A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin

[The Archangel]

And does not the author of a book not originate even the evil thoughts and acts of his characters? How does this line up with Calvinists insistence that God is not the author of sin?

This is where the mystery is. We know that God is the Author. We know that God either causes or ordains all things. We know that He is not the cause of sin.

They mystery is that all these biblical facts (which are facts and not opinions) exist in a non-contradictory way.

So, like the physicist who understands why a 747 flies and yet marvels at the "law" of physics, we marvel at God--His sovereignty, His power, and His mystery--all the while understanding His "law" of Himself.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

This is where the mystery is. We know that God is the Author. We know that God either causes or ordains all things. We know that He is not the cause of sin.


They mystery is that all these biblical facts (which are facts and not opinions) exist in a non-contradictory way.

I understand that perspective. It's kind of like the doctrine of the trinity. God is three and one. Doesn't make perfect logical sense in our finite minds, but we accept the mystery of it because the facts are revealed. I really do get that.

BUT, just consider the one phrase you presented: "We know that God either causes or ordains all things."

What exactly does that mean? Because if you mean by "ordains" that God allows or permits evil, then we have no disagreement...and since you didn't just simply say, "God causes all things" I think you recognize the difficulty of such a position.

No where in scripture do we have conclusive evidence that God has "caused" or "determined" all things. We also know, as you pointed out, that God doesn't cause sin, or even tempt men to evil. So, why adopt a deterministic theology by which God is casually determining even the thought of such things as the rape and murder of a child? Why not do as you have already done and simply appeal to mystery with regard to the self-determined choices of sinful man and leave it at that?

Do you understand my question?

 

[Skandelon]

But in this case, there was no one acting upon him (as in the example of someone murdering someone).

The only conclusion, then, is that my ailing professor friend (who has fought valiantly!) is afflicted in much the same way Job was--by God.

The question is "why?" Why did God do this to him? What purpose is served by this? etc.

The Archangel

Though Job blames God for his aliments, it is clear that Satan is the one doing the afflicting in that story. The fact that God permits this illness is accepted by both camps, but where is the line between God's permitting the sin and evil of a fallen world to impact the lives of those he loves and God's "doing this to him," as if God is the afflicting agent in this story?

You seem to blur that line so much that it leaves no real distinction and thus does injustice to the text which took such pains to present Satan in the mix for that very reason.

 

[glfredrick]

One easy way to think about the issue of sin is to say that God will never implicate Himself in causing sin or being sinful. He will allow (permissive will) those creatures who are already predisposed to sin to do what it is that they will do according to their nature. This is fairly clearly spelled out in Romans 1, where the implication is that those who sin are allowed to sin all the more. The damnation is on them, not on God.

Of note (critical!) to say that God is the author of sin, or that God has sinned is heretical and blasphemy. I cannot even fathom the idea, even to play "devil's advocate" in debate. This one issue would violate our Lord and King at the highest and deepest level possible, and perhaps step over into the bounds of the unpardonable sin. That so many can so easily toss about their point of view that this or that makes God the author of sin is incomprehensible to me. Does no man fear Holy and Almighty God?

 

[Luke2427]

I have heard all those testimonies also. Here is the difference.
God knew before hand that they would happen.
God permitted or allowed them to happen. He does not restrain evil. It is part of the curse, and the depravity of the human heart.

However, God does not ordain evil to happen.
That makes God the author of sin. It makes him the originator of sin.
This is wrong. It is taking Scripture out of context.

God told the nation of Israel that judgment would come. It was prophesied to them through the prophets. They warned them repeatedly. Then God allowed Syria in 722 B.C. to come and over come their forces and take them captive. He allowed the circumstances to be so that they would be taken captive. He didn't force anyone's hand. He did not force Assyria to take Israel. They were the natural enemy of Israel and had fought many wars already. He allowed their forces to be strengthened and Israel's to be weakened. Thus Israel was defeated. God did not force anyone. He did not create evil.

Read through the Book of Judges. You find the same pattern. God does not create evil. You interpret these verses wrong. If you attribute evil to God you have created a fatalistic religion that is no better than Islam. Whatever happens, happens. It is the will of God. Horrible!

That is not what the Bible teaches. It does not say that God ALLOWED the Assyrians. It simply does not.

He BROUGHT the Assyrians upon Israel.

The Bible does not say that he ALLOWED men to crucify Christ. It simply does not say that. You literally have to ABUSE the Words of God and CHANGE them to support this doctrine.

