[This section was part of my Systematic Theology, but I decided it was to much of a rabbit trail to leave in the book; and so, I published it here as extra reading material]

I am not alone in saying this. The famous John Calvin says in his institutes, as I paraphrase, “that God with His infinite power, could have created Adam to resist the temptation in the garden, but willfully chose to create Adam in such a way, that Adam did not have the power to resist the temptation. And it is wicked to question or look for a further reason why Adam sinned.” Martin Luther, not directly dealing with Adam’s sin speaks of Satan. Satan’s sin is relevant, because as Adam is the original sinner for mankind, Satan is for angels. “So that which we call the remnant of nature in the ungodly and in Satan, as being a creature and a work of God, is no less subject to Divine omnipotence and action than all the rest of God’s creatures and works. Since God moves and works all in all, He moves and works of necessity even in Satan and the ungodly.[1] Martin is saying, regarding the only real level causality, God directly works evil, in evil creatures, just as directly as He works good, in good creatures. As direct as God is, as He works faith in an elect, it is the same as He works unbelief in the reprobate.

Some modern Reformed people, such as R.C. Sproul, call this hyper-Calvinism[2]. This is self-damming because the Bible teaches this, and so it is an attack on God. It is also stupid because Calvin teaches this, and so now we have a history manmade mess, where we need to keep talking about what man said what. God and the bible become secondary at best. Calvin says there is NO such thing as “permission will” with God about anything in reality, thus, God is not permissive with the reprobate. Calvin clearly taught that God is as directly involved in reprobation as He is in the elect. God does not, merely leave the reprobate, yet actively works in the elect. Calvin says,  

Finally, he adds the conclusion that “God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” [Rom. 9:18]. Do you see how Paul attributes both to God’s decision alone? If, then, we cannot determine a reason why he vouchsafes mercy to his own, except it so pleases him, neither shall we have any reason for rejecting others, other than his will. For when it is said that God hardens or shows mercy to whom he wills, men are warned by this to seek no cause outside his will.[3]

So, whether it is the elect or reprobate, Calvin says you cannot go beyond, “God Willed it.” God willed it, and not that man willed; God will, and not that God left it, and a nebulous neutral power, outside of God, willed it. God did it directly, by His will and power. Calvin applies God’s will and direct working power, as equally to the elect as reprobate. Thus, if Martin Luther and Calvin are correct, then the WCF teaches a false doctrine, when it talks about secondary causes. I do not want to linger long on history and people, because Christians, like the Jews in Jesus’ day, use traditions to negate the Scripture. However, it might be worth saying that Martin Luther thanked Erasmus for attacking his teaching on God’s direct sovereign power in man, and with the gospel, and not attacking non-relevant issues. That is, Luther saw this teaching about God’s absolute sovereign power that directly works in the saint as it works in the sinner and Satan, as the central argument. Calvin, it seems, saw the importance as well. The WCF, which came later, contradicted what they taught.

Calvin actually gives a summary of this doctrine saying,

The sum of the whole is this,—since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence. Therefore, as God exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, He also exerts force in the reprobate to do him service.[4]

…When [Augustine] uses the term permission [He means] that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of all things, because nothing happens without his order or permission. He certainly does not figure God sitting idly in a watch-tower, when he chooses to permit anything. The will which he represents—if I may so express it—is an active will; for if God’s will is not active, then God’s will could not be regarded as a cause.[5]

…When I say that God bends all the reprobate, and even Satan himself, at his will, some object that only happens by the permission, not by the will of God…

[Those who are against the will of God that causes all things, counter this by saying] this is done only by the permission of God, and not by the will of God. However, God himself, openly declares that he does this, and thus, rebukes their evasion of this doctrine.

I admit, indeed, that God often acts in the reprobate by interposing the agency of Satan; but in such a manner, that Satan himself performs his part, just as he is impelled.

Some say, if God causes the counsels and affections of the reprobate, he is the author of all their sins; and, therefore, men, in doing what God has decreed, are unjustly condemned, because they are obeying his will. Such an objection makes a category mistake made between God’s will (decree) and his command, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them.

What we formerly quoted from the Psalms, to the effect that he does whatever pleases him, certainly extends to all the actions of men.[6]

Calvin is defining “providence” as this category proposition, “All things that are caused are things caused by the will of God.” This is not how I hear some Reformed people say it; they use it in a softer, vaguer, and more fatalistic way. I do not know if Calvin is truly representing Augustine about his use of “permission,” however it is not relevant, for the only point I wish to make is that Calvin is saying this because he agrees with the doctrine. Calvin is defining “God’s Will,” as only meaning a “active willing.” This of course lines up with Calvin saying that God does nothing by permitting it. This is important for there are people who use the word for “active” predestination for the elect and “passive” for the reprobate, such as R.C Sproul.  Calving contradicts this in both his negative and positive definition in what “God’s will” means. (1) It never means permission, and it always means active. In addition to this Calvin defends God’s active will, by saying if God’s will is not active, then it cannot logically be defined as a real “cause” of something. That is, if God only permits Pharaoh’s heart to be hard, and Pharaoh only permits, his heart to be hard, then there is no cause for it, which is nonsense. Calvin, like Luther, says that as God uses His power and force to make the saints believe and do, God uses the same power and force to make the reprobates and Satan to not believe and do.  Thus, when Calvin says God willed something he means God causes it, and not something or someone. When Calvin says that God will is the cause of all things, he means that it is the real, primary and active cause of it.

Even if you disagree with my points and copyediting, Calvin says God’s will does not mean permission, and that God’s will always means the same thing applied to all reality. This means you cannot say Calvin taught predestination one way for the Christian and then something less for the reprobate.

Martin Luther says that God is the one who put the evil in man originally. Additionally, as active as God is in causing “faith” in the Christian he is as active in causing “unbelief” in the reprobate. The way Luther talks about God’s causality with faith and unbelief, being the same, we conclude there is no room to say active will this and permissive will that. God makes the reprobate as a defective hammer from scratch, and not that the hammer made itself. God then picks up this defective hammer and uses it (causes them to will and do in life). The hammer makes defective hits, and God judges them for it.

Seriously, if all you do is a word search for “permission” in Calvin’s institutes, you will see Calvin over and over, in many different ways and with many passages say, God’ will does not involve permission for anything, relative to Him. Then modern Reformed people, like Sproul come around and say, God actively wills election, but only is passive or permits the reprobates. To deny passive or permissive will of God for the Reprobate, is for them is hyper-Calvinism. If you read Calvin and Luther a few times, and then read modern reformed fanboys, then you will become as appalled as I have in how much they speak in a continual and habitual slander and false witness against them. Why don’t they just say Calvin and Luther are heretics and just own up to it?

Calvin gives a category proposition for Christian metaphysics. He defines what it means and what it does not mean. All things are things caused by God’s active will. How simple and to the point that is. Modern reformed guys trying to complete this by coming up with phrases like, “active and passive,” “double predestination,” “soft this hard that,” “equal ultimacy” (etc.). They do this to make themselves look smart and academic, and to hide their unbelief under long, complicated loaded phrases.

Here is a pro-tip. If you truly want to communicate clearly, just use basic category statements. All, Some or None. The Scripture, along with Calvin and Luther, define Christian metaphysics as “All things are things directly caused by God.” The only two options for disagreement are “Some things are things directly cause by God, and some are not,” or “No things, are things directly cause by God.” Rather than saying “soft this and hard that,” just say “God determines all things by His will,” or “He does not,” or “He sometime does, and sometimes does not.” See, how simple and clear that is?

Calvin says, “the will of God is the cause of all things.” This will is defined as active by “God’s” “force” and “power,” and “never by permission.” Therefore, Calvin denies “secondary causes.” He does affirmed “secondary objects,” like Satan, that are themselves moved by God’s active force and power, but denies secondary cause as it is relative to God. Calvin also says, along with Luther, that the category of God’s decree and command, removes any human complaining about injustice done to them, when God punishes them for things that He causes them to do. Thus, both Calvin and Luther are in direct contradiction to the WCF, when it affirms secondary causes.

The WCF says,

“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.”

