God the author of sin?

[JesusIsLord]

Hello brothers in Christ. In reading some theological post on here and elsewhere I have found that many brothers say that God is not the author of sin. (Of course the word author must be defined in this situation and the majority of the time it implies that God does not cause or make someone sin) however I don't see scriptural justification for this position. So my question is what would be the implications for someone who holds this position if God were the author of sin?

Ps. I know this issue has been spoken about before here on PB however I would like to know if anyone here adheres to God being the author of sin in the way it was described here

Pps. I would also mention that I adhere to this view and also believe that man is fully responsible and will be held accountable for all the sin that God makes him do

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Simply put, If one is an author of something, it comes from their nature. Therefore, if God were the author of sin, if would come from His nature, and thus make Him a sinful/evil being. However, we know that God cannot do evil for He is the Holy Other. Also, keep this in mind: "Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one" (James 1:13).

 

[JesusIsLord]

Thank you for your input brother. I'm not sure that the verse provided can apply to authoring sin when the context is the temptation a Christian faces. Also if God is not the author or creator of sin then you have just implied that God doesn't cause all things which makes him less than sovereign. In reading many convos on this subject I have found that sin is described as a separate entity rather than understanding that sin is rebellion against Gods will (both against his decreed and desired will) and therefore if God causes me to sin then I have sinned but he has not sinned (violated his will)

 

[py3ak]

Since the Puritan Board is a confessional area, it is unlikely that anyone will say that God is the author of sin.

WCF III.1

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

Notice that the Confession asserts that God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass. Nothing is excluded from the sphere of his ordination. But the manner of his ordination renders it inappropriate to say that he is the author of sin. I highly recommend Stephen Charnock's Discourse of Divine Providence for further reading.

https://books.google.com/books?id=j...urse on providence&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false

As a moderator, let me point out that this is one of those areas where we don't permit advocacy of a contra-confessional position.

 

[JesusIsLord]

I just want to make sure that I understand correctly brother, so the issue is not that God causes sin but that the title "author of sin" cannot be ascribed to God per the confession? So the problem is a title?

 

[Edward]

" This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."
1 John 1:5

 

[Gforce9]

Pablo,
I see you are trying to understand this issue. That is commendable......all Christians should pursue such understanding. What the guys are getting at is that , as a summary of the Scriptures, the confessions (in particular, the Westminster Confession as a summary of the testimony of Scripture, says that God ordains all things, yet isn't the author of sin. There is the language of "Concurrence"; that while I'm "working" out my life via decisions, God is "working" out His will, yet we cannot say "God did it" or "God made me do it". Ruben's caution is that no contra-Confessional position is permitted here. We all have more to learn, but we do it, in great part, with the wisdom given us by our spiritual forefathers, not as those who reinvent Christianity out of whole cloth in every generation. The Confessions are not Scripture, but they are a faithful summary of Scripture, valuable, and are our standards.
If you are looking for an exegesis of Scripture on the matter, a forum post probably isn't the best (or easiest) way to communicate that. Maybe someone can link to a good sermon or paper by a theologian or minister?

 

[JesusIsLord]

Thank you Greg your suggestions are very helpful

 

[Gforce9]

Here is a message by R.C. Sproul. I have not previewed it, but he is able to help folks understand doctrine in smaller pieces....
Message 3, The Doctrine of Concurrence from The Invisible Hand: 2004 Seattle Conference Conference by Various Teachers from Ligonier Ministries

 

[aadebayo]

I suppose many people get hung up at the doctrine of election and doctrine of approbation. A case in point is King Pharaoh, where God in Exodus chapter 7 verses 1 - 3, which reads

1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. 2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Look at verse 3, where God said that He will harden Pharaoh's heart. The first mention of when Pharoah's heart will be hardened is in Exodus 4 verse 21 where God says that

When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go..

So God takes full responsibility for hardening Pharaoh's heart. If you study the 10 plagues, and the narrative that surrounds them,there was a combination of God hardening Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Romans chapter 9 sheds some more light on this issue. I will quote from verses 14 - 23. It reads

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

The first question Paul asks is that Is God unrighteous in what He had determined shall happen to Esau and Jacob? The answer of course is an emphatic NO. Then Paul quotes from Exodus chapter 33 verse 19 where God told Moses about the fact that it is His prerogative to have mercy and to take vengeance. Verse 16 is a great comfort to all genuine Christians, because it tells us what verses such as John 6:44; John 6:37 and John 6:65 inform us, that our salvation in it's entirety is a gift from God. God the Father determined whom He will elect, God the Son died on the cross for the elect and God the Holy Spirit applied the salvation to the souls of the elect. Verse 17 tells us why Pharaoh was created. This is very scary in a sense, but John Calvin explains how approbation works in these words which I quote from chapter 18 of his institutes of the Christian Religion

From the first chapter of Job we learn that
Satan appears in the presence of God to receive his orders, just as do the angels who obey
spontaneously. The manner and the end are different, but still the fact is, that he cannot
attempt anything without the will of God. But though afterwards his power to afflict the
saint seems to be only a bare permission, yet as the sentiment is true, “The Lord gave, and
the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so it has been done,” we infer that God was
the author of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments.
Satan’s aim is to drive the saint to madness by despair. The Sabeans cruelly and wickedly
make a sudden incursion to rob another of his goods. Job acknowledges that he was deprived
of all his property, and brought to poverty, because such was the pleasure of God. Therefore,
whatever men or Satan himself devise, God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts
contribute to the execution of his Judgments. God wills that the perfidious Ahab should be
deceived; the devil offers his agency for that purpose, and is sent with a definite command
to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets (2 Kings 22:20). If the blinding and infatuation
of Ahab is a Judgment from God, the fiction of bare permission is at an end; for
it would be ridiculous for a judge only to permit, and not also to decree, what he wishes to
be done at the very time that he commits the execution of it to his ministers. The Jews purposed
to destroy Christ. Pilate and the soldiers indulged them in their fury; yet the disciples
confess in solemn prayer that all the wicked did nothing but what the hand and counsel of
God had decreed (Acts 4:28), just as Peter had previously said in his discourse, that Christ
was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23);
in other words, that God, to whom all things are known from the beginning, had determined
what the Jews had executed. He repeats the same thing elsewhere, “Those things, which God
before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he has so
200
fulfilled,” (Acts 4:18). Absalom incestuously defiling his father’s bed, perpetrates a detestable
crime. God, however, declares that it was his work; for the words are, “Thou midst it secretly,
but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.”87 The cruelties of the Chaldeans
in Judea are declared by Jeremiah to be the work of God. For which reason, Nebuchadnezzar
is called the servant of God. God frequently exclaims, that by his hiss, by the clang of his
trumpet, by his authority and command, the wicked are excited to war.

In verse 19, Paul asks the question that will be in the mind of every reprobate (myself included, before God mercifully saved me). I love how verses 20 - 23 answers the question. It tells us how God is sovereign, not the author of sin, causes things to happen and yet hold those who do them accountable for their sins.

NB Sincere apologies if the formatting is not the best

 

[Stowaway]

Grace and peace!

I think the wording of the Westminster Confession is interesting:

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

I'm guessing that everyone would agree that offering "violence... to the will of the creatures" such that they were to sin would be considered an example of being the "author of sin," so we could conclude that being the author of sin would at least include such violence. According to the wording, I think they also intended to allow for the possibility that being the author of sin could be defined as something in addition to offering such violence.

Furthermore, we know from the Scriptures that when God ordains events that involve sin, He does so by means of affecting the human heart:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go." Exodus 4:21

"He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants." Psalm 105:25

"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Proverbs 21:1

"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." Revelation 17:17

Considering these two facts, offering violence to the will of the creatures must be understood as being different from the manner by which God affects the human heart in His ordained acts. I also think that the Bible makes a clear distinction between the heart and the will, such that the heart determines the specific acts and decisions of the will:

"Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." Proverbs 4:23

"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Matthew 12:34

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." Luke 6:45

Therefore, my interpretation would be that God working through the heart while leaving the will free to choose is the confessional approach to understanding God as not being the author of sin. The fact that our will remains free to choose according to the dictates of the heart is also the basis of our responsibility. Charles Hodge makes the following observations:

"All men, whether Christians or not, pray for the success of their enterprises. They recognize the providential control of God over all the affairs of men. Nevertheless they are fully aware of the consistency of this control with their own free agency and responsibility. Every man who makes the acquisition of wealth his object in life, is conscious that he does it of his own free choice." Charles Hodge

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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

I understand that this section of the confession can seem a bit confusing, but I think they are simply focusing on the things we see clearly from Scripture. We know that God is not the author of sin, and we also know that he is sovereign over all things. We may not fully understand how these two work together, but we do know that both of these things are true.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Pablo,

While it is an analogy below (first offered up by Wayne Grudem) that needs some metaphysical fleshing out before being used effectively, think about this:

Was Shakespeare responsible for the killing of Duncan?

Per Grudem's Systematic Theology:

But we must guard against misunderstanding. Here also, as with the lower
creation, God’s providential direction as an unseen, behind-the-scenes, “primary
cause,” should not lead us to deny the reality of our choices and actions. Again and
again Scripture affirms that we really do cause events to happen. We are significant
and we are responsible. We do have choices and these are real choices that bring
about real results. Scripture repeatedly affirms these truths as well. Just as a rock is
really hard because God has made it with the property of hardness, just as water is
really wet because God has made it with the property of wetness, just as plants are
really alive because God has made them with the property of life, so our choices are
real choices and do have significant effects, because God has made us in such a
wonderful way that he has endowed us with the property of willing choice.

