# Is God the author of sin?



## Herald (Apr 22, 2006)

This question was asked and skimmed over in a a Baptist board I frequent. I have posted a response to this question here: Is God the author of sin?

Thoughts and comments? Am I straying from orthodoxy?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2006)

Bill,
The distinction needs to be made between what God decrees and what he creates. God allowed for sin and the fall; he is not the author of sin as there is no darkness in Him.

[Edited on 4-22-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bill,
> The distinction needs to be made between what God decrees and what he creates. God allowed for sin and the fall; he is not the author of sin as there is no darkness in Him.
> 
> [Edited on 4-22-2006 by Scott Bushey]



Scott - I suppose that leads me to another question: where did sin come from? Is sin something that was created? Is it the antithesis of holiness and righteousness? By no means am I attributing sinfulness to God! I'm just trying to get a handle on how sin came into being and whether it was "created" by God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Outside of the topic of soteriology, angels and men are created with a will to choose right or wrong; God did not force Adams hand nor Lucifers. It was decreed; a secondary result.


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



So if I reading you correctly you are saying that sin is a choice but it still operates within the decree and omniscience of God?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> This question was asked and skimmed over in a a Baptist board I frequent. I have posted a response to this question here: Is God the author of sin?
> 
> Thoughts and comments? Am I straying from orthodoxy?



Not sure I understand the question, or how the term "author" is being used. It could be answered yes or no depending on what is being asked. God is a ultimate cause of everything, nothing occurs outside his will. Every breath we take is determined by God in advance. So in that sense, God is the ultimate author of all things, even sin. 

But then on a more immediate level, sin can not apply to anyone but man. Sin is, by definition, man's disobedience to God's law. _Only_ man can sin, so in the sense, only man can be the author of sin. Then the answer would be no, God is not the author of sin.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



Antney (that is how we say "Anthony" back home in North Jersey),

More towards your first paragraph. I thought I was plain about that in the link on the OP. Man is responsible for his sin. God is not to blame for sin.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



Bill,

I agree that "man is responsible for his sin". 

I haven't gotten the link to open - I have a very slow connection right now.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Lets say vomit is sinful; not the act, the material. If God decreed I vomit if I eat too much chocolate, He is not necessarily responsible for _creating_ the puke that I expel, only the action. He would be responsible for the puking, not the puke.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 22, 2006)

I agree w/ Civbert that you begin by explaining a distinction between the senses of cause (an "author" being "personal cause").

I also think you need to distinguish between the existence of _something,_ the positive existence of which is ultimately attributable to God, the cause of everything subsistent, _who simply IS;_ and the existence of something _privatively,_ or permissively. If I forge a steel sword, if I just leave it be, a rust spot will eventually mar the formerly shiny surface. You could say I "caused" the rust, because I didn't oil the sword or maintain it. I am responsible in that sense for the rust. But in the sense of "rusting" the sword, I certainly did not "cause" it.

At least in part, evil can be defined in one sense as the absence of positive moral good. But the existence of morally responsible creatures, who choose evil over good, the issue is more complicated. The sword (above) didn't rust itself by a moral choice to corruption. Men are constituted as moral creatures to begin with, either created in a state of moral rectitude (Adam, Eve, Christ), or propagated from corrupt stock and beginning our existence in a state of moral degeneracy (everyone else). Evil "came into existence" in Satan's rebellion; it passed into our human experience through Adam's rebellion. No amount of appealling "God-the-ultimate-cause-of everthing" will erase the moral responsibility that rests squarely on the shoulders of each and every sinner for the willful, morally objectionable choices they make on a daily basis.

When it comes to "theodicy", this justification of God with respect to the question of sin and evil, all these matters come into consideration: cause, existence, responsibility, among others. All these have to be defined according to Scripture, according to the way Scripture defines righteousness, according to the fundamental Creator-creature distinction. At the end of the day, God's self-glorification is vindicated in everything he does. He has a "morally sufficient reason" for decreeing everything that comes to pass, inasmuch as he cannot deny himself and his own unblemished character is the ultimate standard of righteousness.