This is outright blasphemy. It denies the absolute and direct sovereignty of God over all things. They are trying to avoid calling God the author of sin, but since God directly controls all things, then He is precisely the metaphysical author of sin and evil. There is no logical maneuver to avoid this. If they affirm God decreed and caused all things directly by his sovereignty, then of course God is the author of sin. One fool tried to tell me that the WCF, in this place, is affirming God and sin are not categorically plausible, the way Gordon Clark would teach on this topic.[7] Yet, this is not the context. The “context” is about metaphysics or ultimate causality, “God ordaining all things by His choice.”

If the WCF by saying “ordaining,” does not mean that God is the only absolute direct cause for all things, then it up-fronts admits that it is affirming Arminianism, and that there is dualism in Christian ontology. I will be kind here, and assume it is affirming God’s absolute and direct sovereignty over all things.

They try to affirm God’s decree and control over all things, but then say God is not the controller of sin—this is said in CONTEXT to God decreeing and controlling all things. They contradict themselves, to affirm a human superstition, which says God cannot be the author of sin and unbelief in the same direct causality, since He is the author of faith and holiness. Some who see the insanity of this try to affirm a mystery or paradox. LOL! You cannot say God ordains or causes “all things,” and then say, God does not ordain or control sin. You cannot say, “All things are things directly controlled by God,” and “This thing is a thing God does not directly control.” Or, “God does control all things, but at the same time God does not control some things.”  Let us try this with something else. “All persons who are saved are saved by Jesus. This saved person is a person not saved by Jesus. This statement is not contradictive or blaspheme, it is a “mystery and a paradox.”” Wow, I am on my way to be a great theologian!

Again, in CONTEXT to the category of God directly causing all things, it is said, “the freedom and possibility of secondary causes are not taken away.” Therefore, we will stay in this same category, so as not to commit a category fallacy.

If God is the direct causality of all things, then all secondary causes do not exist, and there is no freedom or possibility of any created object to do or cause anything; God takes away all secondary causes, because He along directly causes all things.

Some have mentioned to me that the phrase “secondary causes” was used in two different ways a few hundred years ago. One means what the noun phrase naturally says (relative to God there are secondary ontologies), the other meaning is similar to pointing out the category fallacy issue that Gordon Clark often points out. There is no historical evidence this second meaning was widely used and popular, other than a few insistences (as far as I have been able to research it, and even then, I am not totally convinced it wasn’t just a typo or accidently used that way). This is an interesting point, but ultimately a non-relative point for interpretating the WCF’s statement, because the authors all knew how Calvin in his Institutes answered it, and his answer did not use this phrase, or the category of ontology.

John Calvin later in his life wrote a book about predestination, and he does seem to distance God as the author of sin from His predestination, or at least, making contradictive statements about it. It was less popular and less read as compared to his Institutes. However, because it was Calvin’s Institutes that all pastors and theologians were required to read, and that greatly influenced Europe, we will refer to his teaching in this book, as “Calvinism.” History shows the Institutes as hugely popular and influential.  As pointed out in the quote above, Calvin, when addressing the question of author of sin, does not use “secondary causes” (ontology) language, but said, “Such an objection makes a category mistake made between God’s will (decree) and his command, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them.” Calvin does not refer to causes to refute the accusation of God being the author of sin, but merely says it is a category fallacy to combine these. The WCF, was written by pastors who had to read Calvin’s Institutes in school. Yet, they chose to use “secondary causes” (ontology) rather than the concise and easy explanation from Calvin’s Institutes, which they all read and studied.

Seeing these pastors and theologians all studied logic and philosophy, the phrase “secondary causes” would still have ontology as its most direct meaning, even if some used is differently. The WCF chose to use a noun phrase, when its main meaning is about ontology, (and phrase naturally means ontology), in context about ontology. When the Institute’s dealt with ontology and the author of sin, Calvin answered with a category fallacy; yet, when the WCF answered this, it did so with another point about secondary ontology. These are two very different ways to answer the question. The conclusion is that even as early as the WCF the doctrine of God’s sovereignty was already defective and compromised.

It seems beyond reasonable to me that highly schooled pastors, who read the Institutes, Logic and Philosophy, when writing about ontology, would immediately answer with a phrase “secondary causality” or “secondary ontology” and not mean the category of ontology. Maybe an amateur, who is not good at communicating, but a room full of very educated pastors, I do not see that mistake happening.

To avoid this biblical outcome of the author of sin, the WCF commits the blasphemy of affirming secondary causes, at the ultimate level with God. They are pagans who affirm metaphysical dualism with God. Martin Luther is famous for pointing out the category fallacy that Erasmus made with ontology and ethics. It seems the WCF, with their category fallacies and paradoxes (and how modern Reformed people try to excuse this section) has more in common with the Catholic, than Martin Luther.

Again, think about a chess game.

This WCF passage is talking about the real level causality, which would be “Johnny moves white bishop to b4.” This passage is not talking about the relative level, which would be, “white bishop moves to b4.” In order to save the WCF many do the same category error that Arminians do to many passages of Scripture, by changing real level causality to relative level. The Armenians are morons for doing this, and so are the Reformed teachers who try to salvage this WCF passage, when it cannot be saved.

Vincent on this WCF passage says,

…I believe that if a person is a Christian and somewhat intelligent, then if we were to repeat, “If God is not the direct metaphysical cause of something, then something else is,” to his face over and over again, eventually he would realize what this really means and would become just as alarmed and repulsed at the notion as we are. But perhaps both faith and intelligence are rare, and the combination even less likely.

As for secondary causation, I have addressed this a number of times. If all else fails, I can say that I did not write the books, but my computer did. The fact that I was typing on it when the books appeared does not nullify the authorship of the computer or its moral responsibility, but only establishes it. If the reply is that the computer is not an intelligent mind but a dead object, I would insist that Dual Core is superior to a lump of clay (Romans 9). In any case, if God’s authorship is only so distant (I did not make the computer, the software, nor did I make or control the electricity), he might not be so clearly the author of sin….

If I am right, then they must be wrong. The question is, how can they be right without self-contradiction — that God controls all things, but he really doesn’t, that God causes all things, but he really doesn’t? The Reformed is fond of appealing to “mystery,” “paradox,” and “antinomy,” which are nothing but more dignified and deceptive terms for saying, “Clearly, I contradict myself, but I don’t care.” Instead, it seems to me that divine sovereignty is an altogether clear and coherent doctrine. It is so easy to understand. I have also answered the almost universal abuse of James 1:13. Temptation and causation are two different things, and the topic is causation, not temptation.

We must submit to the direct teachings of Scripture and its necessary implications, and not the traditions and good intentions of men.[8]

I apologize for the diversion. Although I do not call myself a Calvinist, I do not like false witnesses and un-needed complexities and un-needed phrases. We can see from this the importance to leave history and fanboys with their slanders, loaded phrases and complexities to themselves. We will focus on making doctrinal statements (all, some or none) and making easy deductive application for ourselves, so that we can walk by the commands of God in joy.

---

[1] Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will; translated by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston; Fleming H. Revell ,1957. 204

Also see my website for an article called, “Martin Luther- The Bondage of the Will – Commentary,” for more about the Bondage of the Will.

[2] R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God; Tyndale House Publishers, 1986; p. 142.
 “The Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts…”  
Sproul also in page 142 says active reprobation is “hyper” and “sub” Calvinism.

[3] Calvin, Institutes. p. 947.

[4] Calvin’s Institutes. CCEL ebook edition. publish domain. (www.ccel.org). Book 1, Chapter 18.
I have done a medium copyedit on the English (to modernize it), on this material. See original for comparison.

[5] Ibid. Book ,1 Chapter 16.

[6] Ibid. Book 1, Chapter 18

[7] Gordon Clark, in order to make the WCF affirm the correct level of sovereignty he taught, had to bear false witness against the WCF to make it say what it does not. His slander is the opposite of most Reformed teachers, who slander Calvin and Luther, by falsely saying they teach the same thing as the WCF. The WCF is their creed; it is their gate keeper, but Calvin and Luther are also their divine fathers. Yet, they contradict one another. And so, this back-and-forth slander is how it ends up being for fan boys, and traditionist.

Leave them and their tradition, they have their reward.

[8] Vincent Cheung. “WCF, secondary causes, etc.”

From the ebook, Sermonettes, Vol. 1. 2010. Page. 82-83.