Does not such cooperation make God a cause of sin?
Answer:
By
no means! One needs to make a distinction between the activity itself,
such as understanding, willing, seeing, hearing, speaking, working, and
the context in which this activity must occur: the law of God. The
activity itself is natural and as such neither good nor evil; however
when viewed within the context of the law, according to which it ought
to be judged as far as subject, time, and manner are concerned, this
activity becomes either good or evil. When discussing God’s cooperation
we understand this to refer to the natural dimensions of this
activity or motion itself. This is neither true, however, in reference
to the misuse of this activity, to the lack of conformity to the law,
nor to the evil in this activity. One person can be the cause of
activity in another person, but not of the evil which accompanies it.
The government causes the executioner to scourge the thief, but is not
the cause of the cruel manner in which he may do so. A player causes
the strings to bring forth sound, but not the dissonance; this proceeds
from the string. A rider may drive his horse and thus cause progress. He
is not the cause of its limp, however; this is due to a flaw in the
horse. Such is the case here. The activity itself proceeds from God, but
man spoils it due to his inner corruption. Consequently, it is not God
but man who is the cause of sin" (Wilhelmus a' Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service; underlining mine--CD).
The question (objection) supposed regarding "such cooperation" making God "a cause of sin" is the "cooperation of concursus." a'Brakel is basically saying that in Psalm 105:25, God the Holy Spirit meant something different than what He clearly said.
"He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants." (Psalm 105:25)
a'Brakel's doctrine is that God is the cause of the natural activity of "turning," but not of the nefarious activity of "hating." He would separate the "neither good nor evil" of TURNING from the evil of HATING. Applying the limping horse analogy to Psalm 105:25, he would say that God caused the natural (and presumably abstract) mental action of turning, but did not cause the actual concrete hating. Yes, this is incoherent. The truth is that God TURNED -- God CAUSED -- their heart to hate. Hate is evil; hate is sin. Consequently, "they" (the Egyptians) did sin and God TURNED their heart to sin. "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?"?
For further (and hopefully clearer) information on said "concursus" see this link below:
The question (objection) supposed regarding "such cooperation" making God "a cause of sin" is the "cooperation of concursus." a'Brakel is basically saying that in Psalm 105:25, God the Holy Spirit meant something different than what He clearly said.
"He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants." (Psalm 105:25)
a'Brakel's doctrine is that God is the cause of the natural activity of "turning," but not of the nefarious activity of "hating." He would separate the "neither good nor evil" of TURNING from the evil of HATING. Applying the limping horse analogy to Psalm 105:25, he would say that God caused the natural (and presumably abstract) mental action of turning, but did not cause the actual concrete hating. Yes, this is incoherent. The truth is that God TURNED -- God CAUSED -- their heart to hate. Hate is evil; hate is sin. Consequently, "they" (the Egyptians) did sin and God TURNED their heart to sin. "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?"?
For further (and hopefully clearer) information on said "concursus" see this link below:
