain the following verses on the basis of Circumstantial Permission.....

Pr 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue,  [is] from the LORD.

 Pr 16:4 The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

    I say, such passages cannot be explained by Circumstantial Permission. This is so because when we consider the nature of the sovereign God we are dealing with there can be no such thing! God not only decreed everything including evil He exercises Absolute Control over everything... including evil.
Let's look at one author of theology who resorts to permission...
In his Abstract of Systematic Theology, James P. Boyce, speaking on the will of God  says this;  (my underlines)

   "By the decretive will is meant that will of God by which He purposes or decrees, whatever shall come to pass, whether He wills to accomplish it Himself effectively, or causatively; or to permit it to occur through the unrestrained will of His creatures. In either case, however, He has determined, purposed and decreed, either to bring it to pass, or to cause, or to permit it to be brought to pass." chap XII section V
   Here Boyce defines permission by his use of the phrase "the unrestrained will of His creatures" but he gives no Scripture in support of such nor does he elaborate on his meaning. In the chapter on the decrees of God he says...
   "This purpose or plan is just, wise and holy.  .... Though what He permits may be unrighteous or foolish, or sinful these characteristics belong to it because of others."
   "But whence is God's knowledge of the futurity of any event except from the knowledge of His purpose to cause or permit them to come to pass?"

Now that he has established permission as part of the Decree he then goes on to shoot himself in the foot with these words...
   "The knowledge of the futurity of any event over which any one has absolute control is the result of his purpose, not its cause. And, as God has such absolute control over all things, His knowledge that they will be, must proceed from His purpose that they shall be. It cannot be from mere perception of their nature, for He gives that nature and in determining to give it, determines what it shall be, and thus determines the effects which that nature will cause." chap XIII sects I and IV.

   Folks... I am here to announce to you that if someone has "absolute control" over something. i.e. the human will, then by the very nature of the case permission is excluded! If there was ever a statement speaking of God acting and controlling all things which nullifies permission Mr. Boyce's statement on absolute control is it! Yet he persists in ascribing evil to the "permissive decree" of God. At the end of the chapter he lists no less than ten categories of Scripture in the which God's sovereign decree applies and not one of them refers to a so-called permissive decree or activity of God. I do very much affirm what he says in the latter quote and I shall refer to it when discussing the source of the human soul or spirit. But let it here be noted that Mr. Boyce has engaged in some inconsistency with regard to the matter of permission and the will of God. And he is not alone. Another author, Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology does the same thing. In speaking of the Decree he tells us that...

"WITH REFERENCE TO SIN IT IS PERMISSIVE. It is customary to speak of the decree of God respecting moral evil as permissive. By His decree God rendered the sinful actions of man infallibly certain without deciding to effectuate them by acting immediately upon and in the finite will. This means that God does not positively work in man `both to will and to do` when man goes contrary to His revealed will. It should be carefully noted however that this does not imply a passive permission of something which is not under the control of the divine will. It is a decree which renders the future sinful act absolutely certain, but in which God determines (a) not to hinder the sinful self determination of the finite will; and (b) to regulate and control the result of this sinful self determination." Systematic Theology. The works of God. Divine Decrees in General  D7

     First of all, can anybody inform us all as to the difference between passive and active permission... of which I ain't never heard of! The idea of permission is, by its very nature and definition, passive! There's no such thing as an "active" permission; once permission moves from being passive to that of being active it can no longer be considered permission! So, I may "actively permit" my child to go to bed at 9:00 o'clock and he may very well willingly comply because if he doesn't out comes the back scratcher and I ain't gunna scratch his back with it!!! Nobody would consider this permission. Rather this is regulating and controlling BOTH the behavior and the will, which Mr Berkhof is trying desperately to avoid. Regulating and controlling one's behavior as well as his will is very very different than permitting someone to do something. Berkhof admits that the results of the will are 'regulated and controlled' by God but will not recognize that the activity of  the will in determining is itself also regulated and controlled by Him. This separates God's sovereignty from man's activity of exercising his will and in effect renders sovereignty ineffectual. He tries to have his cake and eat it by saying "this does not imply a passive permission of something which is not under the control of the divine will" in one breath and "God determines...  to regulate and control the result of this sinful self determination", [not the activity of the will itself] in the next. But folks.. making a choice by the activity of the will, and the results of that choice are BOTH behaviorial functions! Berkhof is saying that God regulates and controls some, not all the creature's behavior by saying He doesn't regulate and control the activity of the will. In other words, God regulates the action [results] but not the decision. But folks, if the action and the decision to perform an action are BOTH sinful how does Berkhof's explanation solve the problem? Answer; it don't! For both Berkhof and Boyce the human will is the "holy grail" that is not accessible to the Deity. The human will is "verboten" to God because if He interferes here man becomes a puppet and God becomes the author of sin. Isn't this what the Arminian tells us? That God can't mess with man's will? I say, their recourse to permission does not give us the answer. Berkhof, like Boyce, goes on to shoot himself in the foot. With regard to Divine Concurses, which not many folks are aware of... he says... (My italics)

"After the activity of the creature is begun, the efficacious will of God must accompany it at every moment if it is to continue."     ! ! ! !

