Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

second, His ends or purposes are holy. God does not will the sin of the act, for the sake
of its sinfulness; but only wills the result to which the act is a means, and that result is
always worthy of His holiness.” 84 The vast majority of Reformed theologians, however,
maintain the concursus in question, and seek the solution of the difficulty by
distinguishing between the materia and the forma of the sinful act, and by ascribing the
latter exclusively to man. The divine concursus energizes man and determines him
efficaciously to the specific act, but it is man who gives the act its formal quality, and
who is therefore responsible for its sinful character. Neither one of these solutions can
be said to give entire satisfaction, so that the problem of God’s relation to sin remains a
mystery.
D. GOVERNMENT
1. NATURE OF THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT. The divine government may be defined as
that continued activity of God whereby He rules all things teleologically so as to secure the
accomplishment of the divine purpose. This government is not simply a part of divine
providence but, just as preservation and concurrence, the whole of it, but now
considered from the point of view of the end to which God is guiding all things in
creation, namely, to the glory of His name.
a. It is the government of God as King of the universe. In the present day many regard
the idea of God as King to be an antiquated Old Testament notion, and would substitute
for it the New Testament idea of God as Father. The idea of divine sovereignty must
make place for that of divine love. This is thought to be in harmony with the
progressive idea of God in Scripture. But it is a mistake to think that divine revelation,
as it rises to ever higher levels, intends to wean us gradually from the idea of God as
King, and to substitute for it the idea of God as Father. This is already contradicted by
the prominence of the idea of the Kingdom of God in the teachings of Jesus. And if it be
said that this involves merely the idea of a special and limited kingship of God, it may
be replied that the idea of the Fatherhood of God in the Gospels is subject to the same
restrictions and limitations. Jesus does not teach a universal Fatherhood of God.
Moreover, the New Testament also teaches the universal kingship of God in such
passages as Matt. 11:25; Acts 17:24; I Tim. 1:17; 6:15; Rev. 1:6; 19:6. He is both King and
Father, and is the source of all authority in heaven and on earth, the King of kings and
the Lord of lords.
84 Syst. and Polemic Theol., p. 288.
191