The Word of God says that they did "whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel DETERMINED before to do."

I cannot debate this issue with anyone who is allowed to make the Bible say whatever they want. Words have meaning and the Word of God is very clear on these matters.

 

[The Archangel]

Though Job blames God for his aliments, it is clear that Satan is the one doing the afflicting in that story. The fact that God permits this illness is accepted by both camps, but where is the line between God's permitting the sin and evil of a fallen world to impact the lives of those he loves and God's "doing this to him," as if God is the afflicting agent in this story?

You seem to blur that line so much that it leaves no real distinction and thus does injustice to the text which took such pains to present Satan in the mix for that very reason.

Satan is in the mix. But, he is not the "cause." Again, the very words of Job attribute the affliction to God, not Satan. Though we are given the "behind the scenes" look at the beginning of the book, by the time we get to the end of the book, there is no doubt that God is the Afflictor of Job. Job asks God "Why?" and God never gives him an answer. But, God does give Job a far greater glimpse of His power and glory in ch 38-42.

If we were to accept Satan as the ultimate cause of Job's affliction, the reader would expect Job to be having the ch. 38-42 interaction with Satan, not God. It is extremely instructive that God never gives Job the answer to "why." It is not because God doesn't know the answer. The answer is, basically, "I'm God and you are not."

Now I know that answer does hit some people the wrong way. But it is not, then, a philosophical problem at this point. It is a problem of faith.

The Archangel

 

[Luke2427]

Though Job blames God for his aliments, it is clear that Satan is the one doing the afflicting in that story. The fact that God permits this illness is accepted by both camps, but where is the line between God's permitting the sin and evil of a fallen world to impact the lives of those he loves and God's "doing this to him," as if God is the afflicting agent in this story?

You seem to blur that line so much that it leaves no real distinction and thus does injustice to the text which took such pains to present Satan in the mix for that very reason.

Once again, the Word of God is clear. It was the LORD who took away. God's word says of Job's testimony that in saying THOSE VERY WORDS Job did not charge God foolishly.

Job was absolutely right in his claim that God afflicted him.

The word "allow" and the IDEA of allowance is not in the text ANYWHERE.

Job recognized before the Bible was written a truth that is everywhere affirmed in the Word of 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?

 

[Skandelon]

One easy way to think about the issue of sin is to say that God will never implicate Himself in causing sin or being sinful. He will allow (permissive will) those creatures who are already predisposed to sin to do what it is that they will do according to their nature. This is fairly clearly spelled out in Romans 1, where the implication is that those who sin are allowed to sin all the more. The damnation is on them, not on God.

Of note (critical!) to say that God is the author of sin, or that God has sinned is heretical and blasphemy. I cannot even fathom the idea, even to play "devil's advocate" in debate. This one issue would violate our Lord and King at the highest and deepest level possible, and perhaps step over into the bounds of the unpardonable sin. That so many can so easily toss about their point of view that this or that makes God the author of sin is incomprehensible to me. Does no man fear Holy and Almighty God?

:thumbs: I could not agree more!

 

[Skandelon]

Once again, the Word of God is clear. It was the LORD who took away. God's word says of Job's testimony that in saying THOSE VERY WORDS Job did not charge God foolishly.

Job was absolutely right in his claim that God afflicted him.

The word "allow" and the IDEA of allowance is not in the text ANYWHERE.

Job recognized before the Bible was written a truth that is everywhere affirmed in the Word of 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?

But again, we must draw the distinction between God allowing the effects of sin and his causing sin (as glf so eloquently put it). Clearly the first part of Job's book places Satan as the one doing the affliction and GOD ALLOWING that with the exception of NOT ALLOWING SATAN to take his life.

Again, considering the OP and your argument here; are you attempting to argue that God's role in the affliction of Job (to whatever degree that may be), is equal to God's originating the thought of a child molester?

I ask, because instead of answering the question directly you have diverted the question to discuss the crucifixion and now Job. So, are you attempting to argue that God originated the thought of the first child molester and using the cases of God's involvement in the crucifixion and his involvement in Job to support your answer?

Again, I'm just attempting to understand your view (see my last post directed toward you).

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, thank you for your demeanor and your willingness to address this subject in a Christlike and serious manner.

It is my joy to discuss theological issues. My frustration is made manifest when people make it personal and detract from the subject.

