The Reformed(ish) Confessions Explicitly Rejecting God as the Author of Sin

Vallérandus Poullain: Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551)

This is not to say that we make God the author of any sin, seeing that He Himself is a God that cannot have pleasure in any iniquity.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Vallérandus Poullain: Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:649.

Rhaetian Confession (1552)

It is thus displeasing that certain men, when speaking about providence, everywhere indiscriminately insult any number of people, [saying that] God is the author of both virtues and vices, and that He no less desires actions done in a wicked manner than those which are done well and virtuously. … Nevertheless, we will say that sins are not from God and that He is not the author of perversity if we want to speak properly and truly and in accordance with the rule and words of Holy Scripture.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Rhaetian Confession (1552),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:671–72.

Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552)

Although, therefore, I thus affirm that God did ordain the Fall of Adam, I so assert it as by no means to concede that God was therein properly and really the author of that Fall.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:775.

I have, with equal constancy, asserted that the eternal death to which man rendered himself subject so proceeded from his own fault that God cannot, in any way, be considered the author of it.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:776.

But how it was that God, by His foreknowledge and decree, ordained what should take place in Adam, and yet so ordained it without His being Himself in the least a participator of the fault, or being at all the author or the approver of the transgression; how this was, I repeat, is a secret manifestly far too deep to be penetrated by any stretch of human intellect.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:776.

The French Confession (1559)

Yet we deny that He is the author of sin, or that the blame of things done amiss can be laid upon Him, seeing His will is the sovereign and infallible rule of all righteousness and equity: but this we confess that He has those admirable means as whereby He makes the devils and the ungodly, as His instruments to serve Him and to turn the evil which they do and whereof they are guilty into good.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The French Confession (1559),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:143.

Lattanzio Ragnoni’s Formulario (1559)

He is the only true God (Deut. 32:39; Isa. 44:6; 45:5–6; 1 Cor. 8:6), of an eternal, infinite (Dan. 6:26; Rom. 16:25), spiritual (John 4:24), invisible, incomprehensible, and immortal (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16) essence, of utmost power (Gen. 17:1; Luke 1:51), wisdom (Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17), justice (Deut. 32:4), mercy (Ps. 118:1–4, 29), goodness (Matt. 19:17; V 2, p 165 Ps. 31:5), truth (Rom. 3:4), who is the true and only fountain of every virtue, from whom every good thing flows (James 1:17), in whom there is no evil, who is not the author of any sin (Job 34:10, 12) but rather is displeased and hates and abominates every injustice and iniquity (Deut. 25:16; Pss. 5:4; 92:15), who being perfect in Himself and communicating His good to others (James 1:5; Matt. 7:7; 2 Cor. 9:8–9; 1 Tim. 6:17) does not need anything (Ps. 16:2; Acts 17:25).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Lattanzio Ragnoni’s Formulario (1559),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:164–65.

The Waldensian Confession (1560)

We believe that the same God governs all His creatures and that He disposes and orders all that takes place in the world according to His will, not being the author of evil or that the blame for it might be imputed to Him, since His will is the supreme and infallible rule of every justice and equity.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Waldensian Confession (1560),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:220.

Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560)

Nothing is done at adventure or by chance or without the most just ordinance and appointment of God (Eph. 1:11; Matt. 10:29; Prov. 16:4), although God is in no way author nor culpable of any evil which is committed. … But if man had been created wicked or evil, God would not have had just occasion to punish the wickedness of which He Himself was the author and maker.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:242, 244–45.

The Belgic Confession (1561)

We believe that the same good God, after He had created all things, did not forsake them or give them up to fortune or chance, but that He rules and governs them according to His holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without His appointment; nevertheless, God neither is the author of nor can be charged with the sins which are committed.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Belgic Confession (1561),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:431.

The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562)

Concerning Permission

We say that God acts permissively in foul sins or offenses because He is not the author of sin or evil offenses (Acts 14; Ps. 83). He only permits men to commit them, but does not command or perform them. God does not perform anything close by, effectively or directly, but only indirectly, sustaining the ruined mass, its movement, existence; giving life in accordance with His general providence. But when God punishes sins with later sins, working indirectly in a manner deserving of punishment, He does not sin (2 Sam. 16, 18, 19). The instruments, men and devils, work sinfully close by, committing sin in themselves, with regard to themselves, as Absalom, Ammon, the Chaldeans, Satan (Rom. 7; Eph. 4; 2 Sam. 7, 12, 13; 1 Kings 11, 17, 22; 2 Chron. 25; so teach the Holy Scriptures and the fathers: Augustine, on predestination; Ambrose, on the call of the heathen; 2 Thess. 2; Jerome, Prosper, and others).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:481–82.

The Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563)

We confess that nothing takes place except in the sight of God or without His righteous decree: although God is not the author of sin of any kind and has no part therein.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:654.

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

Moreover we condemn Florinus Blastus (against whom also Irenaeus wrote) and all those that make God the author of sin; seeing it is expressly written, “Thou art not a God that loveth wickedness; thou hatest all them that work iniquity, and wilt destroy all that speak lies” (Ps. 5:4–6).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Second Helvetic Confession (1566),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:821.

Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567)

Here we condemn the belief of the Manicheans too, i.e., those who make God, one way or another, the author of sin. First, because it is written in Psalm 5:4 that God does not desire sin, i.e., He cannot wish for sin, cannot make it. God performs only what He wishes (Pss. 114, 135). But as He does not desire sin, He does not cause it. And since God is the highest righteousness, light, and life, He cannot do that which is contrary to His own nature.
Second, because Scripture says that God hates sin, cannot abide falsehood, and cannot perform deception or sin.
Third, because He forbids and punishes the sinful, He cannot be the author of that which He forbids and punishes.
Fourth, because Scripture teaches that God would not be able to punish men and be the judge of the world if He desired and performed sin (Gen. 18; Rom. 2–3). If my sin is to the glory of God, why then does He punish me as a sinner?
We repudiate the hairsplitting speculations, without foundation in Scripture, of those who say that it was of necessity, by the decree of God, that Adam fell from that blessed integrity.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:19.

The Confession of La Rochelle (1571)

Certainly we do not believe that God is the author of evil or that guilt can be imputed to Him, since, on the contrary, His will is the sovereign and infallible rule of all true justice and righteousness.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of La Rochelle (1571),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:309.

The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609)

Of the author of sin, we confess that our Lord God, though He is the creator and sustainer of all creatures, yet He is not the author of sin.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:409.

The Bremen Consensus (1595)

It is thus a notable calumny in opposition to the previously recounted, authentic doctrine of the divine decree and His government of all things, when one seeks to sanction and validate the following absurd and false opinions: As, that no one need have scruples about sin and that all evil is done not merely by the will of God, but even occurs with Him as its author. Or that the ungodly sin in accord with the will of God and that their sins are effected in them by God. Or that not only the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, but even a stiff-necked, ungodly and disobedient spirit are produced by God, and that the evil will in perverse men is from God. Or that men must by necessity sin against their own will, and that God has determined from eternity (and that it suits Him) to create men so that they must sin.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Bremen Consensus (1595),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:671.

The Confession of John Sigismund (1614)

It is not that God is a cause of man’s ruin, nor that He desires the death of the sinner, nor that He is an author or instigator of sin, nor that He does not desire all to be saved, for we find the opposite throughout Holy Scripture (Ezek. 18:21–23; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Matt. 10[?20]).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of John Sigismund (1614),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:85–86.

The Irish Articles (1615)

28. God is not the author of sin: however, He does not only permit, but also by His providence governs and orders the same, guiding it in such sort by His infinite wisdom as it turns to the manifestation of His own glory, and to the good of His elect.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Irish Articles (1615),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:94–95.

The Canons of Dort (1618–1619)

And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the Author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge and Avenger thereof.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Canons of Dort (1618–1619),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:125.

