A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin

[quantumfaith]

I should like to see that quote from Sproul jr. in it's context, so I do not know.

But as it sounds on the surface here as you present it, no. Neither wrath nor grace are eternal in the sense that throughout eternity past there were no creatures to be gracious to and no creatures to bestow wrath upon.

But love and holiness ARE eternal attributes of God. And if they are to be DISPLAYED to the fullest extent then wrath and grace must come to pass.

Yet again I cannot improve upon the words of Edwards on this matter. Please read them contemplatively:

See some of the early posts in this thread, I shared several excerpts for Kenneth Keathly's book, Salvation and Sovereignty. Admittedly I am trusting in the academic integrity that he is accurately quoting Sproul Jr.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree. But the Bible is clear that God does not just allow these things but that he does indeed decree them.

Can you explain how that is consistent with the Edwards quote you provided which read, "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

Is not God's allowing something equal to "God's permission?" Please expound.

Evil is the absence of good just as darkness is the absence of light. God willed for evil to be and brought it to pass in a passive manner by simply removing his goodness from that space for that time.

I agree, but again this seems to be supporting a more permissive (allowing) view rather than the determinative view that you espouse elsewhere? Like here, when you wrote:

If God willed the most heinous crime of all time; if he decreed it; if he determined it, then any argument that he would not ever decree heinous sins is moot.

How is that consistent with Edwards quote regarding God's permission rather than his "determination" of sins?

I doubt that it is in the exact same manner. The point is that God did decree that evil come to pass. Do you deny that?

Depends on how you answer the questions above and how you define the "decree" of God. You still don't seem willing to draw a distinction between God determination (what Edwards called his "positive agency") and God permission. Edwards seems to draw that distinction but you don't and I need clarification before we move on.

Also, I need you to answer these questions: Are you arguing that God's determination to bring about the crucifixion is LIKE God's determination of bringing about the molestation of children? If not, how are they different in your view.

If so, do you believe God originated the thought of killing Jesus in the minds of his murders in the same way he originated the thought of molesting a child in the heart of the child molesters? For instance, was God existing in eternity past with the original thought, you know Jeffrey Dahmer could do X, Y and Z to little Sally and then some time later God created Dahmer so that he would think of X, Y and Z and then do them necessarily just as God originated in His mind for Dahmer to do?

Again, I'm not trying to be incendiary with these comments. I really am just trying to understand your view on this and possibly force you to deal with all the practical conclusions that your theological construct produces when brought to its logical end, if indeed you are equating God's work in effectuating the crucifixion and his effectuating the molestation of children.

Once that is answered we can move on to how I believe God effectuated the crucifixion without determining anyone to sin.

 

[quantumfaith]

"God rules as surely on earth as he does in heaven. He permits, for reasons known only to himself, people to act contrary to and in defiance of His revealed will. But he never permits them to act contrary to His sovereign will."

Jerry Bridges, from "Trusting God even when it hurts"

 

[Amy.G]

Amy,

If it is God, then I alone am keeping him quite busy.

Me too.

The bible is quite clear that our sin originates within ourselves. Satan's sin originated within himself. Any other view is attributing sin to God and I agree with glfredrick that it is blasphemy to claim that.

 

[Skandelon]

The though "I will ascend into heaven" was both original to Satan and ordained by God.

It is not either or. It is both/and. Yes this is a paradox. But, as are so many things in the Bible, there is more than just one level going on here.

The Archangel

And I can live with that as long as "ordained by God" means, as Edwards put it, "God's permission" rather than his active determination of it, but that doesn't seem to be what the Calvinists here are arguing for, does it?

 

[Skandelon]

Me too.

The bible is quite clear that our sin originates within ourselves. Satan's sin originated within himself. Any other view is attributing sin to God and I agree with glfredrick that it is blasphemy to claim that.

I agree.:thumbs:

I'd like glfredrick and archangel to address the OP from their perspectives that God doesn't originate the sinful temptation. How do you defend the Calvinistic position that God is in sovereign control over all things in world where one of his creatures (man or satan) has an original undetermined thought? Or do you just appeal to mystery and move on?

 

[Luke2427]

Can you explain how that is consistent with the Edwards quote you provided which read, "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

Is not God's allowing something equal to "God's permission?" Please expound.

God causes it by removing his goodness just like I cause darkness by turning off the light.