Helpful references: Robert Reymond, ST, pp. 376-78; the "Bahnsen-Stein" debate; WCF 3, 5, 6.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



Scott - dude....way to use graphic similies.


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I agree w/ Civbert that you begin by explaining a distinction between the senses of cause (an "author" being "personal cause").
> 
> I also think you need to distinguish between the existence of _something,_ the positive existence of which is ultimately attributable to God, the cause of everything subsistent, _who simply IS;_ and the existence of something _privatively,_ or permissively. If I forge a steel sword, if I just leave it be, a rust spot will eventually mar the formerly shiny surface. You could say I "caused" the rust, because I didn't oil the sword or maintain it. I am responsible in that sense for the rust. But in the sense of "rusting" the sword, I certainly did not "cause" it.
> ...



Bruce, I am in agreement with you. I suppose I was asking far too simple a question: "Is God the author (from a creative standpoint) of sin?" Did God create sin in the abstract? Did Lucifer and Adam "activate" sin by their disobedience? Is this discussion simply the dog chasing his tail? Suffice to say that I believe God is sinless and not capable of sinning.

[Edited on 4-22-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 22, 2006)

I would not begin (that's just me, ok?) by using those verses dealing with creation of things, of _objects_ (LIke John1, or Col. 1). Sin corrupts, deforms, uncreates. So to speak of God's positively "creating" sin is unhelpful, even erroneous.

God's _decree_ includes sin. That is just a fact. He wills it, he wills to allow it, includes it in his providential government; and that not (as the WCF 5.4 puts it) by a _bare permission,_ but bounds, orders, and governs those sins *by a manifold dispensation* to his own holy ends, in such a way that what is truly sinful about the acts of men (or angels) proceeds only frrom themselves.

To address just one of the questions:
I would say: when there IS ONLY God, there is only the *barest* abstraction of what negates him. As soon as he creates something subsistent to him, that IS NOT him, then the abstraction assumes an "abstract form" corrrelative to whatever has been created. Creation was positively "good" in the day of its creation. But it could change, it could get worse, given the right conditions. Or, possibly it could have improved; those of us who acknowledge a probation for Adam (who was created VERY good), yet recognize that Adam's condition could have been still better. The possibility of change was a "reality", and the potential was realized negatively.

Speaking of evil in terms of "existence" without the underlying acknowledgment that such "existence" is privative, derogatory, negative, is a deficient discussion, in my opinion. That is where the discussion requires intensified concentration of the mind, and clarity.

Lucifer and Adam make sin's "possibility" into "reality" in this sense: they corrupt what was once good. They do not "activate" anything, for there is nothing to activate. They ruin and destroy by their immoral decisions and acts.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I would not begin (that's just me, ok?) by using those verses dealing with creation of things, of _objects_ (LIke John1, or Col. 1). Sin corrupts, deforms, uncreates. So to speak of God's positively "creating" sin is unhelpful, even erroneous.
> 
> God's _decree_ includes sin. That is just a fact. He wills it, he wills to allow it, includes it in his providential government; and that not (as the WCF 5.4 puts it) by a _bare permission,_ but bounds, orders, and governs those sins *by a manifold dispensation* to his own holy ends, in such a way that what is truly sinful about the acts of men (or angels) proceeds only frrom themselves.
> ...



Bruce,
I don't know if I agree that God _wills_ sin. I don't see decreeing/allowing something actively participating in it where as God willing something would cause God to be a participant in it.


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I would not begin (that's just me, ok?) by using those verses dealing with creation of things, of _objects_ (LIke John1, or Col. 1). Sin corrupts, deforms, uncreates. So to speak of God's positively "creating" sin is unhelpful, even erroneous.
> 
> God's _decree_ includes sin. That is just a fact. He wills it, he wills to allow it, includes it in his providential government; and that not (as the WCF 5.4 puts it) by a _bare permission,_ but bounds, orders, and governs those sins *by a manifold dispensation* to his own holy ends, in such a way that what is truly sinful about the acts of men (or angels) proceeds only frrom themselves.
> ...