‘That the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all, and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than an interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and, therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers’ breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them;’ and many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Canons of Dort (1618–1619),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:151–52.

The Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1629/1631)

For it is a true and infallible rule that God is in no wise the author of evil, nor can any such by just reasoning be attributed to God.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1629/1631),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:157.

The Colloquy of Thorn (1645)

1) God is not at all the author of any sin, but rather the source and author of all good things; by contrast, the hater and avenger of all that is evil.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Colloquy of Thorn (1645),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:210.

2) It is therefore outright calumny when that horrible blasphemy impugns our church—that we make God the author of sin.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Colloquy of Thorn (1645),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:211.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

I. GOD from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:238.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men (Rom. 11:32–34; 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1; 1 Kings 22:22–23; 1 Chron. 10:4, 13–14; 2 Sam. 16:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28); and that not by a bare permission (Acts 14:16), but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding (Ps. 76:10; 2 Kings 19:28), and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends (Gen. 1:20; Isa. 10:6–7, 12); yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin (James 1:13–14, 17; 1 John 2:16; Ps. 50:21).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:240.

The London Confession (1646)

God has decreed in Himself, before the world was, concerning all things (Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Pss. 115:3; 135:6), whether necessary, accidental (Ps. 33:15; 1 Sam. 10:9, 26), or voluntary, with all the circumstances of them, to work, dispose, and bring about all things according to the counsel of His own will, to His glory (yet without being the author of sin, or having fellowship with anything therein); in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, unchangeableness, power, and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree: and God has before the foundation of the world, foreordained some men to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace; and leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice (Prov. 21:6; Ex. 21:13; Prov. 16:33; Ps. 144; Isa. 45:7: Jer. 14:22; Matt. 6:28, 30; Col. 1:16–17; Num. 23:19–20; Rom. 3:4; Jer. 10:10; Eph. 1:4–5; Jude 4, 6; Prov. 16:4).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The London Confession (1646),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:274.

Waldensian Confession (1655)

That He directs and governs all things by His providence, ordaining and appointing all that happens in the world, without being either the author or cause of evil committed by the creatures, or that the culpability in power or obligation may in any way be imputed to Him.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1655),” trans. James T. Dennison Jr., in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:438.

A brief justification touching the points, or articles of faith which the doctors of Rome impute to us in common with all the Reformed churches. Accusing us of believing:
1. That God is the author of sin.
2. That God is not all powerful.
3. That Jesus Christ fell into despair on the cross.
4. That in the works of salvation, when man is moved by the Holy Spirit, he does not cooperate any more than a piece of wood or a rock.
5. That the efficacy of predestination, is of no consequence whether one does good or evil.
6. That good works are not necessary to salvation.
7. That we absolutely reject confession of sin and repentance.
8. That fasting must be rejected, and other mortifications of the flesh, to live in dissolution.
9. That any one can explain the Holy Scripture as it pleases him, and according to the inspirations of his own particular spirit.
10. That the church can fail entirely and be destroyed.
11. That baptism is not a necessity for anyone.
12. That in the sacrament of the Eucharist, we do not have any real communion with Jesus Christ, but only in a figure.
13. That it is not obligatory to obey magistrates, kings, princes, etc.
14. Because we do not invoke the holy virgin, and men already glorified, they accuse us of scorn, when we declare them blessed, worthy both of praise and imitation, and hold above all the holy virgin “blessed among all women.”

But all these articles which are so maliciously imputed to us, far from believing or teaching them, we hold to be heretical and damnable, and denounce from all our heart anathema against whoever would maintain them.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1655),” trans. James T. Dennison Jr., in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:443–44.

The Savoy Declaration (1658)

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:462.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, in that His determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men (and that not by a bare permission) which also He most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth in a manifold dispensation to His own most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be the author or approver of sin.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:464.

Waldensian Confession (1662)

That God guides and governs them all by His providence, ordering and directing all that happens in the world, but without being the author or the cause of the evil of creatures, or that the guilt of it might or ought to be imputed in any way to Him.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1662),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:501.

