Orgins of Sin

Simply_Nikki · #1 (**permalink**) 10-09-2007, 10:14 PM

What is the difference between saying God is the author, causer, or ordainer of sin?

Ivanhoe · #2 (**permalink**) 10-09-2007, 10:24 PM

Herman Bavinck,
God willed there would be sin in a totally different sense than he willed there would be good: materially it is applied to God, formally to humans (Bavinck, 62).

On one level many would object to that (and I am not entirely satisfied, but it does let me sleep at night) saying it is a distinction without a difference. All I did was say "it's just willing/causing/ordaining in a different way." I think there are better answers and wait to see what others would say.

Simply_Nikki · #3 (**permalink**) 10-09-2007, 11:31 PM

I've heard the argument that since nothing can exist outside of God creating it to exist, that God is the creator or author of sin. But something just doesn't sit well with me in that statement. While I agree that God willed or ordained sin to happen, I cannot bring myself to say God is the author of the thing which is directly opposed to him. I've also heard the argument that because God is sovereign over sin, he causes men to sin. Again this just doesn't sit right with me. I acknowledge God's sovereignty over sin but I can't bring myself to admit to God actively causing men to think and/or do that which he commanded us not to do and that which is opposed to his nature. I just don't know how to answer those who hold these arguments.

Oh and on another note this argument is indirectly tied with one's view of God's nature and his precepts. Is God good inspite of his precepts, because of them, or can the two never be separated? To give a better example of why this is relevant to the argument is that saying God is the author of sin and actively causes men to sin, but does not himself sin seems to me to say that God does not honor his own law (I hope i'm making sense). In other words God commands us not to lie, but why? Is it because lying is diametrically opposed to God's good nature and by men lying we commit a transgression against God and therefore are unfit to be in fellowship with him? Can we infer that his command not to lie necessarily dictates that God himself honors the same moral code he gives us (because he tells us not to lie God himself does not lie)? Or is God in a sense.. "above" his law and does not have to any obligation to not to lie to us (keeping with the same theme)?

Again I hope my expressions are coherent.

Wannabee · #4 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 12:27 AM

Unlike us though, for God the end justifies the means. Joseph being sold into slavery is a good example. He used the sins of Joseph's brothers to accomplish His purposes. God also ordered Israel to destroy men, women and children. Outside of God's direct command this would have been sin. He used sinful nation after sinful nation to accomplish His purposes and punish others. Considering God's attributes it is impossible for Him to not have brought sin about (whether you call it author, ordainer, or whatever).

Simply_Nikki · #5 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Unlike us though, for God the end justifies the means. Joseph being sold into slavery is a good example. He used the sins of Joseph's brothers to accomplish His purposes. God also ordered Israel to destroy men, women and children. Outside of God's direct command this would have been sin. He used sinful nation after sinful nation to accomplish His purposes and punish others. Considering God's attributes it is impossible for Him to not have brought sin about (whether you call it author, ordainer, or whatever).

Okay, so you would agree that God is the author and active causer of sin in men then? I'm not sure how the examples above show this, since they only seem to illustrate how God uses sin to accomplish his purposes. But my question is the orgins. Is sin something outside of God? or is sin something that comes from God himself?

Semper Fidelis · #6 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 08:13 AM

I like what Bavinck says. I would also add what James has to say:

Quote:

12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

What bothers me about people who want to be philosophically "tight" in certain cases is that they always want to push exactly where God says not to. It has been the case, since the Garden, that when man fell he blamed the woman who blamed the serpent. Of course, I suppose Adam could have used his profound philosophical insight to remind God that He knew all things at that point and that, after all, their fall was really His fault.

To me, I don't require the full answer of how it is resolved but I know this: I sin based on my own desires and, when I sin, it is further sin to call God the author of that sin even in attributing temptation to Him. The Reformed Confessions are unanimous that the Scriptures teach the following:

Quote:

Chapter III
Of God's Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,2nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.3

Simply_Nikki · #7 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I like what Bavinck says. I would also add what James has to say:

Quote:

12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

What bothers me about people who want to be philosophically "tight" in certain cases is that they always want to push exactly where God says not to. It has been the case, since the Garden, that when man fell he blamed the woman who blamed the serpent. Of course, I suppose Adam could have used his profound philosophical insight to remind God that He knew all things at that point and that, after all, their fall was really His fault.

To me, I don't require the full answer of how it is resolved but I know this: I sin based on my own desires and, when I sin, it is further sin to call God the author of that sin even in attributing temptation to Him. The Reformed Confessions are unanimous that the Scriptures teach the following:

Quote:

Chapter III
Of God's Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,2nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.3

The James text is precisely the text I thought of to answer this question about God being the active causer and author of sin, showing that he isn't. However this text was rejected as an answer to refuting the claim on the basis that it is not contextually in sync with the question (it is talking about christian living not metaphysical truth, is the claim). And the reformed confessions were also brought up, but again these were rejected as evidence as disproving God's authorship or active causivity of sin because it is extra-biblical. So i'm not sure where to go from here in explaining the error, or if I'm just the one who doesn't understand. However to me, I see a big difference between the words author, causer and ordainer.

Semper Fidelis · #8 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simply_Nikki

The James text is precisely the text I thought of to answer this question about God being the active causer and author of sin, showing that he isn't. However this text was rejected as an answer to refuting the claim on the basis that it is not contextually in sync with the question (it is talking about christian living not metaphysical truth, is the claim).

The claim by whom? If you're trying to win a debate with a person who is arguing this way then I would shake the dust off your feet and step away. A person arguing like this is not arguing from Scripture but from autonomous human reason.

Quote:

And the reformed confessions were also brought up, but again these were rejected as evidence as disproving God's authorship or active causivity of sin because it is extra-biblical.

Ah yes, the bumper sticker for the pseudo-Reformed: Reformed Lite - all the intellectual satisfaction and "ear-tickling" that a philosophical speculation on Scripture can bring with none of the "calories" of having to submit to any authority but your own. Did you ask them if their opinion on what the Scriptures taught was extra-Biblical?

Simply_Nikki · #9 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

The claim by whom? If you're trying to win a debate with a person who is arguing this way then I would shake the dust off your feet and step away. A person arguing like this is not arguing from Scripture but from autonomous human reason.

<--that's percisely how i feel when addressing the situation, but at the same time I want the person to see the error and the implications of holding to that view. However, at a certain point I suppose the only thing left to do is pray for the person's correct understanding and "step away".

Quote:

Ah yes, the bumper sticker for the pseudo-Reformed: Reformed Lite - all the intellectual satisfaction and "ear-tickling" that a philosophical speculation on Scripture can bring with none of the "calories" of having to submit to any authority but your own. Did you ask them if their opinion on what the Scriptures taught was extra-Biblical?

Perhaps I should ask that question. Nevertheless, this argument is considered to be "consistent", and since no scripture sufficiently contradicts the view, the argument is held up as biblical. I don't however understand how one can hold the view on the basis of consistency but reject the claim that one can accuse God of making one sin. To me that would be the ultimate consistency

. However because the bible explicitly says that humans have no right to accuse God of our sin or of His will ("But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Romans 9:20 and that other passage in Daniel I can't remember at the momet) the argument goes... God authors and actively causes men to sin, but God is absorbed from the results and men cannot point the blame at God. The argument just leaves me utterly confused

BJClark · #10 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 11:17 AM

My thoughts on this are: and I hope it makes sense..

God created everything..but everything He created was not perfect in and of itself..as Only God is perfect..

So though everything was perfectly created..it is not perfect without God...man would sin, because he was not created TO BE perfect...He was created to need, serve and worship God..

So in that way, did God create sin? Yes and No, He created imperfect people who would NEVER be perfect because we are not Him, and being created with imperfections..we sin..so that we can see our need for a perfect God, a perfect Savior..

So does He 'cause' us to sin? Only in as far as He created us imperfectly...

Wannabee · #11 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 11:41 AM

My comment on Joseph did answer your question, to a point; although it didn't answer the question of original cause. Joseph said that "God meant it..."
To find the origin of sin we look to Satan to find the trail. But Scripture does not give us all we need in order to have a full understanding. Therefore there will be tension. Satan fell because of a prideful desire to be like God. Ultimately all sin points in this same direction. God created Satan not only with a propensity to rebel, but with a full knowledge that he would rebel, and exactly how he would rebel, and the repercussions of his rebellion, etc. To deny this is to deny God's sovereignty and attributes. It's not a blame game. As Rich said, I stand before God guilty of my own sins. I deserve God's wrath. We can neither blame God, nor Satan. Our sin is our own. And yet God is completely sovereign and the ultimate source of all creation. But since God cannot sin, the institution of sin in His creation is not a sin, in and of itself.
I doubt you'll ever completely solve it to your satisfaction. Depending on your perception, there will most likely be a tension somewhere. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around a clear understanding of man's culpability in light of God's sovereignty. I don't deny it. It's simply where the tension lies. If God is the ultimate causer, works in man to will and to do, has always known all things, is all powerful, is active in creation (not reactive), etc., then I have to accept His "whatever" of sin (call it what you want). Again, with God the ends justify the means. He hardened Pharaoh's heart. There's no denying it. But the means by which He accomplishes His purpose is often the human will. Therefore, God accomplishes His will and man remains culpable for his own actions. Furthermore, to deny God's absolute sovereignty in any of this has the danger of stepping on the slippery slope that leads to Open Theism.