I will for the room to be dark. I have a purpose for the room to be dark. I bring to pass the room becoming dark.

But I do not create darkness.

I agree, but again this seems to be supporting a more permissive (allowing) view rather than the determinative view that you espouse elsewhere? Like here, when you wrote:

How is that consistent with Edwards quote regarding God's permission rather than his "determination" of sins?

God is, Edwards says, "the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."

Depends on how you answer the questions above and how you define the "decree" of God. You still don't seem willing to draw a distinction between God determination (what Edwards called his "positive agency") and God permission. Edwards seems to draw that distinction but you don't and I need clarification before we move on.

I think I have.

Also, I need you to answer these questions: Are you arguing that God's determination to bring about the crucifixion is LIKE God's determination of bringing about the molestation of children? If not, how are they different in your view.

I did answer that question. I do not know what else to do. Explain what about that answer that I gave does not satisfy you and I will try to further elaborate.

If so, do you believe God originated the thought of killing Jesus in the minds of his murders in the same way he originated the thought of molesting a child in the heart of the child molesters? For instance, was God existing in eternity past with the original thought, you know Jeffrey Dahmer could do X, Y and Z to little Sally and then some time later God created Dahmer so that he would think of X, Y and Z and then do them necessarily just as God originated in His mind for Dahmer to do?

I think I have answered this. Nothing originates with any being but God.

Lam 3:37-38 Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

A far, far worse crime than Jeffry Dahmer ever committed was the mutilation and murder of the innocent Son of God. That thought originated with God but the motives for the event coming to pass are very different between God and Pilate's crowd.

Again, I'm not trying to be incendiary with these comments. I really am just trying to understand your view on this and possibly force you to deal with all the practical conclusions that your theological construct produces when brought to its logical end, if indeed you are equating God's work in effectuating the crucifixion and his effectuating the molestation of children.

But in order to entrap me in this you need me to admit that they are exactly the same which they are obviously not- few things are. But they do not need to be to prove this point- God ordains evil.

 

[Luke2427]

Me too.

The bible is quite clear that our sin originates within ourselves. Satan's sin originated within himself. Any other view is attributing sin to God and I agree with glfredrick that it is blasphemy to claim that.

Where?

______

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Civil discussion....lol

Knowing this group.....lol.....more like the Civil War :tonofbricks:

OK let me start reading.....you talk/fight amongst yourselves LOL

 

[The Archangel]

And I can live with that as long as "ordained by God" means, as Edwards put it, "God's permission" rather than his active determination of it, but that doesn't seem to be what the Calvinists here are arguing for, does it?

I would agree with Edwards' idea. However, and again, it isn't that cut and dry. There is some type of causation, but not in an evil or sinful way.

Do I think God put the thought in Lucifer's mind? No. But, if God--as the Bible says--works all things according to the council of His will then it is not as simple as Lucifer "going rogue."

There are things at work here that we are not privy to.

It would almost seem as if you are arguing for a Star Wars understanding of the light side and the dark side of the force (there...I did it...I brought Star Wars into a theological discussion). Perhaps, you are taking the yin-yang concept of good and evil that suggest they are two equal forces fighting for dominance.

The biblical concept of evil (or sin) is that which goes against God's will. Lucifer certainly did that; Adam and Eve certainly did that too. All of us do that. But, sin is, basically, rooted in self-idolatry and is therefore rebellion against God.

So, evil is not necessarily some tangible thing that can be tasted, felt, smelled, or touched. It is, rather, something that exists in opposition to God Himself.

The Archangel

 

[Amy.G]

Where?

______

James 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

 

[Luke2427]

I would agree with Edwards' idea. However, and again, it isn't that cut and dry. There is some type of causation, but not in an evil or sinful way.

Do I think God put the thought in Lucifer's mind? No. But, if God--as the Bible says--works all things according to the council of His will then it is not as simple as Lucifer "going rogue."

There are things at work here that we are not privy to.

It would almost seem as if you are arguing for a Star Wars understanding of the light side and the dark side of the force (there...I did it...I brought Star Wars into a theological discussion). Perhaps, you are taking the yin-yang concept of good and evil and that suggest they are two equal forces fighting for dominance.

The biblical concept of evil (or sin) is that which goes against God's will. Lucifer certainly did that; Adam and Eve certainly did that too. All of us do that. But, sin is, basically, rooted in self-idolatry and is therefor rebellion against God.