We are usually accused of believing that:
1. God is the author of sin;
2. God is not omnipotent;
3. Jesus Christ was not without sin;
4. Jesus Christ fell into despair on the cross;
5. Man is like a piece of wood or a rock in his actions to salvation, being moved by the Spirit of God;
6. Because of predestination it is indifferent if one lives well or amiss;
7. Good works are not necessary for salvation;
8. Among us repentance and confession of sins are condemned;
9. It is convenient to reject fasting and other mortifications to live in debauchery;
10. It is lawful for everyone to explain freely Scripture according to the motions of a peculiar spirit;
11. The church can be reduced to nothing and be extinguished;
12. Baptism avails for nothing;
13. In the sacrament of the Eucharist, there is no real communion with Christ, but only a picture;
14. It is not necessary to submit to and obey kings, princes, and magistrates;
15. Since we do not pray to the virgin and glorified saints, we despise them; while we consider them blessed, worthy of laud, and imitation, and especially we consider the glorious virgin blessed above all women.

These beliefs are imputed to us, while our churches detest them as heresies and declare anathema with the whole heart any who uphold them.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1662),” trans. Andrea Ferrari, in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:515.

The London Baptist Confession (1677)

1. God has 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 (Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18); yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any therein (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5); 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 (Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11); in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree (Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3–5).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The London Baptist Confession (1677),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:536.

4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that His determinate counsel extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men (Rom. 11:32–34; 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1); and that not by a bare permission, which also He most wisely and powerfully bounds, and otherwise orders and governs (2 Kings 19:28; Ps. 76:10), in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends (Gen. 50:20; Isa. 10:6–7, 12); yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceeds only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin (Ps. 50:21; 1 John 2:16).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The London Baptist Confession (1677),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:539.

Citations in order: James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Vallérandus Poullain: Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:649; “Rhaetian Confession (1552),” in Reformed Confessions, 1:671–72; “Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552),” 1:775, 776; “The French Confession (1559),” 2:143; “Lattanzio Ragnoni’s Formulario (1559),” 2:164–65; “The Waldensian Confession (1560),” 2:220; “Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560),” 2:242, 244–45; “The Belgic Confession (1561),” 2:431; “The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562),” 2:481–82; “The Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563),” 2:654; “The Second Helvetic Confession (1566),” 2:821; “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” 3:19; “The Confession of La Rochelle (1571),” 3:309; “The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609),” 3:409; “The Bremen Consensus (1595),” 3:671; “The Confession of John Sigismund (1614),” 4:85–86; “The Irish Articles (1615),” 4:94–95; “The Canons of Dort (1618–1619),” 4:125, 151–52; “The Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1629/1631),” 4:157; “The Colloquy of Thorn (1645),” 4:210, 211; “The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646),” 4:238, 240; “The London Confession (1646),” 4:274; “Waldensian Confession (1655),” trans. James T. Dennison Jr., 4:438, 443–44; “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” 4:462, 464; “Waldensian Confession (1662),” trans. Andrea Ferrari, 4:501, 515; “The London Baptist Confession (1677),” 4:536, 539.

Richard Muller on Calvin & the Problem of Divine Will, Permission, & Contingency

Thomas Watson (c.1620–1686) on God’s Will of Precept and Permissive Decree

Use 3. To conclude, a word to the Wicked, who march furiously against God and his People, let them know God’s Decree is Unchangeable, God will not alter it, nor can they break it, and while they resist God’s Will they fulfill it. There’s a twofold Will of God, Voluntas praecepti & decreti; The Will of God’s Precept, and of his Decree. While the Wicked resist the Will of God’s Precept, they fulfill the Will of his Permissive Decree. Judas betrays Christ, Pilate condemns him, the Soldiers crucify him; while they resisted the Will of God’s Precept, they fulfilled the Will of his Permissive Decree, Acts 4.28. Such as are wicked, God commands one thing, they do the quite contrary; to keep Sabbath, they profane it; while they disobey his Command they fulfill his Permissive Decree. If a Man set up two Nets, one of Silk, the other of Iron, the Silken Net may be broken, not the Iron: God’s Commands are the Silken Net; while Men break the Silken Net of God’s Command, they are taken in the Iron Net of his Decree; while they sit backward to God’s Precepts, they row forward to his Decree; his Decree to permit their Sin, and to punish them for their Sin permitted.

Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity Consisting of Above One Hundred Seventy Six Sermons on the Lesser Catechism Composed by the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster (London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1692), 39. See also Augustine on God’s will not defeated.

Bio:  

Wiki

DNB

Elnathan Parr (1577–1622) on Divine Permission and God’s Decree

Qu. But do you believe that God's providence extends itself to all actions of men, even to decree, order, and govern evil actions?

Ans. Yes indeed; I believe that even the evil Actions of Men, are not  only foreknown, but also decreed by God.

Explic. We need not fear to attribute evil actions to the decree of God, because the Scripture so speaks; only we must soberly and wisely understand it: namely, that Pharoah's cruelty, Shemei's cursing, Absolom's uncleanness, Judas' betraying of Christ, are not by his revealed will approved, but forbidden: and yet that by his good pleasure he will permit the same. Which permission we may not understand to be the cessation of his care and providence, or an idle winking at the matter, but joined with an active power, not of infusing evil into men, but first of taking away or denying his grace, and of delivering of them most justly to Satan, and to the lusts of their own hearts: And also of bounding their wills, purposes and Actions, and directing them to a good end. For God is so good, that he would never suffer evil to be, if he could not bring good out of evil [Parr seems to be alluding to Augustine here]. Even as the skillful Apothecary knows how to use poison well, and to the good of the Patient. And surely, this is a most pregnant proof of the powerful providence of God herein, when those Actions which are done by wicked men contrary to his will, yet are brought to serve and fulfill his holy will and purpose. For even as in an Army, one fights for praise, another for lucre of the spoil, another is egged forward by desire of revenge; yet all for the victory, and for their Prince: and as in a ship, some weigh up Anchors, others stand at the pump, others at the stern, and all by several works labor for the safety of the ship; so, whatsoever the wicked propound to themselves, yet the Lord orders all to his good pleasure, will they nil they: so that as an arrow flies to the mark which the shooter aims at, without any sense where it goes; So the Lord serves himself by the wicked, though they think not so much. Hence is it, that though the decree of God's providence (as has been said) is concerning those evil actions; yet neither is God guilty, nor man guiltless. God is not guilty, because he puts no evil into men, but uses them as he finds them, and so makes them to serve his glory, who may use what Creatures he will, and cannot use them, though they be evil, but well, because he is infinitely good. Neither is man guiltless, notwithstanding the Decree; for sinners are not excusable, because there is no force used towards them, but they follow their sins with great pleasure, and are [of a] very willing mind, and casting away the care of virtue, do of their own accord, yield themselves to their own lusts, respecting in their evil deeds only the satisfying of their own wills, and not the fulfilling of the will of God. The Jews did what the hand and will of God had determined before to be done to Christ; but they considered not that, but were led unto that sin, by the malice and covetousness of their own wicked and envious hearts, which were the true causers thereof. So that, (as Saint Augustine says) in one and the self same thing, God is just, and Man is most unjust, because in that one thing which they do, there is not one cause for the which they do the same.

Here further it is to be marked, that the Decree of God (in respect whereof all things are necessary) does not not take away contingency, which is, when a thing, when it is, had cause whereby it might have been otherwise. As the bones of Christ must be unbroken in regard of God's Decree, and yet they might have been broken in regard of their own Nature, and the freedom of the minds of the Soldiers. Neither may any think, that hereby are frustrated, deliberations, prudence, and use of means; for as God decrees the being of things, so also the means whereby such things shall be. As in regard of God's Decree, Lot cannot be burned in Sodom; but then he must escape, and hie[?] him away out of the City. David must overcome Goliath, but then he must take his Sling, with the smooth stones, with him. Manasses must be saved, because God has so decreed, but then he must repent and believe, which are the means of salvation appointed and decreed by God.

