If God is Good, Omnipotent, and Sovereign, Where Does Evil Come From?

by Phil Johnson

When bad things happen, has God lost control?

rminian reasoning: "If God is sovereign, doesn't that make him the author of evil? Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, beneficent God permit evil in the first place?

The only honest way for an Arminian to avoid the difficulty those questions pose would be to answer the same way process theology and open theology deal with the dilemma: "God doesn't actually know the future; he is taking calculated risks."

That opens up greater problems than ever. It nullifies divine omniscience; it erases the doctrine of divine immutability (the truth that God is unchanging; that Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever). It is a full-scale attack on classic theism.

Calvinists are often targeted with the charge that they make God the author or the instrumental cause of evil, but the truth is no one has thought more carefully about this issue or written more clarifying material on it than the great Calvinist theologians across reformation history.

Jonathan Edwards, for example, covers it in detail in his book The Freedom of the Will. He has a whole chapter titled "Concerning that objection against the doctrine which has been maintained, that it makes God the Author of Sin." (In modern editions, that title is shortened to the question: "Is God the Author of Sin?")

Edwards says this:

[Those] who object, that [the doctrine of divine sovereignty] makes God the Author of Sin, ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that phrase, "The Author of Sin." I know the phrase, as it is commonly used, signifies something very ill. If by the Author of Sin, be meant [that God is] the Sinner, the Agent, [the] Actor of Sin, or the Doer of a wicked thing; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the Author of Sin. In [that] sense, I utterly deny God to be the Author of Sin . . . such an imputation on the Most High . . ..is infinitely to be abhorred . . ..But if, by the Author of Sin, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of Sin; and, at the same time, [He has a holy purpose in all that He does, and he uses even the evil that is done by evil agents for His own] wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that Sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: [and as we know, God deplores evil, and will defeat it and glorify himself in doing so] This is not to be the Actor of Sin, but, on the contrary, of holiness. What God doth herein, is holy; and a glorious exercise of the infinite excellency of his nature.

God is never the instrumental cause of evil. He does not does not advocate sin, sanction it, instigate it, condone it, approve it, or otherwise countenance it.

But the appearance of evil in God's creation did not take Him by surprise or catch Him off guard. It was part of His plan from the beginning. He doesn't delight in it. It is abhorrent to Him. He remains utterly untainted by its existence. And even in His absolute sovereignty, God is never the efficient cause or the agent of evil. James 1:13: "God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one." He "is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). God is absolutely holy, and high above sin and evil, totally untouched by it.

Nevertheless, don't ever imagine that evil is something foreign to God's plan. The sudden appearance of evil at the dawn of the universe and in the early chapters of Genesis does not mean something went haywire in God's strategy. He planned for evil to enter His universe—indeed, He decreed that it would occur—so that He might use it to bring about an even greater good.

Not only that, but He also remains fully sovereign over every act of evil that is ever committed. The Old Testament book of Job gives us a little window into the workings of the Spirit world. It reveals that even Satan himself cannot act apart from God's permission. And God never allows evil agents to act unless His purpose is to overrule their evil intentions for His own wise and holy purposes.

He will glorify Himself in the defeat of evil, and He will make even the fruits of evil all work together for good, in accord with His good pleasure. He's doing it even now, for those who have spiritual eyes to see.

PS: See also "Does Calvinism Make God the Author of Evil?"

---

About that Missing Blogpost....

A note from Dan Phillips

After about seven years without a post, I posted a copy of a letter I sent to the congregation I serve in Houston, Texas. I wanted to help parents talk with their children about the ubiquitous "Pride Month" intrusions. Then I followed up with a sermon. But someone flagged it to Blogger, where it was ruled that my post was "Hate Speech." Their definition: "content that promotes or condones violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their …sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or any other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization." This, of a post that literally says "we don't hate people who want bad things…. We love people who don't know Jesus…" But today, to believe in the actual Jesus is to be called a "hater." You will find my letter posted elsewhere, unedited.

Click HERE to read the post Blogger tried to censor.

---

---

Not Today, Devil

by Phil Johnson

any readers will remember a blogpost I wrote in August of 2011 analyzing Mark Driscoll's claim that he had a bizarre spiritual gift: an uncanny psychic ability enabling him to function as a kind of supernatural peeping Tom. He claimed to be able to watch vivid, full-color replays of his counselees' sexual sins on some sort of cosmic big screen. It was a tasteless claim—

No, it was worse. It was a rank blasphemy to claim such a freakishly prurient peculiarity had been given to him by the Holy Spirit.