So, evil is not necessarily some tangible thing that can be tasted, felt, smelled, or touched. It is, rather, something that exists in opposition to God Himself.

The Archangel

That idea doesn't accurately represent Edwards' thoughts on the matter either.

Permission is only part of the whole in Edwards' mind.

God is, Edwards says, "the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."

 

[Luke2427]

James 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

No one is arguing that God tempts people to sin.

 

[Amy.G]

No one is arguing that God tempts people to sin.

Haven't you been saying that God is the cause of evil? The verses I posted shows that evil is in the heart and mind of man. God does not put it there.

 

[quantumfaith]

No one is arguing that God tempts people to sin.

But Luke, surely you can see how "we" understand it when you claim that God determines and ordains everything. Then this appears to contradict this principle put forth in James. Do you share Luther's desire to deny James from the canon of scripture? (or was that Augustine, sorry dont remember which one)

 

[Skandelon]

God causes it by removing his goodness just like I cause darkness by turning off the light.

But your turning off the light doesn't make the person sitting in the dark originate a sinful thought, which is the question I'm asking.

I will for the room to be dark. I have a purpose for the room to be dark. I bring to pass the room becoming dark.

But I do not create darkness.

Again, we both agree that God permitting sin to enter the world (ie for the room to be dark), but that doesn't go far enough to address the actual thought of a child molester in a dark world, does it?

I think I have answered this. Nothing originates with any being but God.

Ok, I'll take that answer as a "Yes, God does originate the thought of the molestation of a child."

Now, how does that not make God the author of sin. An author creates and originates every thought and act of the characters he has created in his books and you have just affirmed that God originates the sinful thoughts of men. How do you possibly avoid God's authoring of sin with this affirmation?

A far, far worse crime than Jeffry Dahmer ever committed was the mutilation and murder of the innocent Son of God. That thought originated with God but the motives for the event coming to pass are very different between God and Pilate's crowd.

Actually, in my view God simply hardened Israel in their rebellion, much the same way he hardened Pharoah in his rebellion so that the truth was not clearly seen. Why? So that they would continue to do what they already wanted to do.

Like when a cop hides his presence so that you will continue to speed. If he revealed himself you would slow down, but by hiding himself (the truth), he ensures that you will continue to do what you were already doing (speeding). Does that make the cop culpable for your speeding? No. In the same way, does God hiding the truth of Christ in parables and by sending Israel a "spirit of stupor" so that they could not see the truth make Him culpable for their sin? No. They did what they already wanted to do. He never had to determine them to think that heinous thought of killing the Christ. That originated in their own rebellion, not in the heart of our Holy God. He doesn't even tempt men to sin, much less determine their temptation and their choice to fall into that temptation. That is a clear violation of scriptures revelation about the holiness of our God.

Now, does God hardened anyone to ensure the molestation of a child? If so, why? Is redemption for the world being accomplished through Dahmer's sin? And don't you undermine the uniqueness of this divine act by insisting that God likewise intervenes to ensure all things in the same manner as He did the crucifixion?

But in order to entrap me in this you need me to admit that they are exactly the same which they are obviously not- few things are. But they do not need to be to prove this point- God ordains evil.

So, what is different? I mean I know the people and circumstances are different, that is not what I'm talking about. I mean what is different in how God determined the people to kill Jesus and how he determined Dahmer to kill his victims?

 

[Luke2427]

But your turning off the light doesn't make the person sitting in the dark originate a sinful thought, which is the question I'm asking.

Yes, it will inevitably lead to his stumbling.

Again, we both agree that God permitting sin to enter the world (ie for the room to be dark), but that doesn't go far enough to address the actual thought of a child molester in a dark world, does it?

Yes, it does. You may be getting tired of seeing Edwards on the matter but he is considered to be the greatest theological and philosophical mind in American history and this is one of his areas of expertise.

He uses the analogy of the way the sun brings about light and warmth by its essential nature, but brings about dark and cold by dropping below the horizon. "If the sun were the proper cause of cold and darkness," he says, "it would be the fountain of these things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and then something might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of nature in the sun." In other words, "sin is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action and energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his influence."

Ok, I'll take that answer as a "Yes, God does originate the thought of the molestation of a child."