Hommina hommina folks! What ever happened to permission? If I will efficaciously that you go stand in the middle of a busy runway how can it be said I am "permitting" you to do so? Oh! I get it... active permission! I control the planes and the weather and all other circumstances that will make sure you become a hood-ornament of a 747!  But folks, who in his right mind would call that an act of my "permissive will"? And who in his righter mind would go on to call me a benevolent person? Didn't God efficaciously will Adolph Hitler to do what he did? But let me finish the quote. Get ready! Berkhof continues...

"There is not a single moment that the creature works independently of the will and the power of God. (My italics). It is in Him that we live and move (Berkhof's italics) and have our being, Act 17:28.  This divine activity accompanies the action of man at every point, but without robbing man in any way of his freedom. The action remains the free act of man, an act for which he is held responsible. This simultaneous concurrence does not result in the identification of the causa prima (first cause i.e. God) and the causa secunda (second cause i.e. man). In a very real sense...  (hold fast folks!)  the operation is the product of both causes!" (my italics here). Ibid. Providence  3B
He goes on to deal with the problem of sin and notes that "Reformed theologians are well aware of the difficulty..." and points out that they seek relief in the doctrine of... divine permission! I say folks, it's an epidemic!

     I am in full accord with the above statement on divine concurrence and I shall refer to it again under the subject of Providence. In effect he is saying that there is a sense in which God is the cause of sin! I know this is upsetting to alot of people but this is the plain testimony of holy writ. Dozens of passages attest to this truth. But before we get to them let us continue our examination of the stock view of permission... lest it be said I build a straw man.
Another Berkhof blunder. Noting objections to the Decree of God he states...

"IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE MORAL FREEDOM OF MAN. Man is a free agent with the power of rational self-determination. He can reflect upon, and in an intelligent way choose, certain ends, and can also determine his action with respect to them. The decree of God however, carries with it necessity."

Let's break here for a moment folks for a few important comments. Here Mr. Berkhof is refuting the idea that the decree destroys moral freedom and responsibility, which all good Christians should agree with Mr. Berkhof that it most certainly does not. Let it be remembered that this entire subject of  Theodicy necessitates honing in on the sovereignty of God. No one will ever get anywhere by trying to address the problem of evil from the platform of human responsibility! But by these papers I am in no way downplaying the Biblical doctrine of man's full accountability for his behavior. This indeed is the great "dilemma" that has plagued both theologians and philosophers for centuries and Berkhof dumps us right in the middle of it with his correct statement that the decree of God carries with it necessity. That is to say, whatever God has decreed will infallibly come to pass and nothing can stop it! How then does this avoid the view of fatalism and allow for human responsibility? Now is not the place to address these issues except to say that the Bible emphatically teaches BOTH  Divine Determinism and human accountability! Now to finish the quote which contains a most strange statement from Mr. Berkhof...

 "God has decreed to effectuate all things or, if He has not decreed that, He has at least determined that they must come to pass." Systematics p 106

     Say what? Ladies and gentlemen of the jewelry... I say the words "will; decree; determine" are all three synonyms! They all mean the same thing. For God to "decree" a thing is to"will" it. For God to "will" something is for Him to "determine" that it should be! Thus the last sentence of the quote is nothing but a non-sensical redundancy. Now... I love Mr.Berkhof dearly but here I think he had too much espresso! Would Berkhof have us think that "to decree" and "to determine that they come to pass" are in some way different? What is the point of such a statement? I submit that he would have us all think that "He has at least determined that they must come to pass" somehow refers to the doctrine of "divine permission". Such statements can only be misleading and offer no help in our quest for God!

Those who hold to permission offer to us the illustration of the sun in relation to the earth as both the "cause" of light and warmth and, in its absence, the "cause" of darkness and cold. It can be found in the works of Jonathan Edwards vol 1 p 77. A modern day writer puts it this way...
"Imagine a planet in space which has no inherent capability to generate heat. It is by nature a cold and desolate sphere. Yet, because of its proximity to the sun, its actual environment is warm and comfortable. Now suppose that... the sun decided to move away from that planet toward another one. The consequences for the first planet would be devastating. The former climate so conducive to life would give way to frozen desolation.
    Now here is the question; did the sun make the planet cold? The answer is yes and no. Yes the sun ultimately determined the frigid condition if the planet by moving and leaving that orb to its own nature. But no, the sun could not be 'morally guilty' for the coldness of the planet. Only a fool would say that the sun and its rays actually produced the frozen atmosphere of the planet. In a similar way, God ultimately determines all things, including sinful acts. Yet He cannot be called the author of sin."
Decision Making and the Will of God; Gary Friesen; Multnomah press p 204