A few weeks ago he filed a copyright claim to have YouTube remove that video. It was an ironic stance for him to take, given his own reputation as an unbridled plagiarist.

Anyway, I never received any notice of the takedown, and since I rarely look at my own YouTube channel, I didn't notice until YouTube's referees had already judged Driscoll's claim as legitimate. I nevertheless wrote three appeals pointing out that my use of the video clearly falls well within the 1976 Copyright Law's definition of "Fair Use," because I posted it in order to make critical commentary for a purpose that was both newsworthy and (in the proper sense) educational.

YouTube's judges held their ground, however—apparently because my actual criticisms of Driscoll's remarks were posted in the accompanying blogpost, and not in the video itself.

So I have corrected that problem by incorporating the gist of my critical remarks into the video and reposting it, together with a quotation from the relevant legal statute demonstrating why the Fair Use doctrine protects my posting of these excerpts.

If you'd like to see the revised video (unaltered except for the addition of my commentary), you can observe it where it is now imbedded in that 2011 blogpost, or at my Youtube channel. I won't imbed it here, because frankly it gives me nausea every time I see it. But I wanted to keep the matter well documented, because I hear that Driscoll has gained a sizeable new following of naive young people, and frankly, I think he is more dangerous and more unorthodox than he was at the peak of his original popularity.

 

---

Current Status

Still no response from Twitter:

19 December update: People keep writing to tell me they don't think I'm banned from Twitter because if they go to my Twitter account, they can see my Tweets. Here's the deal: Anyone with Twitter access can see my old Tweets, up to the day I was banned (October 14, 2022). But I can't sign on, post, or read any Tweets using my own account. They are holding me hostage, insistent that I must first confess that I committed a crime of "hate speech." What did I say? Well, I linked to a news story about a drag-queen crossing guard hired to work at a public elementary school. Then on that same day I linked to a TikTok video posted by an elementary-school teacher who insists it ought to be a very high priority for all public schools to indoctrinate kindergartners to embrace and celebrate gender fluidity, regardless of their parents' opinions. And then I said this is tantamount to government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded grooming. Twitter demands that I delete the offending Tweet[s], and they say I can have my account back whenever I do that. However, they also add: "By clicking delete you acknowledge that your Tweet violated the Twitter [hate speech] rules." I refuse to kowtow to such a worldview. Hence it seems I'm off Twitter permanently or until they acknowledge my right to have moral convictions that are shaped by Scripture rather than the opinions of humanistic elitists. It's not an insignificant fine point, in my judgment.

5 December update: Last week's promised "general amnesty" didn't materialize. Also, Twitter support has not replied to any of my queries. Apparently the old policy is still in place—namely if you want to be reinstated, you must plead guilty to the charge of "hate speech."

Twitter's staff are just as unresponsive as ever to emails and other queries from people they have arbitrarily banned.

Elon Musk needs to assign a cohort of capable employees to answering people's appeals, or (better yet) go ahead and implement the general amnesty he promised.

---

About my Twitter "Hiatus"

by Phil Johnson

witter banned me a month ago today because I said that local school boards' efforts to normalize sexual perversion in the minds of elementary school children is taxpayer-funded, state-driven grooming.

Twitter says I can have my account back if I will delete the Tweet that offended their censors' notion of civil propriety. For the record, I would be happy to do that. I have even written them and offered to to that.

However—

They also expressly stated that by deleting the Tweet I would be formally admitting I broke Twitter's rules against "hate speech," and that is something I cannot conscientiously do.

This is a classic example of how social media moguls are attempting to overrule and reshape the consciences of their users. My Tweet was not an expression of "hate" aimed at anyone—not even the drag-queen crossing guard into whose custody kindergartners have been placed (contrary to many parents' wishes)—not even the teacher who boasted on Instagram how she was inculcating LGBTQRSTU ideology into the minds of her elementary students while keeping her moral agenda secret from parents. My Tweet (like this blog entry) was a simple statement of my own moral convictions, without malice or ill-will.

Several have urged me to go ahead and delete the offending Tweet rather than be silenced. I will be happy to do that if Twitter will state in writing that they understand my compliance with their wishes is not a guilty plea.

I'm not asking for anyone to start a campaign about this. I'm simply explaining (for the sake of many who keep asking) why I'm off Twitter and why I haven't done what Twitter is asking me to in order to get my account restored.