Now, how does that not make God the author of sin. An author creates and originates every thought and act of the characters he has created in his books and you have just affirmed that God originates the sinful thoughts of men. How do you possibly avoid God's authoring of sin with this affirmation?

It depends on what you mean when you say "author". If you mean immediate then it does not implicate God no more than the sun setting is the immediate cause of cold and dark. If you mean ultimate then, yes.


These Scriptures that you have heretofore ignored make this clear.

I request that you go back and deal with them.

Actually, in my view God simply hardened Israel in their rebellion, much the same way he hardened Pharoah in his rebellion so that the truth was not clearly seen. Why? So that they would continue to do what they already wanted to do.

Sounds like Calvinism. This is compatabalism.

But what you must realize is that he INTENDS for these things to come to pass. He has a cause for them. He uses men doing what they want to do to fulfill his will.

Lam 3:37-38 Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

Like when a cop hides his presence so that you will continue to speed. If he revealed himself you would slow down, but by hiding himself (the truth), he ensures that you will continue to do what you were already doing (speeding). Does that make the cop culpable for your speeding? No. In the same way, does God hiding the truth of Christ in parables and by sending Israel a "spirit of stupor" so that they could not see the truth make Him culpable for their sin? No. They did what they already wanted to do. He never had to determine them to think that heinous thought of killing the Christ. That originated in their own rebellion, not in the heart of our Holy God. He doesn't even tempt men to sin, much less determine their temptation and their choice to fall into that temptation. That is a clear violation of scriptures revelation about the holiness of our God.

Part of this is compatabalism which is true to Scripture. The other part, the last couple of sentences is wrong as I have shown FROM Scripture.

Now, does God hardened anyone to ensure the molestation of a child? If so, why? Is redemption for the world being accomplished through Dahmer's sin? And don't you undermine the uniqueness of this divine act by insisting that God likewise intervenes to ensure all things in the same manner as He did the crucifixion?

We do not need to KNOW the purposes of God for why he ordains what he ordains. We just need to trust his Word and his perfect nature.

His Word is clear:

Exod 4:11 Then the Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?

Deut 32:39 See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Isa 45:5-7 I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides Me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides Me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.


What you and I must do is what Daniel instructs us here:

Dan 4:35 All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, “What have you done?”

 

[Luke2427]

But Luke, surely you can see how "we" understand it when you claim that God determines and ordains everything. Then this appears to contradict this principle put forth in James. Do you share Luther's desire to deny James from the canon of scripture? (or was that Augustine, sorry dont remember which one)

It is not my claim. It is the claim of the Word of God repeatedly in passages like this one:

Lam 3:37-38 Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

 

[quantumfaith]

It is not my claim. It is the claim of the Word of God repeatedly in passages like this one:

Lam 3:37-38 Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

This passage is not concerned with God’s cosmic sovereign activity; it is specifically addressing prophecy. Both “good and bad” prophecies (viz. prophecies about blessings and disaster) come “from the mouth of the Most High.” Jeremiah is saying this to confront people who only want to believe that prophecies about blessing are from God.

 

[DHK]

Actually, friend, I think it is you who has not read the passage clearly enough. Consider the following:

After the first "attack" on Job, in Job 1, the scripture says:

20 Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”

22 In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong (emphasis mine)
​

Job's own lips say that God is the one who has taken away. So, who afflicted Job? God did. Did God do it through Satan? Yes. But, ultimately, God is the one who has "taken away."

That is Job's take on it. That is not what the Scriptures say about God.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:12)
--These are the Lord's actual words, not simply Job's opinion. They are words of God giving Satan permission to afflict Job. Thus you are misinterpreting the Scripture.

And just so we know there is no blasphemy in this, the inspired author says "In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong." So for Job to accuse God as the one who has "taken away" is spot-on. If God was not the One behind it, certainly Job would have sinned by charging that He was.

So? I have not blasphemed God either, and have been in some difficult situations. This argument is a red herring. It is God that gave permission to Satan to afflict Job, and Job rightly did not blame God.

After the second "attack" on Job, in Job 2, the scriptures says:

Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.” 10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips. (emphasis mine)
​

Job is laying the blame for his lack of health on God. Again, did God do this through Satan? Sure. But who is behind Job's poor health? God is.

Satan is. Nothing occurs without God's permission. God allowed Satan to afflict Job. Job cannot understand all that goes on in heaven. His perception may be off a bit.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
--And so it was with Job; as it is with you also. Neither one of us have a complete understanding of the ways of God. Neither did Job.

