# Orgins of Sin



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 9, 2007)

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


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2007)

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

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


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 9, 2007)

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

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

Again I hope my expressions are coherent.


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 10, 2007)

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


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 10, 2007)

Wannabee said:


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


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


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 10, 2007)

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



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



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

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



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


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 10, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


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


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


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 10, 2007)

Simply_Nikki said:


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


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


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


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


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 10, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


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


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



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


 
 Perhaps I should ask that question. Nevertheless, this argument is considered to be "consistent", and since no scripture sufficiently contradicts the view, the argument is held up as biblical. I don't however understand how one can hold the view on the basis of consistency but reject the claim that one can accuse God of making one sin. To me that would be the ultimate consistency . However because the bible explicitly says that humans have no right to accuse God of our sin or of His will ("But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Romans 9:20 and that other passage in Daniel I can't remember at the momet) the argument goes... God *authors* and *actively causes* men to sin, but God is absorbed from the results and men cannot point the blame at God. The argument just leaves me utterly confused


----------



## BJClark (Oct 10, 2007)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 10, 2007)

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

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

Grudem comments


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


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


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 10, 2007)

Wannabee said:


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



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



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


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


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 10, 2007)

BJClark said:


> My thoughts on this are: and I hope it makes sense..
> 
> God created everything..but everything He created was not perfect in and of itself..as Only God is perfect..
> 
> ...



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


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 10, 2007)

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


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 10, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


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



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

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


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 10, 2007)

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



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




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

Most probably God righteously witheld his



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



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

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



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


----------



## BJClark (Oct 10, 2007)

BobVigneault;



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



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

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

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

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


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 10, 2007)

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


----------



## BJClark (Oct 10, 2007)

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



Not that God forced man to sin, but God created man imperfectly knowing full well that He would not BE or act perfect...Like God is perfect..man would always fall short..


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 10, 2007)

"but God created man imperfectly"

Bobbi, this phrase just doesn't work. You can't back this up from scripture or any of the confessions. This is pure speculation and bad theology. You need to rethink your wording here.


----------



## BJClark (Oct 10, 2007)

BobVigneault



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



Does good and perfect mean the same in the original language? I have never studied it, so I could very well be wrong...

If God would have created man to be perfect, man never would have sinned...


editing...as I consider this further..

looking at Scripture..

God is perfect..yet, God knows Good and Evil..

If man was perfect..when he was created...was his not knowing good and evil what made him perfect? In that He sinned when he ate from the tree...and gained knowledge of good and evil..and God said "the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

God knows both good and evil and always does good..

Man knows both good and evil..and yet does evil..

Was it his lack of knowledge that made him perfect?


----------



## BJClark (Oct 10, 2007)

BobVigneault;



> "but God created man imperfectly"
> 
> Bobbi, this phrase just doesn't work. You can't back this up from scripture or any of the confessions. This is pure speculation and bad theology. You need to rethink your wording here.



your right, thank you for pointing that out..

God created man to be imperfect..


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 10, 2007)

Again Bobbi, you are relying on a flawed philosophical approach and not on what scriptures says.



BJClark said:


> BobVigneault
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 10, 2007)

It would be more consistent with scripture to say that God caused man to sin for good reason. I prefer, for the sake of our limited perspective, to say God ORDAINED sin in order to display his righteousness to men and angels.

The history of the world is the story of the Creator and redemption. I believe Romans 3 captures the purpose of history when Paul says:

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The manifestation of God's righteousness to the angels and to man seems to be the purpose behind creation and the fall. How else could we know and experience the full revelation of God - his nature and his power.


----------



## BJClark (Oct 10, 2007)

BobVigneault;



> It would be more consistent with scripture to say that God caused man to sin for good reason. I prefer, for the sake of our limited perspective, to say God ORDAINED sin in order to display his righteousness to men and angels.



Not that either of us can fully answer this question...but how did God ordain sin?

Did He ordain it through a man he created to be perfect, or through a man he created to be imperfect?

either way, the answer would be both..even if He created man to be perfect, he knew man would be imperfect..because He created Him...