---

Spurgeon to Archibald Brown

by Phil Johnson
(Click for a hi-res image.)

n October 28, 1887 (a Friday)—well into the Down Grade controversy—Charles Spurgeon wrote the Secretary of the Baptist union to withdraw his membership in the Union.

The following Tuesday, November 1, he hand-wrote this letter to his friend Archibald Brown, urging him to withdraw from the Union as well:

Westwood Beulah Hill Upper Norwood 1887 Nov 1 Dear Mr Brown, Mr. Booth recd a formal notice from me on Friday. Let him have yours too, for otherwise they will not know of yr going with me. We are to sink or swim together. Blessed be God for so dear a comrade. Did you see Clifford's Appeal in Pall Mall on Saturday? Deceivableness of unrighteousness!" The fire is catching in Scotland. God will I trust work by this discussion. The Lord bless you Yours Heartily C. H. Spurgeon

My most treasured item of historic Baptist memorabilia is the handwritten original of that letter. Some details about the context:

"Clifford" is John Clifford, who had written an unctuous "Appeal to Mr. Spurgeon" in the Saturday edition of The Pall Mall Gazette. (That article is what Spurgeon is referring to in his letter to Brown.) Clifford was serving at the time as Vice-President of the Baptist Union. A year later he would be elected president, and in that role he would preside over the Baptist Union's infamous censure of Spurgeon. In his mostly excellent biography of Spurgeon, W. Y. Fullerton charitably tries to portray Clifford as "one of Mr. Spurgeon's most ardent admirers." He was anything but. He was analogous to those who call themselves "progressive" today.

When Clifford first came to London at the age of 20 in 1856, he came to the city specifically to hear Spurgeon. But even in those days, Clifford was hardly a solid Bible-believing evangelical. He was enthralled with Ralph Waldo Emerson and had seriously contemplated becoming a Unitarian. Ultimately, however, he remained at least nominally evangelical and in 1858 took a position as pastor of the Praed Street Baptist Church in London, where he remained until his retirement in 1915.

By the late 1880s, Clifford had concluded that Spurgeon and the brand of evangelical conviction he represented were oldfangled and out of fashion—and Clifford thus helped lead the modernist effort to silence Spurgeon's concerns about doctrinal down grade. Tom Nettles describes Clifford as an "irrepressible liberal. Personally, I like Spurgeon's description of Clifford's passive-aggressive approach to Spurgeon and the Down Grade: "Deceivableness of unrighteousness!"

A month later, Spurgeon wrote the secretary of the Baptist Union Council, declining the council's plea for him to reconsider his resignation. In that letter, Spurgeon said candidly, "I regard full-grown 'modern thought' as a totally new cult, having no more relation to Christianity than the mist of the evening to the everlasting hills."

 

---

"Enemies Within the Church": A review

by Phil Johnson

finally had an opportunity to see the documentary "Enemies Within the Church," and as promised, here is a candid review:

 

  The Good
     You need to watch this documentary. Its central message sounds a clear and necessary alarm that today's evangelicals (leaders and lay persons alike) urgently need to hear and heed. It is a two-hour video presenting undeniable evidence that influential forces within the church have been (and still are) working hard to advance an agenda that is rooted in neo-Marxism, overlaid with identity politics, and peppered with postmodern jargon. In other words, countless Christians are being force-fed an ideology that comes from the world, not from Scripture. It is being pushed in our seminaries and churches with tactics (and a lot of financing) taken from secular left-wing sources.

The worldview and values these change-agents promote are clearly influenced by radical feminism, the sexual revolution, academic elitism, socialist tenets, and critical theory. Those who traffic in these ideas don't necessarily sound overtly hostile to the authority of Scripture. Instead, they subtly undermine moral principles, vital doctrines, and the gospel itself. They subvert historic evangelical convictions by lobbying for Woke doctrines and liberal trends while relentlessly warning evangelicals that the church will lose the next generation, maybe even die, if we don't stay in step with the drift of the secular intelligentsia.

This is by no means a new phenomenon. There is an easily traceable line of descent that runs from the Socinians of the 16^th and 17^th centuries through the Deists and Unitarians of the 18^th century, the modernists of the 19^th century, the liberals and pragmatists of the 20^th century, and the Emergents of the 21^st century. Today's Wokevangelicals are following identical lines of argument, employing similar rhetoric, and drifting in the same direction as all of those previous departures from evangelical orthodoxy.