Bruce (and Scott), I appreciate your responses. My failure may in my ability to articulate what I believe in terms that are generally accepted in theological circles. For the record, I did not intend to use the word "activate" in a benefical sense although it may have appeared to be the case.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 22, 2006)

Scott,
All you've said is that it's hard to discuss this topic without the death of a thousand qualifications. I'm using the term "will" to express the decretive idea. Does X (even sin-X) come about in history? Yes? OK, then it was _part of God's *will* that it happen,_ his decretive will. You are importing the prescriptive notion, or else the idea that God is "excited" (or something like) about the inclusion of a sin in his decree, into my use of the word "will".


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Scott,
> I'm using the term "will" to express the decretive idea.



Fair enough.


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> I can't believe you guys...the answer is so obvious and easy.



Then regale us with the obvious. 

[Edited on 4-23-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...



Scott, is that a sunvisor on your phylacteries? 

[Edited on 4-23-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Peter (Apr 22, 2006)

God is not the author of sin. Sin is the one absolute contrary of God. If one drop of sin got into God he would instantly cease to be God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 23, 2006)

Bill,
Do you have Dabneys systematic? If so, go to page 213-14. An excellent example of what I've said.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 23, 2006)

There are some earlier threads on this subject which may be profitable to review:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10460

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=14149

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10468

Also, see WCF 3.1.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Apr 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bill,
> Do you have Dabneys systematic? If so, go to page 213-14. An excellent example of what I've said.



an online copy of his systematic is at:
http://www.pbministries.org/R. L. Dabney/Systematic Theology/systematic_theology.htm

however there are no page numbers, what is the chapter and section references?
thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 23, 2006)

ch 20
'Gods decree effective or permissive'



> First. God´s decree "foreordains whatsoever comes to pass"; there was no event in the womb of the future, the futurition of which was not made certain to God by it. But we believe that this certainty is effectuated in different ways, according to the different natures of God´s creatures. One class of effects God produces by His own immediate agency (as creations, regenerations, inspirations), and by physical causes, which are continually and immediately energized by His power. This latter subdivision is covered by what we call the laws of material nature. As to these, God´s purpose is called effective, because He Himself effects the results, without the agency of other intelligent agents. *The other class of effects is, the spontaneous acts of rational free agents other than God. The being and powers of these are derived from and dependent on God. But yet He has been pleased to bestow on them a rational spontaneity of choice which makes them as truly agents, sources of self-determined agency, in their little, dependent sphere of action, as though there were no sovereign over them.* In my theory of the will, I admitted and claimed as a great truth of our consciousness, that man´s action is spontaneous, that the soul is self-determined (though not the faculty of willing) in all its free acts, that the fountain of the volition is in the soul itself; and that the external object of the action is but the occasional cause of volition. Yet these spontaneous acts God has some way of directing (only partially known to us), and these are the objects of His permissive decree. By calling it permissive, we do not mean that their futurition is not certain to God; or that He has not made it certain; we mean that they are such acts as He efficiently brings about by simply leaving the spontaneity of other free agents, as upheld by His providence, to work of itself, under incitements, occasions, bounds and limitations, which His wisdom and power throw around. *To this class may be attributed all the acts of rational free agents, except such as are evoked by God´s own grace, and especially, all their sinful acts.*





[Edited on 4-23-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Herald (Apr 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bill,
> Do you have Dabneys systematic? If so, go to page 213-14. An excellent example of what I've said.



Scott, no. My Reformed library consists of one a critique on dispensationalism by Gertsner, the requisite works of Sproul, a book on eschatology by Matthison and a hermenutics book by Berkhoff. If you're familiar with my past I was dispensationally educated.  I'll take you up on the Dabney theology book. I need to expand my library as time and budget allow.


----------



## shelly (May 23, 2006)

Here's my very tiny oar that I'm dipping into this topic.

Isaiah 45:6-8 (King James Version)

6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 

7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. 

8Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.


My husband and I have been going round and round on this.
My thought is that there is really no difference between God allowing and God causing evil/sin. He is sovereign and all powerful and if he didn't want/allow/cause something to happen; then he wouldn't let it.

