Featured Does God Control Sin?

Authored does not mean "first cause". Authored means to be the originator of something (here, sin).

We know that without God nothing would exist.

But it is an entirely different idea to claim that sin originates with God. I'd argue it is actually unbiblical (as it opposes several biblical principles and at least James' words about how sin originates).

 

I agree. That was the point of my post.

 

I believe that sins are personal (I don't mean that sarcastically but theologically).

Let's look at the passage -

James 1:13–17 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.


At the onset we can know without a doubt that God does not author sin. But what can we know about the origin of sin?

Sin originates with lust and sin brings forth death.

It is our own desires of the flesh that creates sin. We saw this with Adam in the Garden as he ate the desirable forbidden fruit. We saw this with Satan as he desired that which belonged to God.

And this is personal sin as it originates with each of us.

 

You are assuming that Adam sinned in some different way. I do not believe this to be true.

Adam was tempted by the desires (lusts) of the flesh.

What does Scripture tell us about the forbidden fruit?

1. It was good for food.
2. It was a delight to the eyes.
3. It was desirable to make one wise.

We could speculate that in addition to this Adam was tempted to join his wife in eating when she offered the fruit, but that is unnecessary speculation as Scrioture already tells us the fruit was an object of lust.

 

I understand. But words have meanings and inventing personal meanings for existing words interferes with effective communication.

 

Again, I understand.

You have to remember that I am in my 50's. I grew up having to use the dictionary if I misused a word, didn't know the correct spelling, or meaning. I am one of those people who dismisses what something means to a person in favor of what that something actually means.

I do not believe in "subjective truth". But I have to admit that much of the reason is my upbringing. A truth that is subjective simply does not make sense to me.


To give you an example - if I tell you I drove my airplane to the store and then explain that to me "airplane" means "automobile", I am the cause for confusion.


But even if I accept your subjective definition for "authored" it is sn incorrect statement.

Being the cause for one thing existing does not mean one is the cause for following situations.

My grandfather is not a cause for my son's actions even though had my grandfather not chosen to have children we would not be alive today.

Scripture tells us that sin originates with men, not God, when men give in to their lusts. The cause for sin is each person.

Each person exists because of God, but their sin originates when conceived by their desire and this desire via temptations. And God is not the source of temptation to sin.

 

Jesus was also tempted. In fact, He was tempted in all points known to us. That idea was present.

I do not think that temptation itself equates to sin.

Sin begins when we give in to these desires of the flesh.

Adam did not sin until he gave in to his desires. I believe this was exactly like we now sin.

 

I do not think that we can nullify Christ's temptation.

Scripture tells us that Jesus can identify with us (with "fallen man") because He has been tempted in all points as common with man.

Jesus did not sin. He did not submit to the lusts of the flesh.

Going beyond that to make Jesus a "man" but a "man" not like mankind in His humanity is a bit too far. It is accepting Scripture on the surface but saying that Scripture has no meaning.

 

I am not caught on the word (as long as we are consistent). The point is that Jesus can be empathetic with us because He has been tempted/ tested/ tried in all things as we are, but without sin.

What verse would you offer to show that Adam being tested and failing that test was different from men being tested and failing that test?

What verse would you offer to show that Jesus being tested was different from the way men in general are tested?

 

The problem with that is Jesus cannot actually be empathetic with man, having been tested/ tempted in all points as man.

Jesus could have never actually prayed "not my will but Yours".

He could never have actually desired that the cup pass because that would be a desire of the flesh and not the desire of the Father.

I can't get on board with that type of thinking.

It seems to be the case that Christian philosophy about Scripture more often than not negates the Scripture it seeks to "unpack".

It also appears to me that if we'd simply accept God's Word rather than resting on our own understanding we would be much better off as God's children.

I know as a fact that Jesus was tempted and tested in all points as man, and I know He can empathize with me and my own temptations. I know that Jesus desired the "cup" pass but submitted His will to the will of the Father.

Why? Because the Bible says so. Do I understand that Jesus chose to give Himself and that was a real choice? Yes. Do I understand how? No. Does that bother me? No.