Elnathan Parr, The Grounds of Divinity (London: Printed by Edward Griffin, and William Hunt, 1651), 24. Some of the spelling has been changed.

Bio:  

DNB

Richard Muller on Permissio and Permissio Efficax

permissio: permission; specifically, permission as distinct from active or effective willing. The concept of a divine permissio was denied by Calvin* but accepted by virtually all later Reformed theologians, including Beza and Zanchi, as a means of explaining the origin of sin and the continuing instances of sin in the course of human history. God does not will positively that sins occur but permits creatures to exercise their will in a sinful way. The concept appears also in the Lutheran scholastic systems, though Lutheran opposition to the doctrine of a decretum absolutum, or absolute decree, of predestination rendered the origin of sin and the continuing presence of sin less of a problem for Lutheran than for Reformed orthodoxy.

permissio efficax: effective permission or willing permission; especially, the providential concursus (q.v.) underlying evil acts of human beings; a concept typical of Reformed theology, which will not allow a bare or ineffectual permission on the part of God and which will acknowledge no realm of activity outside of the will of God. God therefore is viewed as positively willing to permit the free agency of human beings and as supporting their acts with his providential concursus even when those acts go against his revealed will.

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 222.

See also David's posts on Divine Permission of Sin.

*I question whether Muller is correct that Calvin denied the concept of divine permission. Certainly he denied the concept of an unwilling divine permission, but not the concept as such. He probably followed Augustine on the idea. See some Calvin sources here (click).

Augustine on God’s Invincible Will

English Translation #1:

Chap. 100.–THE WILL OF GOD IS NEVER DEFEATED, THOUGH MUCH IS DONE THAT IS CONTRARY TO HIS WILL.

These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all His pleasure, and so wisely sought out, that when the intelligent creation, both angelic and human, sinned, doing not His will but their own, He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator's will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace. For, as far as relates to their own consciousness, these creatures did what God wished not to be done: but in view of God’s omnipotence, they could in no wise effect their purpose. For in the very fact that they acted in opposition to His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled. And hence it is that “the works of the Lord are great, sought out according to all His pleasure,” because in a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to His will does not defeat His will. For it would not be done did He not permit it (and of course His permission is not unwilling, but willing); nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done only that in His omnipotence He can turn evil into good.

Augustine, “On Faith, Hope and Love,” in NPNF, 1st series, ed. P. Schaff (1888; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 3:269; Enchiridion, c. 100.

English Translation #2:

CHAPTER 26

God always accomplishes His will, whether man co-operates with Him or whether he opposes Him.

100. These are the great works of the Lord sought out according to all His wills.³³¹ And so wisely are they sought out, that when His creatures, angels and man, had sinned, that is, had not done His will but their own, He still accomplished what He willed, and that through the same willfulness by which the opposite of the Creator’s will was done. As the sovereign Good He turned to good account even what was evil, for the condemnation of those whom He has justly predestined to punishment,³³² and for the salvation of those whom He has mercifully predestined to grace. For, as far as they themselves were concerned, they did what God did not want done; but as regards God’s omnipotence, they were in no way able to accomplish this. Yes, by the very fact that they acted against His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled. For the reason that the works of the Lord are great, sought out according to all His wills, lies in this, that in a wondrous, indescribable way even that which is done against His will is not done without His will. It simply could not be done if He did not permit it, and of course He permits it not against His will, but with it; nor would He in His goodness permit evil unless in His omnipotence He could bring good even out of evil.
_______________
331 Ps. 110:2.
332 St. Augustine evidently speaks of a predestination to punishment and to eternal punishment, as he does, for instance in De anima et eius orig. 4. 11. 16: Quos praedestinavit ad aeternam mortem. However, he never says that anyone is predestined to sin. Cf. ibid. 1. 7. 7: Praescientia … Dei … peccatores praenoscit, non facit.” For other texts, see O. Rottmanner, op. cit. 18. 1.