While agree with what DHK has already argued in regard to your post, I might word a few things a bit differently. For example, I do affirm that God has a purpose in allowing evil. Suffering produces perseverance and that produces character (ref Rom 5), comes to mind as just one example.

Agreed.

The only way we can truly appreciate and love God's holiness and goodness is to experience a world where such things are neglected and where evil exists. In short, one must experience darkness in order to love the light. In that regard, God has a purposed for ALLOWING evil.

Almost agreed. Allowing is a concept that is foreign to the passage concerning the crucifixion of Christ, the affliction of Job, the heinous treatment of Joseph and others.

The Scripture is clear. God is DOING these things. But God is not evil in doing them because his motive is pure and right. His is an ultimate motive which will produce an ultimate and eternal good. Those individuals with evil motives who God is using have immediate motives.

The two work asymmetrically but are not morally equivalent by any means.

Notice, as DHK already pointed out, there is a huge difference in the concept of God ALLOWING evil and his DECREEING/ORDAINING/DETERMINING OR ORIGINATING IT, which is the purpose of this particular OP.

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

IOk, with that said, where does a temptation (i.e. rape of child) originate then? If not with God, then how do you defend your view regarding God's sovereign control over all things in a world where a creature (man or satan) originates a new thought?

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 cannot improve upon Edwards' words on this matter:

God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn't will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn't hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.

and...

Is God the Author of Sin?

Edwards answers, "If by 'the author of sin,' be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin." But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

I concede this point, but as I explained to Aaron. The ethos/pathos of this question removes it from the normal pat answers of the sterile theological discussions and forces one to deal with the practical application of their theological position.

I am not against ethos and pathos, but it must be tempered by logos.

This too was argued by Aaron, and as I said to him. The question of the OP is not about the level of the sin's heinousness. I concede that the crucifixion was just as (if not more) heinous than the sin presented in the OP, but that really doesn't address the question of the OP.

No, but it is a pivotal matter in this discussion.

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.

I appears you are saying that God has intervened to effectually bring about the crucifixion of Christ for the redemption of the world in the same manner he intervened to effectually bring about the molestation of every child in the course of human history. And because there is a biblical basis for God determining the crucifixion of Jesus (the most heinous of all crimes) that he must be just in determining the molestation of children. Is that what you are arguing?

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?

 

[Skandelon]

Satan is in the mix. But, he is not the "cause." Again, the very words of Job attribute the affliction to God, not Satan. Though we are given the "behind the scenes" look at the beginning of the book, by the time we get to the end of the book, there is no doubt that God is the Afflictor of Job. Job asks God "Why?" and God never gives him an answer. But, God does give Job a far greater glimpse of His power and glory in ch 38-42.

If we were to accept Satan as the ultimate cause of Job's affliction, the reader would expect Job to be having the ch. 38-42 interaction with Satan, not God. It is extremely instructive that God never gives Job the answer to "why." It is not because God doesn't know the answer. The answer is, basically, "I'm God and you are not."

Now I know that answer does hit some people the wrong way. But it is not, then, a philosophical problem at this point. It is a problem of faith.

The Archangel

This matter of Job is really clouding the issue at hand, which is the original thought of man (or satan for that matter) to sin. Whether calamity befalls a faithful man at the permissive will or directive will of God really doesn't address that question.

When Satan said in his mind "I will ascend to heaven," was that thought original to Satan or did God originate it? As the OP asks, how do you defend either of those possibilities?

 

[Luke2427]

But again, we must draw the distinction between God allowing the effects of sin and his causing sin (as glf so eloquently put it). Clearly the first part of Job's book places Satan as the one doing the affliction and GOD ALLOWING that with the exception of NOT ALLOWING SATAN to take his life.

Again, considering the OP and your argument here; are you attempting to argue that God's role in the affliction of Job (to whatever degree that may be), is equal to God's originating the thought of a child molester?

I ask, because instead of answering the question directly you have diverted the question to discuss the crucifixion and now Job. So, are you attempting to argue that God originated the thought of the first child molester and using the cases of God's involvement in the crucifixion and his involvement in Job to support your answer?

Again, I'm just attempting to understand your view (see my last post directed toward you).

But, once again the Word of God is clear. God DID this to Job. Job said so and his testimony was right because Scripture says, "In all this Job... did not charge God foolishly".

 

[kyredneck]

Guarantee you, when God asked Satan, "Hast thou considered my servant Job?", Satan had already had an eye on Job.

