Even Calvin is clear that God doesn't decree sin or evil by his own immediate agency, as does Edwards. Instead, both point to the "permissive" decree by which God allows sin, so as to accomplish a greater purpose, which yes will most certainly come about as Edwards quote clearly explains. See the distinction I'm attempting to draw? I think that is what Edwards was doing and even what Calvin does.
Objectively:
The issue historically has been over the meaning of the words "cause" and "author" as they relate to the origin of evil.
I pointed that out to you when I showed that Edwards said "...if by author you mean... then no... but if by 'author' you mean... then yes..."
This is plenty to show that there is a real sense in which Edwards thought that "author" of sin was applicable as it relates to God. But he, like myself, is not comfortable with that terminology because of how it can relate certain improper thoughts. So we choose to avoid that terminology be it ever so accurate in certain narrow senses.
You asked that I show one theologian who believes that God decreed evil. This is proof that you are not reading my posts because I have posted this quote which clearly does just that from the very man in question in multiple posts:
Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
And even THAT is not enough for you.
When it comes to the word "cause" you are misunderstanding what many theologians are purporting. They mean that God's decrees are not to be BLAMED for evil. Men's choices are.
But that God is the "ultimate" or "remote" cause is what men like Calvin clearly believed.
Here is Piper on Calvin's belief on these matters quoting and expounding Calvin's own words:
Remote and Proximate Causes
It is interesting that Calvin does use cause, referring to God’s agency in bringing evil about, when he distinguishes between God as the “remote cause” and human agency as the “proximate cause.” Arguing that God is not the “author of sin,” he says, “the proximate cause is one thing, the remote cause another.”5 Calvin points out that when wicked men steal Job’s goods, Job recognizes that “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.” The thieves, proximate cause of the evil, are guilty; but Job doesn’t question the motives of the Lord, the remote cause. Calvin does not, however, believe that the proximate/ultimate distinction is sufficient to show us why God is guiltless:
But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author and approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.6
God is not the "author and approver of transgression." This is because he HATES evil and despises that men choose it. But God is the "remote" or "ultimate" cause of the carrying out of the deed though it is evil from man's part and holy on God's. Motive is the issue.
There is no flip flopping here though you seem to love to claim that I am doing so. It is simply a VERY complex issue in which there is a sense in which terms are fully appropriate and another sense at the same time in which they are terribly inappropriate.
The fact is that God is NOT the author of evil in a certain sense being that he hates evil and cannot do evil.
But an equally true fact is that he IS the remote or ultimate cause of evil in another sense in which he wills, decrees, empowers, purposes and plans and permits it to come to pass. But you only focus on the LAST word in the previous sentence which is NOT sufficient to properly address this issue.
God is in a real sense DOING the deed via the hands and wills of men but his doing it is pure and the deed on his part is NOT evil. The answering of the questions in the above post prove this sufficiently for any objective thinker.
And at the exact same time there is a real sense in which men are doing these deeds but they are absolutely wicked and vile and reprehensible.
I will not speak of Dahmer as you wish because of the uncouth and improper terminology necessary to expound upon the facets of his reprehensible actions. I will only speak of events in Scripture and other events which do not require offensive language to describe them.
To speak of Dahmer will require terms of sexual nature which are inappropriate in such a forum as this. You should, for this reason alone, out of proper gentlemanly etiquette abandon for good this endeavor to expound upon his sins for illustrative purposes. One need look no further than Calvary for sufficient evidences of the remote and proximate cause of sin since it is there that we find the MOST heinous of all sins.
Piper notes:
[Calvin] uses the proximate/remote distinction merely to distinguish between the causality of God and that of creatures, and therefore to state that the former is always righteous.
It is pure stubbornness for you to further deny that Calvin and Edwards disagree with my position on this matter.
For you to do so any further is for you to manifest that you have other motives than iron sharpening iron.
That Calvin believed that God was the ultimate or "remote" cause of the existence of evil and that there was a real sense in which Edwards could see the use of the terminology "author of sin" as being accurate in relation to God's decrees, though not the best terminology to describe it, is abundantly clear.
I request that you answer the questions in the above posts before you address this one.