St. Augustine, St. Augustine: Faith, Hope and Charity, ed. Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, trans. Louis A. Arand, vol. 3 of Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Mahwah, NJ: The Newman Press, 1947), 94–95; italics original.

English Translation #3:

26, 100. These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all his purposes (Ps 111:2 LXX), and sought out so wisely that when creatures, both angels and humans, had sinned, that is, had done not what he willed but what they willed, the creator fulfilled what he willed by means of that very will of the creature by which what was against his will was done, making good use even of evil creatures as befits the one who is supremely good, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace. For as far as they were concerned, they did what God did not will, but as far as the omnipotence of God is concerned, they were in no way able to contravene his will. By the very fact that they acted against his will, his will was done through them. For the great works of the Lord are sought out according to all his purposes in order that even what happens against his will should in a wonderful and inexplicable way not be done despite his will, since it would not happen if he did not permit it, and he does not permit things unwillingly but willingly; nor would he in his goodness allow anything evil to happen were he not able in his omnipotence even to bring good out of evil.

Augustine of Hippo, “The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity,” in On Christian Belief, ed. Boniface Ramsey, trans. Bruce Harbert, vol. I/8 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2005), 330–331; italics original.

English Translation #4:

CHAPTER XXVI

The Triumph of God’s Sovereign Good Will

100. These are “the great works of the Lord, well-considered in all his acts of will” [Psa 110:2; Vulgate]—and so wisely well-considered that when his angelic and human creation sinned (that is, did not do what he willed, but what it willed) he could still accomplish what he himself had willed and this through the same creaturely will by which the first act contrary to the Creator’s will had been done. As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace.

For, as far as they were concerned, they did what God did not will that they do, but as far as God’s omnipotence is concerned, they were quite unable to achieve their purpose. In their very act of going against his will, his will was thereby accomplished. This is the meaning of the statement, “The works of the Lord are great, well-considered in all his acts of will”—that in a strange and ineffable fashion even that which is done against his will is not done without his will. For it would not be done without his allowing it—and surely his permission is not unwilling but willing—nor would he who is good allow the evil to be done, unless in his omnipotence he could bring good even out of evil.

Augustine, Confessions and Enchridion, trans. Albert C. Outler, LCC VII (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955), 399.

Here is the Latin:

C. Haec sunt magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes voluntates eius), et tam sapienter exquisita, ut quum angelica et humana creatura peccasset, id est, non quod ille, sed quod voluit ipsa fecisset, etiam per eamdem creaturae voluntatem, qua factum est, quod creator noluit, impleret ipse quod voluit, bene utens et malis, tamquam summe bonus ad eorum damnationem, quos iuste praedestinavit ad poenam, et ad eorum salutem, quos benigne praedestinavit ad gratiam.) Quantum enim ad ipsos adtinet, quod Deus noluit, fecerunt; quantum vero ad omnipotentiam Dei, nullo modo id efficere valuerunt. Hoc quippe ipso, quod contra voluntas eius. Propterea namque magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes voluntates eius, ut miro et ineffabili modo non fiat praeter eius voluntatem, quod etiam contra eius fit voluntatem; quia non fieret, si non sineret (nec utique nolens sinit, sed volens); nec sineret bonus fieri male, nisi omnipotens et de malo facere posset bene.

S. Aurelii Augustini, “Enchiridion ad Laurent,” in  De Doctrina Christiana Libri Quatuor et Enchiridion ad Laurentium, ed. Car. Herm. Bruder (Lipsiae: Sumtimbus Et Typis Caroli Tauchnitii, 1838), 238.

Since I have seen this section in Augustine’s Enchiridion referenced in a number of the Puritans (like John Arrowsmith, a Westminster divine), I decided to post the entire chapter. See also Thomas Watson on God’s will of precept and permissive decree. Théodore Bèze, Walter Haddon, Jacob Kimedoncius, Edward Bulkley, William Perkins, Guillaume Bucanus, Daniel Featley, Richard Resbury, Wiliam Twisse, John Knox, William Whitaker, and Johannes  Hermanus Dalhusius also cite this section from Augustine approvingly.