 

[Amy.G]

My frustration is made manifest when people make it personal and detract from the subject.

I want to make this post personal.

If I have an evil thought, did it come from God or did it come from me?

 

[Luke2427]

This matter of Job is really clouding the issue at hand, which is the original thought of man (or satan for that matter) to sin. Whether calamity befalls a faithful man at the permissive will or directive will of God really doesn't address that question.

When Satan said in his mind "I will ascend to heaven," was that thought original to Satan or did God originate it? As the OP asks, how do you defend either of those possibilities?

Once again I refer you to Edwards:

Is God the Author of Sin?

Edwards answers, "If by 'the author of sin,' be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin." But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

 

[The Archangel]

I understand that perspective. It's kind of like the doctrine of the trinity. God is three and one. Doesn't make perfect logical sense in our finite minds, but we accept the mystery of it because the facts are revealed. I really do get that.

BUT, just consider the one phrase you presented: "We know that God either causes or ordains all things."

What exactly does that mean? Because if you mean by "ordains" that God allows or permits evil, then we have no disagreement...and since you didn't just simply say, "God causes all things" I think you recognize the difficulty of such a position.

Ordains means, strictly, that God does allow or permit evil. But it goes further than that too. It means that His purposes are served through evil and that nothing--not even the murderous regimes of Hitler or Stalin--are accidental or out of control.

It means, as someone else has said, "there are no rogue atoms in all the universe."

Ordains means that, in some way and without sinning, God can and does use evil things, evil persons, etc. to accomplish His purposes for His world.

No where in scripture do we have conclusive evidence that God has "caused" or "determined" all things. We also know, as you pointed out, that God doesn't cause sin, or even tempt men to evil. So, why adopt a deterministic theology by which God is casually determining even the thought of such things as the rape and murder of a child? Why not do as you have already done and simply appeal to mystery with regard to the self-determined choices of sinful man and leave it at that?

Do you understand my question?

I have to say that your statement "No where [sic.] in scripture do we have conclusive evidence that God has "caused" or "determined" all things" is shockingly and staggeringly surprising. I can only take this statement to mean that you do not believe God to be sovereign over all things. Your statement suggests that there are things which God does not control. This is a shocking admission from you.

Paul clearly states "from him and through him and to him are all things." Jesus says "All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father." John says "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand." Paul, again, says "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will"

The pagan king Nebuchadnezzar says of God:

...his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
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?”
​

God Himself declares:

8 “Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
11 calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.
​

So, your statement, while shocking, is totally and utterly false. And, your statement reveals much about what you think of God.

Now, as to the second part of the question, I do not adopt a deterministic theology. Determinism, classically speaking, is suggesting impersonal forces are determining everything--mother nature and such. That is not how the absolute sovereignty of God is portrayed in the Bible. The reason--perhaps the only reason--that the "determinism" (using your words) of Calvinism is not based on an impersonal mechanism or force. It is based on a holy and loving God who knows more than us and who actively works all things together for our good and His glory.

There is a pastor-acquaintance on Twitter who said "I am gratefully bound to the free will of God." This pretty much sums up the reformed position.

We do not see God as an impersonal, deterministic force, as you would suggest. We see Him as a holy and loving father that is always looking out for our good--even by bringing evil into our life to glorify Himself by revealing Himself more deeply to us through our suffering.

So, why don't I adopt your theology in this area? Because it is patently unbiblical.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

This matter of Job is really clouding the issue at hand, which is the original thought of man (or satan for that matter) to sin. Whether calamity befalls a faithful man at the permissive will or directive will of God really doesn't address that question.

When Satan said in his mind "I will ascend to heaven," was that thought original to Satan or did God originate it? As the OP asks, how do you defend either of those possibilities?

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

 

[quantumfaith]

Once again I refer you to Edwards:

Is God the Author of Sin?

So Luke, do you share the sentiment of Sprould Jr. that "wrath" is a necessary attribute of God, and thus He NEEDED to create sinners in order to have and object of that attribute?

 

[Luke2427]

So Luke, do you share the sentiment of Sprould Jr. that "wrath" is a necessary attribute of God, and thus He NEEDED to create sinners in order to have and object of that attribute?

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:

It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . . .

Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

 

[quantumfaith]

I want to make this post personal.

If I have an evil thought, did it come from God or did it come from me?

Amy,

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