Job's words "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil (or calamity)" are very instructive. It simply means that if we say that God has brought good into our lives--through circumstances, etc.--it must also be the case that the evil (or calamity) that comes into our lives is the result of God's work too, in an ultimate sense. Job (and the rest of scripture, I might add) has absolutely no place for the Star-Wars-like dualism of the light side and dark side--as if the good comes from the light and the bad comes from the dark. No, If any good comes to us, is it not God who has done it? If any evil befall us, is it not God who has done it?

God does not create evil, and did not create evil for Job. He allowed Satan to do evil to Job. It is terrible how you attribute evil to a just and holy God who will not countenance sin.

Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he? (Habakkuk 1:13)

"There is no purpose to terrorism, murder, abortion, rape, etc.?" Are you kidding?

No, I am not kidding. Nothing good comes from a terrorist. Or were in you in favor of the Muslim attack on the WTC. This was good in your sight. This was God's will, as they say it was Allah's will. Fatalism!

Have you not read Genesis 50:20--As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

Joseph is speaking to his brothers--the very brothers that "terrorized" him, plotted to kill him, and finally (at an older brother's intercession) sold him into slavery. Joseph identifies what they did as evil. But, obviously, there was a greater purpose behind the terrorism inflicted on Joseph by the brothers. God meant the evil actions of the brothers for good--for many people to be kept alive.

There are the words that Joseph used. They are accurately inspired or recorded by God.
There are the words that his brothers used--accurately inspired or recorded by God.
Then there is the will of God.
What was the will of God. It was not quite the way that Joseph expressed it. God used the circumstances created by his brothers that led to the imprisonment of Joseph and finally the exaltation of Joseph for His glory. That is more accurately put.
The brothers will still give account for their sin. They will stand before God and they will be judged. It was not God's will that they should inflict terror on their brother. All the evil brought upon Joseph was not God's will. Evil is never God's will. Having said that, God can use that evil, and turn it so that it will bring praise and honor to His name. But it still will be evil, and someone will still give account for it.

The wrath of man will praise Him.
All things work together for them that love him, for them that are called according to his purpose.

In the scope of biblical theology this raises many questions: Without Joseph being sold into slavery by his older brothers, how does Israel (as a nation) become slaves to Egypt? Egypt being slaves in Egypt is required by God's words to Abraham in Genesis 15 "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years."

Are you the boss of God? God has need of nothing. He is God. If he needed anything at all he would not be God. Mark your words, "Egypt is required by God's words to Abraham..." God can use whatever means he wants.
As it was, Joseph suffered in Egypt and then was elevated to a position of authority. Suffering is a key element in the Christian life today. It is God's will that the Christian suffer (Phil. 1:29). What has that to do with this discussion. People have suffered ever since Adam was created. That is a fact of life. It is part of the curse.

Through the evil actions of the brothers, God is super-intending those evil actions for good, for His good purposes, to fulfill His plan, and to magnify His glory.

God allows evil, not decrees evil. If he decrees or ordains evil, then God is no better than Allah. He allowed the brothers to badly treat Joseph. And those actions ultimately ended up in glorifying God. But God was not condoning the actions of the brothers. He is not the author of sin.

So to say that evil things serve no purpose in God's world is to miss one of the major themes in all of scripture and to fail at having a truly biblical theology.

To say that God authors and ordains sin is in err. He doesn't. It is a fatalistic doctrine and puts God as vindictive and cruel.

This is not the case. This is a Red Herring, a Strawman, or whatever on your part.

This is exactly the case. In Islam it is called "Kismet," or fatalism. It is one of their basic tenets. I know you don't like the comparison. But that is what it is once you have God ordaining evil. He does not ordain or decree evil. He allows it.

For you, as a Christian, to say these things are not determined before hand is, in effect, to say that God is making it all up as He goes--which is the textbook definition of Open Theism. Now, I don't think you are an open theist, but it is easy to see how you might get there from your current position.
The Archangel

I believe my position, not yours, is orthodox. God permits or allows evil as he did in Job's case. God's words, not Job's are accurate. For you to say that God determines and ordains evil beforehand is pure unadulterated fatalism. I do not believe in Open Theism. Neither do I believe in Fatalism or a fatalistic God.