As impressive as this illustration might be it contains two very serious flaws.
The first one is that the sun did not create the planet with its inherent darkness and coldness but God both decreed and created the planet and its condition! Neither is the sun the providential sustainer of the planet but God is both creator and sustainer of all things. Even if God were to "move away" from us He would still maintain absolute control of everything that goes on including the weather and the actions of men. But secondly, and more devastating is that this illustration, depicting God as "moving away" and leaving the planet to its own nature is a grand description of... Deism! Folks! And all God's children said... That's unbiblical! Nowhere in the Bible does it teach God "moving away" from His creation and leaving it to its own nature as He anticipates the outcome. God never has and never will relinquish His control and order of all things. I can hear you all frantically whipping the pages of your Bible to Romans one and saying... See! It says 'God gave them up'. Forget it! If you think this passage supports the illustration of deism then think again. "God gave them up" is a description of God doing something; not "moving away" from them! Finally, this illustration overlooks the biblical doctrine of Divine Concurrence whereby God is actively involved in the actions of His creatures. I say ladies and gentlemen, that once the "hole" of permission is allowed in the dike it isn't long until the dam breaks and the flood of deism sweeps us all away!

In attempting to illustrate the relationship between God and the sinner it is important to keep in mind that we are talking about two living beings that both have the capacity to will and act. Therefore, any illustration that uses inanimate objects is flawed from the outset. Sun and planets can hardly do justice to living beings since they cannot deliberate and make decisions nor are they "accountable" for their choices. Here then I should like to offer an illustration that does involve living creatures, not dead objects, that demonstrates moral relationships. It is from the pen of professor Gordon Clark and aptly shows that the idea of permission, when applied to God is nonsense! Clark offers...

"Suppose there were a lifeguard stationed at a dangerous beach. In the surf a boy is being sucked out to sea by the strong undertow. He cannot swim and will drown without powerful aid. It must be powerful for as drowning sinners do, he will struggle against the rescuer.  But the lifeguard simply sits on his highchair and watches him drown.  Perhaps he may shout a few words of advice and tell him to exersize his free will. After all, he went into the surf of his own free will! The guard did not push him in or interfere with him in any way. The guard merely permitted him to go in and permitted him to drown. Now... would an Arminian now conclude that the lifeguard thus escapes culpability?  The illustration with its finite limitations is damaging enough as it is. It shows that *permission of evil* as contrasted with *positive causality* does not relieve the guard from guilt.  If God merely permits men to be engulfed in sin of their own free wills the original objections of Voltaire and professor Patterson are not thereby met."

Pause for comments. Prof Clark is showing that permission with God is not only senseless but is an Arminian idea. Professor Patterson's objection is... *if it be as easy for God to create good men as well as evil men, why did He not create all men good? To suppose that He created both good and evil for His own glory, to bestow His love on the good and His wrath on the evil, is to lower God to the level of the most degenerate human tyrant.*  Clark correctly shows that permission does not answer this objection! It does not remove the Deity from culpability! Thus he continues...

"And yet the illustration does not do full  justice to the actual situation. For unlike the boy who exists in relative independence of the lifeguard, in actuality God made the boy and the ocean too. Now, if the guard - who is not the creator at all - is responsible for permitting the boy to drown, (and he most definitely is! JJ) even if the boy is supposed to have entered the surf of his own free will, does not God-who made them- appear in worse light? Surely an omnipotent God could have either made the boy a better swimmer, or made the ocean less rough, or at least have saved him from drowning.    Not only are free will and permission irrelevant to the problem of evil, but further the idea of permission has no intelligible meaning. It is quite within the range of possibility for the lifeguard to permit a man to drown. This permission, however, depends on the fact that the ocean's undertow is beyond the guard's control. If the guard had some giant suction device which he operated to engulf the boy, one would call it murder, not permission. The idea of permission is possible only where there is an independent force... But this is not the situation in the case of God and the universe. Nothing in the universe can be independent of the Omnipotent Creator, for in Him we live and move and have our being. Therefore the idea of permission makes no sense when applied to God."
Religion Reason and Revelation; Gordon Clark  p204ff

Let me add a bit of embellishment to this illustration in order to conform it more to reality. Let us see the boy come running defiantly up to the lifeguard and thumbing his nose at him in mockery and then traipsing off out into the surf daring the guard to stop him! This is what sinners are doing with God friends. So... all you professing reformed Calvinists out there, if you are to correctly illustrate the Deity  you must have the lifeguard decreeing everything the boy does... including the nose-thumbing and the fact that the boy perishes in the surf... and you must say he decreed and controlled it all on purpose. But of course once you say all this, which is Biblical... you have effectually sealed the coffin on permission!

Enough. It's time to demonstrate from the Scriptures the folly of trying to ascribe permission to the Deity. Prof Clark's term "positive causality" is in fact what the Bible teaches concerning God and evil. This indeed is the only alternative to permission. Many passages clearly teach us this truth. This will come under the heading of Providence. See ya there.
 

Read your Bible

Refute me at;  jamesjay@paonline.com

Theodicy

Prove  All  Things

r-jnd