One approach to these passages about God’s concurrence is to say that if our
choices are real, they cannot be caused by God (see below for further discussion of
this viewpoint). But the number of passages that affirm this providential control of
God is so considerable, and the difficulties involved in giving them some other
interpretation are so formidable, that it does not seem to me that this can be the right
approach to them. It seems better to affirm that God causes all things that happen, but
that he does so in such a way that he somehow upholds our ability to make willing,
responsible choices choices that have real and eternal results and for which we are
held accountable. Exactly how God combines his providential control with our
willing and significant choices, Scripture does not explain to us. But rather than deny
one aspect or the other (simply because we cannot explain how both can be true), we
should accept both in an attempt to be faithful to the teaching of all of Scripture.

The analogy of an author writing a play may help us to grasp how both aspects
can be true. In the Shakespearean play Macbeth the character Macbeth murders King
Duncan. Now (if we assume for a moment that this is a fictional account), the
question may be asked, “Who killed King Duncan?” On one level, the correct answer
is “Macbeth.” Within the context of the play he carried out the murder and is rightly
to blame for it. But on another level, a correct answer to the question, “Who killed
King Duncan?” would be “William Shakespeare”: he wrote the play, he created all the
characters in it, and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.

It would not be correct to say that because Macbeth killed King Duncan, William
Shakespeare did not kill him. Nor would it be correct to say that because William
Shakespeare killed King Duncan, Macbeth did not kill him. Both are true. On the
level of the characters in the play Macbeth fully (100 percent) caused King Duncan’s
death, but on the level of the creator of the play, William Shakespeare fully (100
percent) caused King Duncan’s death. In similar fashion, we can understand that God
fully causes things in one way (as Creator), and we fully cause things in another way
(as creatures).

Of course, someone may object that the analogy does not really solve the problem
because characters in a play are not real persons; they are only characters with no
freedom of their own, no ability to make genuine choices, and so forth. But in
response we may point out that God is infinitely greater and wiser than we are. While
we as finite creatures can only create fictional characters in a play, not real persons,
God, our infinite Creator, has made an actual world and in it has created us as real
persons who make willing choices. To say that God could not make a world in which
he causes us to make willing choices (as some would argue today; see discussion
below), is simply to limit the power of God. It seems also to deny a large number of
passages of Scripture.

7. What About Evil? If God does indeed cause, through his providential activity,
everything that comes about in the world, then the question arises, “What is the
relationship between God and evil in the world?” Does God actually cause the evil
actions that people do? If he does, then is God not responsible for sin?

In approaching this question, it is best first to read the passages of Scripture that
most directly address it. We can begin by looking at several passages that affirm that
God did, indeed, cause evil events to come about and evil deeds to be done. But we
must remember that in all these passages it is very clear that Scripture nowhere shows
God as directly doing anything evil but rather as bringing about evil deeds through the
willing actions of moral creatures. Moreover, Scripture never blames God for evil or
shows God as taking pleasure in evil and Scripture never excuses human beings for
the wrong they do. However we understand God’s relationship to evil, we must never
come to the point where we think that we are not responsible for the evil that we do,
or that God takes pleasure in evil or is to be blamed for it. Such a conclusion is clearly
contrary to Scripture.

There are literally dozens of Scripture passages that say that God (indirectly)
brought about some kind of evil. I have quoted such an extensive list (in the next few
paragraphs) because Christians often are unaware of the extent of this forthright
teaching in Scripture. Yet it must be remembered that in all of these examples, the
evil is actually done not by God but by people or demons who choose to do it.
​

Obviously, the analogy is not perfect as it is dealing with fiction and not reality. Digging deeper into the metaphysical aspects, however, should lead us find reason for to praise Shakespeare for raising up this character in the drama, Macbeth, to show us the consequences of sin, and think similarly about the record of Joseph and Genesis 50:20 and the grand drama of God's redemptive plan.

 

[earl40]

I understand that this section of the confession can seem a bit confusing, but I think they are simply focusing on the things we see clearly from Scripture. We know that God is not the author of sin, and we also know that he is sovereign over all things. We may not fully understand how these two work together, but we do know that both of these things are true.

If I may play devils advocate. What exactly is confusing in your opinion? I ask knowing many confuse that if God is sovereign and we still sin He must be the author of sin. In my most humble opinion our confession states that "confusion" ought not to be. Of course maybe I am missing something.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I understand that this section of the confession can seem a bit confusing, but I think they are simply focusing on the things we see clearly from Scripture. We know that God is not the author of sin, and we also know that he is sovereign over all things. We may not fully understand how these two work together, but we do know that both of these things are true.