Prosper rightly represents historic Augustinianism on God’s will, and he said this:

Likewise, he who says that God will not have all men to be saved but only the fixed number of the predestined, speaks more harshly than we should speak of the depth of the unsearchable grace of God.

Prosper of Aquitaine, “Answers to the Gauls,” in Defense of St. Augustine, trans. P. De letter (New York: Newman Press, 1963), 159.

Update on 10-18-14:

“These are the great works of the Lord, sought out unto all His wills” (ver. 2): through which mercy forsaketh none who confesseth, no man’s wickedness is unpunished. . . . Let man choose for himself what he listeth: the works of the Lord are not so constituted, that the creature, having free discretion allowed him, should transcend the will of the Creator, even though he act contrary to His will. God willeth not that thou shouldest sin; for He forbiddeth it: yet if thou hast sinned, imagine not that the man hath done what he willed, and that hath happened to God which He willed not. For as He would that man would not sin, so would He spare the sinner, that he may return and live; He so willeth finally to punish him who persisteth in his sin, that the rebellious cannot escape the power of justice. Thus whatever choice thou hast made, the Almighty will not be at a loss to fulfill His will concerning thee.

Augustine, “Exposition on the Book of Psalms,” NPNF, 1st Series, ed. by Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 8:545. [Note: Augustine's meaning in the underlined portion above is this: In the sense that God doesn't want man to sin (but rather to obey), in that sense (i.e. according to the revealed will) he wishes to spare the sinner, that he may return and live.]

Calvin cites both of these quotes (from Augustine's Enchiridion and Exposition of the Psalms) in his Institutes 1.18.3.

In describing Calvin’s views on providence, John Murray said:

In the realm of sin we do have the contradiction of God’s revealed and prescriptive good pleasure. But that very contradiction is embraced in the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. And it is just because this is the case, it is just because the contradiction which sin offers to his sovereignty in command is embraced in the sovereignty of both decree and providence and does not create a realm impervious to his efficient foreordination and operation that the sovereign provisions of his grace invade that same realm and emancipate men from the contradiction itself and therefore from the curse, condemnation, thraldom, and misery which the contradiction entails. It is this doctrine of God’s sovereignty in the realm of sin that is the precondition of sovereignty in redemptive grace.

John Murray, Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 70–71.

John Arrowsmith (1602–1659) on God’s Will and Permission

6. III. By way of permission. Hard-heartedness is one of those evils, which God permiteth, but approveth not, and is accordingly included in that speech, God in time past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways [Acts 14:16]. Therefore the school-men upon those texts, Deus non volens iniquitatem, tu es, and Quod non volui elegerunt, have founded a notable distinction between Velle, Nolle, and Non velle, which is not inconsiderable here. God is said to will a thing when he so approves of it, as to effect it. To Nill a thing, when he so dislikes it, as to prohibit it; non velle, not to will it, when he so dislikes as not to prohibit, yea, and not to effect it, yet permits it to be for good ends. Of the Lord, it is truly said, That he wills a heart of flesh, and that he nills a heart of stone; as for hard-heartedness, although he frequently permit it, yet we must say he is not altogether willing to have it, however willing to Suffer it. Our temper must be that of Austin, In a wonderful and unspeakable manner even that which is done against his will, is not done without his will; for it would not be done, if it were not permitted; neither doth he permit it without, but with his will. And again, He is so good as that he would never suffer evil, if he were not so Omnipotent, as to bring good out of evil.

John Arrowsmith, Armilla Catechetica: A Chain of Principles; or, An Orderly Concatenation of Theological Principles and Excercitations, Wherein the Chief Heads of Christian Religion are Asserted and Improved (Edinburgh: Thomas Turnbull, 1822), 335–336.

Bio:
Wiki