If God uses sin sinlessly then it makes sense that he would arrange for it to be availalbe for his use.

Am I off the deep end here? If so I'd appreciate a tow back to where I should be. I've been thinking this way for 2 1/2 years now. It's an improvement of how I had been thinking, but I don't seem to find anyone who agrees with me. I also don't buy what they(not my husband) tell me either. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks you're going off the deep end because you fully believe the DoG, and to really put much stock in their theology when they stand there and caution you about calvinism.

I am concerned because I haven't read anything anywhere that fully agrees with what I'm thinking on this topic. Hate to just start trading heresies. I'm still trying to get all the arminian out of me it keeps popping up like bamboo.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 23, 2006)

Just a quick note regarding the Isaiah verse. The word 'evil' there is referring to a catastrophe as in an earthquake or hurricane. It is not evil as in sin. 

Man is always the author of sin and God in His providence ordains sin in time and space for his purposes. "What you mean't for evil (man's working), God intended for good. (Divine ordination)

Yes, God is the first cause of all things but because he uses means, even mans wicked and rebellious nature, he is not responsible for sin.


----------



## shelly (May 23, 2006)

okay, It's a pretty good chance I'm misusing this verse, but the question still remains. cause/allow/permit/ordain/will Is this all the same? If God doesn't ordain/will for evil/sin to happen; then doesn't that call into question the sovereignty of God?

Knowing that *everything* that happens is God's will seems a whole lot better than believing that something slipped by God, but that's ok because he can still use it.

I'd much rather know that whatever has happened or will happen is the will of God. How can God be God if things happen in this world that aren't his will? and if it's his will then he ordains it and causes it to happen. I don't have to understand it or be able to explain how it's first cause, secondary cause or all those other terms. But am I right? Isn't God, God? Something can be evil, like Joseph being sold by his brothers, but God ordained it and willed for it to happen.

Some examples of this: God regenerated me without my permission and against my will. I was despising God, I had nothing to do with God's regenerating me.
another ex: I will for my children to do their job list, but if I don't cause/make them then they don't do it. Maybe this one isn't such a great example since it is definitely against their nature to wash dishes:bigsmile:

Back to Joseph: He didn't know for a long time what God's purpose was. Would God have been viewed as causing/allowing "evil" if Joseph never saw the why?

Things happen that are evil/sin but knowing that God designed/willed/ordained/caused it just shows me that I am so far beneath God that I have no idea how this could be good. Maybe the why will never be shown, and maybe in God's graciousness he will give a glimpse of why. I would so much rather trust myself to a God who has my whole life planned, instead of one who keeps having to go to plan B because somebody did something evil that he hadn't ordained. If he is just going by what he knows will happen, but doesn't really plan it himself isn't that a bit like God "looking down through the corridors of time" and using that "knowledge" of future events to "work everything together for good"?

Maybe this is too simplistic, but this has been a great comfort to me. I don't want to derive comfort from a fuzzy view of God, but if I'm wrong I need to be clearly shown why and shown what is true.
Hopefully I've been clear in what I'm saying.

shelly


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 23, 2006)

God does not "cause" us to do anything.


----------



## larryjf (May 23, 2006)

Just to add my 

Charles Hodge seems to ascribe God's place in sin as bare permission (Systematic Theology - Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 9C):


> The decretive and preceptive will of God can never be in conflict. God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do, what He forbids. He may, as we see He does, decree to permit what He forbids. He permits men to sin, although sin is forbidden.



A.W. Pink and Calvin appear to denounce the idea of bare permission.

A.W. Pink (The Sovereignty of God - Chapter 8, under question 1):


> Should someone respond, Then is God the Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is meant by "Author"? Plainly it was God's will that sin should enter this world otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission for God only permits that which He has purposed.



I forget exactly where Calvin speaks against bare permission, but it's in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Wouldn't it be an accurate stance to say that God does willfully decree the sin, yet He is at no time the source of the sin and that He does not prescribe sin.


----------