If I may play devils advocate. What exactly is confusing in your opinion? I ask knowing many confuse that if God is sovereign and we still sin He must be the author of sin. In my most humble opinion our confession states that "confusion" ought not to be. Of course maybe I am missing something.

I personally do not find it to be confusing, but I can understand how someone who is perhaps new to the faith or new to reformed theology might find it to be so.

 

[Toasty]

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

I understand that this section of the confession can seem a bit confusing, but I think they are simply focusing on the things we see clearly from Scripture. We know that God is not the author of sin, and we also know that he is sovereign over all things. We may not fully understand how these two work together, but we do know that both of these things are true.

Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel did what God predestined them to do (Acts 4:26-28). This has to do with God ordaining things to come to pass or being sovereign over things.

God is not the author of sin, which means that sin does not come from His nature. Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were not forced to sin. Their actions flowed from the desires of their heart. Their actions proceeded from their nature.

 

[Herald]

Hello brothers in Christ. In reading some theological post on here and elsewhere I have found that many brothers say that God is not the author of sin. (Of course the word author must be defined in this situation and the majority of the time it implies that God does not cause or make someone sin) however I don't see scriptural justification for this position. So my question is what would be the implications for someone who holds this position if God were the author of sin?

Ps. I know this issue has been spoken about before here on PB however I would like to know if anyone here adheres to God being the author of sin in the way it was described here

Pps. I would also mention that I adhere to this view and also believe that man is fully responsible and will be held accountable for all the sin that God makes him do

From my early days on the Puritan Board: Is God the Author of Sin?

 

[KeithW]

I may have missed someone already saying this. God sends both good and evil. "When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, which shall be for their destruction, and which I will send to destroy you: and I will increase the famine upon you, and will break your staff of bread". (Ezek. 5:16) But "evil" and "sin" are not the same thing. God sends both blessings and cursings. "The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me". (Deut. 28:20) "Cursings" and "sin" are not the same thing.

A definition of sin not commonly talked about is opposition to God. (It is also a definition of one of the Greek words translated into English as "unbelief".) God cannot be both for Himself and opposed to Himself at the same time. So God sending "good" or "bad" things upon men is in a different category than men in their heart and actions sinning against God, or being in opposition to or in rebellion against God.

I forget which king it is in the Old Testament. God sends that king against the nation of Israel to chastise them. There is no sin here. But the king who comes against Israel believes he is doing it by his own might and power without God. This is a sin (of the heart) and he was held accountable for it even though his actions were ordained by God.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Thank you for your input brother. I'm not sure that the verse provided can apply to authoring sin when the context is the temptation a Christian faces. Also if God is not the author or creator of sin then you have just implied that God doesn't cause all things which makes him less than sovereign. In reading many convos on this subject I have found that sin is described as a separate entity rather than understanding that sin is rebellion against Gods will (both against his decreed and desired will) and therefore if God causes me to sin then I have sinned but he has not sinned (violated his will)

1. Saying that God is not the author of sin is NOT implying that God doesn't cause all things. I refer to Isaiah 10 and Genesis where Joseph states "God meant it for good, but you meant it for evil".
2. Sin is NOT a separate entity. If this were the case, we could not be sinners. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. We are the primary cause of sin since we are the ones who rebel against the Holy Other.
3. God does not cause you to sin since James 1:13 stands that God does not tempt.

Like many have said before, being the author of something says that it comes from your nature. If God is the author of sin, it comes from His nature, and would by necessity make Him evil, since sin is evil. However, this has been pointed out to NOT be the case in both Scripture and our Confessions.

 

[Afterthought]

Also if God is not the author or creator of sin then you have just implied that God doesn't cause all things which makes him less than sovereign.

The usual distinctions I have heard is between the action of the rational creature as it is an action and the action as it is sin. God is the first cause of all things and His providence extends to all His creatures and all their actions. Insofar as the action is an action, God concurs with the action. Insofar as the action is sin, God does not concur with the action but nevertheless permits it. Because God causes actions as actions, the evilness of the action cannot attach to Him. Instead, the evil of the action belongs to the creature.

How? First, sin is relative to law. As such, sin is not a thing in the sense that a rock or a leaf is. Instead, it is a relation to law. So God's causing an action does not mean God necessarily "created" the sin and evil of the action simply by causing the action. Second, God is able to do good through one action that a creature can only sin in doing. God exercises a holy and wise providence. There is some mystery here, since we cannot always see exactly how this can be, but a common analogy is that of an executioner who carries out the order of a king. The man executed is justly executed at the king's command, but the executioner performs the job with hatred in his heart and so murders the man executed. As a summary of this idea, people sometimes say God wills righteously what man does wickedly. Charnock (referenced earlier) has a nice section on this point.