Further verses to consider
Deu 32:4
Gen 18:25
Job 34:10
James 1:13 (already mentioned)
Eph 1:11
Dan 4:35

Grudem comments

Quote:

Godd himself never sins but always brings about his will through secondary causes; that is, through personal moral agents who voluntairly, willingly do what God has ordained. These personal morl agents (both human beinga nd evil angels) are to blame for the evil theydo. While the Arminian position objects that, on a human level, people are also responsible for what they cause others to do, we can answer that Scripture is not willing to apply such reasoning to God. Rather, Scripture repeatedly gives examples where God in a mysterious, hidden way somehow ordains that people do wrong [sin], but continually places the blame for that wrong on the individual human who does wrong and never on God himself. The Arminian position seems to have failed to show why God cannot work in this way in the world, preserving both his holiness and our individual human responsibility for sin.
Systematic Theology, 343

That doesn't solve the challenge either. But it adds to your pot of considerations.

Simply_Nikki · #12 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabee

I doubt you'll ever completely solve it to your satisfaction. Depending on your perception, there will most likely be a tension somewhere. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around a clear understanding of man's culpability in light of God's sovereignty. I don't deny it. It's simply where the tension lies. If God is the ultimate causer, works in man to will and to do, has always known all things, is all powerful, is active in creation (not reactive), etc., then I have to accept His "whatever" of sin (call it what you want). Again, with God the ends justify the means. He hardened Pharaoh's heart. There's no denying it. But the means by which He accomplishes His purpose is often the human will. Therefore, God accomplishes His will and man remains culpable for his own actions. Furthermore, to deny God's absolute sovereignty in any of this has the danger of stepping on the slippery slope that leads to Open Theism.

You are perhaps right, the tension may always be there and it is difficult to understand the relationship knowing there is no contradiction.

Quote:

Grudem comments

Quote:

Godd himself never sins but always brings about his will through secondary causes; that is, through personal moral agents who voluntairly, willingly do what God has ordained. These personal morl agents (both human beinga nd evil angels) are to blame for the evil theydo. While the Arminian position objects that, on a human level, people are also responsible for what they cause others to do, we can answer that Scripture is not willing to apply such reasoning to God. Rather, Scripture repeatedly gives examples where God in a mysterious, hidden way somehow ordains that people do wrong [sin], but continually places the blame for that wrong on the individual human who does wrong and never on God himself. The Arminian position seems to have failed to show why God cannot work in this way in the world, preserving both his holiness and our individual human responsibility for sin.
Systematic Theology, 343

That doesn't solve the challenge either. But it adds to your pot of considerations.

I've heard this secondary cause argument, but how do you address someone who rejects 2nd causes? I'm talking about someone who claims God is actively putting evil thoughts in someone's head or making someone do evil deeds. Or is this the correct understanding of God's ordination of sin and sovereignty over it?

Simply_Nikki · #13 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJClark

My thoughts on this are: and I hope it makes sense..

God created everything..but everything He created was not perfect in and of itself..as Only God is perfect..

So though everything was perfectly created..it is not perfect without God...man would sin, because he was not created TO BE perfect...He was created to need, serve and worship God..

So in that way, did God create sin? Yes and No, He created imperfect people who would NEVER be perfect because we are not Him, and being created with imperfections..we sin..so that we can see our need for a perfect God, a perfect Savior..

So does He 'cause' us to sin? Only in as far as He created us imperfectly...

Perhaps I am looking at things too narrowly and not looking at the big picture. You bring up a good point using sin to exalt God's glory and our need for a perfect God and Savior. But i still am not comprehending how sin a diametric opposition to the good nature of God, the thing which God hates, the thing with which God commands against, at the same time comes from God? ( I hope that was not a blasphemous statement). It's just a very hard concept to understand by itself, let alone trying to debate with someone about the matter

BobVigneault · #14 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 12:15 PM

Bobbi, if God made imperfect creatures then how do you interpret his oft repeated proclamation AFTER creating, that 'it was good'?

