The cannon ball that fires a devastating blow through the hull of David Bentley Hart’s Doors of the Sea surfaces in one of the questions for our 3rd year Philosophy exam. Hart’s vitriolic reading of the Reformed tradition simply falls over due to this important plank of Reformed theology.
In Henri Blocher’s Evil and the Cross (p99, 1994), a paragraph is given to the topic of the decretive and preceptive will of God (which I’ve blogged about before). It’s worth quoting in full, especially if you’re sitting the exam and want the context of the quote for our question!
“Theologians distinguish between the decretive and preceptive will of God, or the will of eurestia (ie. what God is pleased to have his creatures do). When we read ‘God wills’ or ‘God wishes’, it is not always with the same meaning. The wicked sons of Eli did not repent ‘for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death’ (1 Sa. 2.25), and yet we read that God takes ‘no pleasure in the death of the wicked’ (Ezk. 33:11). In the first case, God willed in the sense that he has written the deed in his book (Ps. 139.16), that he has included it in the programme of everything that happens, in his universal plan or decree. In the second case, we are dealing with his desire that all should be saved, and it also involves his call, commandment or precept that they should turn and be converted. We should note carefully that, even at the heart of the decree, if evil is willed in a certain manner, it is not willed as something good. God wills what is good directly, simply, for himself; he wills evil only in a different manner, while hating it at the same time. It is, to be sure, sovereign, but it is also a permissive will that is being referred to. Divine causality with respect to good is efficient (i.e. God acts efficaciously, every grace and good gift comes down from the Father of lights, Jas. 1:17). With respect to evil, it is deficient (i.e. God is content not to act, as if he failed to assist; he did not bring forth the will to do good, nor the deed). Whereas God himself works good by making it work, evil is always the deed of one or of several created beings, exclusively.“
I might add, that I do very much appreciate D.B. Hart’s theology – especially since he’s a theologian of the classical variety. But I did find his ridiculous misrepresentation of the Reformed tradition quite frustrating! Blocher sets out the key nuance very well. If Hart had recognised this, I’m sure his Doors of the Sea would have been much more convincing! After all, what he’s proposing in primary and secondary levels of causality (p83ff) already exists within the Reformed tradition.
This looks fantastic! From
The latest Themelios is out now…. In case you haven’t heard of it, it’s a theological journal sponsored by the Gospel Coalition. And as a theological student – it’s a great resource! This issues articles include:


