Travis,
Your Rutherford quotation against Hooker is aimed at the Arminian objection to the Reformed distinction between the decretive and preceptive will. Rutherford answers both of them: "But we answer to both: God by his Decree ordains what shall come to pass or not come to pass, or what shall fall out or not fall out, be it good in his effective Decree, or be it evil in his permissive Decree: For all things were written in his book, when as yet they were not, even all Davids Members, Ps. 139.16, Eph. 1.11. But God by his approving Will does not decree what shall come to pass or not come to pass, but onely commands what is good, and promises rewards accordingly, and forbids what is evil, and threateneth punishment, whether the good or the evil come to pass, or never come to pass."
Rutherford specifically distinguishes between thing and event. He does not make your error of applying the revealed will to events.
Your Rutherford quotation against Hooker is aimed at the Arminian objection to the Reformed distinction between the decretive and preceptive will. Rutherford answers both of them: "But we answer to both: God by his Decree ordains what shall come to pass or not come to pass, or what shall fall out or not fall out, be it good in his effective Decree, or be it evil in his permissive Decree: For all things were written in his book, when as yet they were not, even all Davids Members, Ps. 139.16, Eph. 1.11. But God by his approving Will does not decree what shall come to pass or not come to pass, but onely commands what is good, and promises rewards accordingly, and forbids what is evil, and threateneth punishment, whether the good or the evil come to pass, or never come to pass."
Rutherford specifically distinguishes between thing and event. He does not make your error of applying the revealed will to events.