Simply_Nikki · #15 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Bobbi, if God made imperfect creatures then how do you interpret his oft repeated proclamation AFTER creating, that 'it was good'?

Hmm.. then that begs the question does good = perfect

Oh and what about our final state of glorification of sinlessness? One could say ultimately we were created to be perfect no?

BobVigneault · #16 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 12:41 PM

Obviously we've discussed this before and I always run to Dabney's treatment of this puzzle. Here is a rich excerpt from Dabney but you may need Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 Edition to work you're way through it.

Quote:

The mystery cannot be fully solved how the first evil choice could voluntarily arise in a holy soul; but we can clearly prove that it is no sound reasoning from the certainty of a depraved will to that of a holy finite will. First: a finite creature can only be indefectible through the perpetual indwelling and superintendence of infinite wisdom and grace, guarding the finite and fallible attention of the soul against sin. This was righteously withheld from Satan and Adam. Second: while righteousness is a positive attribute, incipient sin is a privative trait of human conduct. The mere absence of an element of active regard for God's will, constitutes a disposition or volition wrong. Now, while the positive requires a positive cause, it is not therefore inferable that the negative equally demands a positive cause. To make a candle burn, it must be lighted; to make it go out, it need only be let alone. The most probable account of the way sin entered a holy breast first, is this: An object was apprehended as in its mere nature desirable; not yet as unlawful. So far there is no sin. But as the soul, finite and fallible in its attention, permitted an overweening apprehension and desire of its natural adaptation to confer pleasure, to override the feeling of its unlawfulness, concupiscence was developed. And the element which first caused the mere innocent sense of the natural goodness of the object to pass into evil concupiscence, was privative, viz., the failure to consider and prefer God's will as the superior good to mere natural good. Thus natural desire passed into sinful selfishness, which is the root of all evil. So that we have only the privative element to account for. When we assert the certainty of ungodly choice in an evil will, we only assert that a state of volition whose moral quality is a defect, a negation, cannot become the cause of a positive righteousness. When we assert the mutability of a holy will in a finite creature, we only say that the positive element of righteousness of disposition may, in the shape of defect, admit the negative, not being infinite. So that the cases are not parallel: and the result, though mysterious, is not impossible. To make a candle positively give light, it must be lighted; to cause it to sink into darkness, it is only necessary to let it alone: its length being limited, it burns out.

First off it's impossible to find an analogy in our experience because this problem is peculiar to only Adam and Lucifer - each were created with holy and God-ward hearts (desires). They were truly righteous in their every inclination and no tug from a fallen nature.

Most probably God righteously witheld his

Quote:

perpetual indwelling and superintendence of infinite wisdom and grace, guarding the infinite and fallible attention of the soul against sin. Dabney

In this sense God is the cause but not the culpable cause of sin.

Satan and Adam were both mutable and they placed their desires in something besides God. This was not a sin because everything God made was good. The sin took place when the desire for the thing grew stronger than the desire to obey the revealed will of God. This is where the initial sin took place and the soul was corrupted. When we desire something above God's revealed will, that is lust.

Quote:

...while righteousness is a positive attribute, incipient sin is a privative trait of human conduct. The mere absence of an element of active regard for God's will, constitutes a disposition or volition wrong. Now, while the positive requires a positive cause, it is not therefore inferable that the negative equally demands a positive cause. To make a candle burn, it must be lighted; to make it go out, it need only be let alone. Dabney

BJClark · #17 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 01:04 PM

BobVigneault;

Quote:

Bobbi, if God made imperfect creatures then how do you interpret his oft repeated proclamation AFTER creating, that 'it was good'?

I don't look at being made good, as being made to be perfect.

they are two seperate things..made good, is description of the final product..

to be perfect--would be how we were created to be; how we act..

And in that God knew from before the foundation of the world, that mankind would need a Savior, how would He have known that (other than He is God...but He didn't look out into eternity in order to know how man would act)
so the only way it makes sense (at least to my finite mind) is to see that God created man to be imperfect so that we would need Him.

BobVigneault · #18 (**permalink**) 10-10-2007, 01:07 PM

It is my belief that when God uses both words they mean 'complete' and 'whole' and undefiled.