In 1887, The Sword and the Trowel (Charles Spurgeon's monthly journal) published two articles titled "The Down Grade," by Robert Schindler. A fierce polemical war ensued and lasted for several years, known as "The Downgrade Controversy." Anyone who has read about Spurgeon's final years of ministry knows of this controversy. Spurgeon himself and most who were close to him believed the stress of fighting the Downgrade hastened his death. He died less than five years after publishing Schindler's articles.

Robert Schindler's (and Spurgeon's) whole point was that the path of liberal apostasy is well-worn and familiar, and it should therefore be obvious to any vigilant observer when a church, educational institution, denomination, or Christian leader starts down that path. As the title suggests, Schindler noted that it's a steep downhill path, so once any person or group takes that turnoff, it becomes nearly impossible to stop the movement downhill.

Schindler was warning against the modernist influence that infected the Baptist Union in Victorian England, but his words are totally applicable to the current drift of Wokevangelicalism.

Be forewarned: "Enemies Within the Church"—like those 1887 articles in The Sword and the Trowel—will be deeply controversial. Sadly, many believers will conclude that the controversial nature of the documentary basically nullifies its message. After all, aren't Christians supposed to love one another? How can we warn against the influence of fellow church members and not be guilty of divisiveness?

But the New Testament is full of admonitions to be on guard against destructive influences within the church. These are wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt. 7:15)—"fierce wolves [that] will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30). We are commanded to "to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3)—especially against those who want to rewrite the faith anew for each generation.

This documentary does a superb job in that task, and for that reason I commend it. The cinematography is stunning. The editing is superb. The story is told in a clear and compelling way. The message is poignant. Overall, I give the production high marks, and I hope it gains a large audience.

The Bad
     I should, however, mention that I have a few minor theological quibbles. The narrator (Cary Gordon) and several of the featured faces seem to be from Wesleyan backgrounds. That's not my complaint (though I'm a Calvinist). If there was any overt Arminianism in the presentation, I didn't notice it. On the whole, they did a fine job.

But at times speakers mentioned points of doctrine that I thought should have been presented with greater care, or omitted completely. For example, around 47:40, one of the interviewees mentioned John 1:14, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Pastor Gordon replies, "That means the Old Testament was made flesh in Jesus Christ."

"Yup," says the interviewee.

Pastor Gordon continues: "So if we're to vilify the Old Testament and say we don't need it anymore, we're talking about some part of Jesus."

"No!" I say out loud. That's not what the apostle John is saying. The expression "the Word" throughout John 1 is a reference to Christ in his eternal glory, not the Old Testament. I share Pastor Gordon's contempt for the idea that Christians don't need the Old Testament, but it's not necessary make that point by getting sloppy with our exegesis of John's gospel.

Still, that's a disagreement that doesn't materially affect my endorsement of the film. It doesn't alter or diminish the validity of the larger central message.

A bigger objection of mine would be the way the documentary deals with the Ten Commandments. Here again, I agree with the point the documentary apparently wants to make, but I'm not completely satisfied with how they make it.

Here's the part I agree with: Postmodern evangelicals do overemphasize the love of God and deliberately truncate what Scripture says about sin, righteousness, and judgment—to the point where most in the evangelical movement today seem to think the whole gospel message is that God is love, or that God loves you in particular. The documentary correctly points out that we have not preached the gospel at all if we don't deal with the problem of sin and call unbelievers to repentance (Acts 17:30).

(I also agree that anyone who says the Ten Commandments have no relevance for Christians is an antinomian. And when you try to syncretize Wokeism with evangelicalism, antinomianism is one of the inevitable, and spiritually deadly, results.)

Nevertheless, I wish the documentary had taken greater pains to make clear that the Ten Commandments are not the gospel, or even part of the gospel. They are a prelude to the gospel—a tutor that points us toward Christ and the gospel (Gal. 3:24). The gospel itself is a message about the work of Christ to liberate us from the bondage of sin and the condemnation of the law. The heart of the gospel is the doctrine of justification by faith—not the Ten Commandments.

I'll mention just one other nagging complaint: I think what the documentary says about pietism vs. political activism seems to imply that these are the only two options in a fairly well-defined either/or choice for Christians. But lots of godly, biblically astute, reasonable Christians are neither pietists nor political Zealots. They recognize that churches tend to lose their focus and sometimes even cease preaching the gospel when they become immersed in unbridled political activism.

The true remedy for what ails both the evangelical movement and secular culture is not something that can imposed by legislation. Nor can righteousness be achieved by Christians flexing their collective political clout. "If a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law" (Gal. 3:21). Dominionism is a corruption of the church's true agenda (Matt. 20:25-26). The disciples, not the party of the Zealots, are our role models in seeking to turn the world upside down.

The Ugly
     Now, if you've seen the online chatter surrounding the release of this documentary, you may be aware that there's a noisy squad of smart-alecky Zealots who began badgering a list of conservative Christian leaders who had previously spoken out against the influence of Wokeism. The Zealots demanded endorsements for this documentary almost as soon as it appeared in a downloadable format. Their nagging quickly turned to ugly public taunts and accusations.

I don't believe the documentary's producers were directly involved in or keenly aware of that campaign of harrassment. In fact, Judd Saul, the project's director, responded graciously to all the noise by making sure I had a speedy opportunity to see the full documentary. I would have eventually watched it anyway and most likely posted a recommendation, but I appreciate Judd's efforts to link me up with a timely review copy.

Still, those unauthorized efforts to promote the film by browbeating men in Christian leadership have prompted me to say once again that nothing undermines biblical discernment and the cause of truth more deeply and hurtfully than haughty controversialists who act like they firmly believe they are the kingpins and custodians of the cosmic war against false teaching. They seem to think the truth is best advanced by intimidation, insults, crass language, and caustic rhetoric. Passages like 1 Corinthians 13:4-7; Galatians 5:22-23; and 2 Timothy 2:24-25 have no obvious impact on their dealings with others—because as they will point out, undiscerning people misuse those texts to justify their refusal to contend for the faith. But that doesn't give spiritual warriors license to ignore those features of true Christlikeness altogether.

My counsel: Beware of anyone who treats captiousness as sport. Frankly, such people actually undermine the cause of truth, and in their own way, they can be just as dangerous to the spiritual health of the church as the out-and-out Marxists.

One Final Thing
     Virtually all the negative pushback I have seen aimed at "Enemies Within the Church" has come from Southern Baptist sources. The Conservative Baptist Network promoted the film and announced that they would host the premier on the campus of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. The President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary protested the showing and Tweeted an open letter expressing with "deep disappointment but strong conviction," a charge that the documentary contains "scandalous and scurrilous slander."

What about that claim? What is the right response to those who claim the documentary is slanderous?

Let me speak plainly: I don't have the time or the need to investigate and verify every individual claim made in the documentary. "Enemies Within the Church" echoes an opinion I have stated many times already, so yes I emphatically agree with the central message. Most of the claims made are either well-established facts, or they are sufficiently documented in the film itself with video records and direct quotations. Plus, the clear and persuasive testimony of multiple eyewitnesses is hard to gainsay.

So the documentary raises questions that need to be answered. It points out issues that need to be addressed. It highlights problems that need to be corrected. To single out a disputed claim or two and blow the whole thing off as "slander" would be a monumental mistake. Deconstructing the critics' concerns by splitting hairs over terminology or by denying that Critical Race Theory (CRT) has infiltrated Baptist seminaries is not an adequate answer to the concerns raised in this documentary. We've all seen the videos where Baptist seminary professors do parrot rhetoric from CRT sources. The concerns raised by this film cannot be sidestepped or pushed aside. They must be answered.

For the record, I didn't notice any factual claims in the documentary that struck me as questionable. Some statements were made that I would like to see thoroughly documented. For example, a critic might claim that some of the connections drawn between various people and organizations may or may not be more tenuous than the narration noted.

However, it would be ludicrous for any biblically minded believer to deny that large-movement evangelicalism is speeding quickly in a bad direction; that some of the very best leaders in key evangelical institutions do not appear to be trying very hard (if at all) to reverse the drift; and that many other key leaders are aggressively promoting wokeism, identity politics, and other ideas that clearly obscure the straightforward simplicity of the gospel. Those are all legitimate—and weighty—concerns.

In the 1970s, all conservative evangelicals regarded the Sojourners organization as a left-wing outlier and a threat to orthodoxy because of the socialist and radical political agenda they were pushing. Today that point of view is considered mainstream in the larger evangelical movement. Such a profound shift does raise vital questions (or should I say "serious doubts"?) about whether we are truly together for the same gospel.

"Enemies Within the Church" demands a careful inquiry and answers to those questions.

---