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 10, 2007)

I've been dying to use the flaming scott icon. You've finally given me an excuse. Thank you my sister.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 10, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I've been dying to use the flaming scott icon. You've finally given me an excuse. Thank you my sister.


 
ROFL!

What is even more hilarious is that i don't get it.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 10, 2007)

*Recapitulation*

Okay, let me just briefly do a little recap of the conversation so far and the advancement of my understanding of what has been said. 

First, we all can conclude that God ordained sin to come into existence. He created beings capable of sinning against him to demonstrate his glory and our depravity and our need for a perfect Savior to redeem us. (I think that's a basic catechismic statement). 

Secondly, God does not forcifully (as in mind control) make us sin. 

Thridly, God does use sin and even employs(? is that the word i want to use) sin in men to accomplish his good purposes, like the hardening of phraroah's heart to demonstrate His power and to free the Hebrews. 

Therefore God caused or causes sin in a secondary sense in his ordination of it. 

Here are the unresolved issues and questions I still have that may or may never be resolved in this lifetime with my limited understanding:

The issues is still not settled for me where sin comes from. I honestly do not want to say "sin comes from God". The point was made that God knew Good and Evil, but does that mean that God's nature in "knowing" Good and Evil mean that God's nature includes Good and Evil?

Further do i tell this person who argues God is the author and active causer of sin that he is in fact correct? That perhaps I'm just misunderstanding his argument? But his rejection of secondary causes leaves me to believe he is infact saying God puts the evil thoughts and makes us do evil deeds for his glory and our condemnation. So i dunno. 

But thanks guys for your imput, it has helped me understand if anything else.


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 10, 2007)

I thought it was a pretty good recap.


Simply_Nikki said:


> The issues is still not settled for me where sin comes from.


Sin comes from a prideful heart that pits its will against God and attempts to usurp His authority and steal His glory. This was the case with Satan. This was the case with Adam and Eve. This is the case with us. God cannot sin. And yet God created it all so that it would be so. 

Consider also, God's attributes cannot be displayed to their fullest without sin. No mercy, justice is unnecessary, wrath non-existent, etc. In this sense sin is necessary for God's glory.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 11, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> I thought it was a pretty good recap.
> 
> Sin comes from a prideful heart that pits its will against God and attempts to usurp His authority and steal His glory. This was the case with Satan. This was the case with Adam and Eve. This is the case with us. God cannot sin. And yet God created it all so that it would be so.
> 
> Consider also, God's attributes cannot be displayed to their fullest without sin. No mercy, justice is unnecessary, wrath non-existent, etc. In this sense sin is necessary for God's glory.


 
So sin is something that necessarily must come from... well... i don't want to say God.. but does the very existence of God demand an existence of evil and sin? Or can God be just as glorified without sin or evil ever to have existed?


----------



## KMK (Oct 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> What bothers me about people who want to be philosophically "tight" in certain cases is that they always want to push exactly where God says not to. It has been the case, since the Garden, that when man fell he blamed the woman who blamed the serpent. Of course, I suppose Adam could have used his profound philosophical insight to remind God that He knew all things at that point and that, after all, their fall was really _His_ fault.
> 
> To me, I don't require the full answer of how it is resolved but I know this: I sin based on _my own_ desires and, when I sin, it is further sin to call God the author of that sin even in attributing temptation to Him. The Reformed Confessions are unanimous that the Scriptures teach the following:
> 
> ...



 It reminds me of how people question the morality of election/reprobation from a philosophical viewpoint. Who cares what the philosophical viewpoint says? Rom 9 says very clearly that God does it and it is righteous. So shut yer mouth, you vessel!


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 11, 2007)

KMK said:


> It reminds me of how people question the morality of election/reprobation from a philosophical viewpoint. Who cares what the philosophical viewpoint says? Rom 9 says very clearly that God does it and it is righteous. So shut yer mouth, you vessel!


 
Okay I think I can take the hint. I'll just let it go now. Thanks for all who contributed in helping me to better understand and talk with my friend about the issue.


----------



## KMK (Oct 11, 2007)

Simply_Nikki said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > It reminds me of how people question the morality of election/reprobation from a philosophical viewpoint. Who cares what the philosophical viewpoint says? Rom 9 says very clearly that God does it and it is righteous. So shut yer mouth, you vessel!
> ...



I'm sorry, but my comment was not directed at you at all! I apologize for any offence, it's just that I am preaching through Rom 9 right now and am constantly coming up against those who think they can put God on trial. My point was not that discussions of logic and philosophy are not beneficial but that they sometimes lead us to the same dead ends that were familiar to the original writers of the Bible. 

I was actually enjoying the discussion. I did not mean to accuse anyone who has posted on this thread of being a prideful vessel.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 11, 2007)

Simply_Nikki said:


> So sin is something that necessarily must come from... well... i don't want to say God.. but does the very existence of God demand an existence of evil and sin? Or can God be just as glorified without sin or evil ever to have existed?




God is not the agent who commits the sin. He ordained the sin, he did not commit the sin. X causing S to * is not the same thing as X *-ing. Saying God is not the "author" of sin is to say he is not the sinner.

Anyway, without sin God would not have the chance to manifest the full glory of all his attributes. God glorifies himself cross-attributinally. He actually "desires" to show wrath. Scary.

Falling into sin, getting redeemed, allows us to know God in ways we would not have been able to had we never fell. Learning how far the gap is between creator and creature, how much we must trust in God on a minute-by-minute basis, seems to be best accomplished by allowing/ordaining the fall.

God is able to show his love more powefully, glorifying himself this way, by sending Jesus to die for his people. There is no "greater love" than that.

God will be glorified for his ultimate justice. He will judge sinners, every thought, word, and action. We will see that he is justice par excellance. He is the platonic form, if you will.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 11, 2007)

KMK said:


> I'm sorry, but my comment was not directed at you at all! I apologize for any offence, it's just that I am preaching through Rom 9 right now and am constantly coming up against those who think they can put God on trial. My point was not that discussions of logic and philosophy are not beneficial but that they sometimes lead us to the same dead ends that were familiar to the original writers of the Bible.
> 
> I was actually enjoying the discussion. I did not mean to accuse anyone who has posted on this thread of being a prideful vessel.


 
Oh  Okay then, sorry I misunderstood


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 12, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Anyway, without sin God would not have the chance to manifest the full glory of all his attributes. God glorifies himself cross-attributinally. He actually "desires" to show wrath. Scary.
> 
> Falling into sin, getting redeemed, allows us to know God in ways we would not have been able to had we never fell. Learning how far the gap is between creator and creature, how much we must trust in God on a minute-by-minute basis, seems to be best accomplished by allowing/ordaining the fall.
> 
> ...


 
Okay.. so God causes sin to exist, but does not author it because nothing sinful can come from God's nature? The sin God causes is for the purpose of demonstrating His glory and to recognize our need for Him without him forcibly (like robots) making us love him. Did i get it right?


----------



## KMK (Oct 12, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Anyway, without sin God would not have the chance to manifest the full glory of all his attributes. God glorifies himself cross-attributinally. He actually "desires" to show wrath. Scary.



'Cross-attributinally' I like it! It says it all. Can I borrow it?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 13, 2007)

KMK said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, without sin God would not have the chance to manifest the full glory of all his attributes. God glorifies himself cross-attributinally. He actually "desires" to show wrath. Scary.
> ...




Fine by me  

I develoed if from a Piper quote: "It is God’s supreme commitment to uphold and display the full range of His glory through the sovereign demonstrations of all His perfections, including his wrath and mercy…”

So I shortened the idea to "cross-attributianlly."

I used the phrase first in a response to an atheist on the problem of evil

Triablogue: The Emotional Problem of Evil


----------



## Vytautas (Oct 14, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> He is the platonic form, if you will.



There is the contrast of God to creation which is a complete contrast ontalogicly, as you say, the great gap between creature and creator, since the perfect forms abide in his mind, such as justice is shown in creation at least at the end of the age where the wheat and the chaff are seperated, whereas we are devoid of true justice and are dependent on God of not only this but all things.


----------

