Does preknowledge of sin = creating sin?

[Corallary]

I just had a glimpse of another person's thread and what struck me as interesting was the notion that sin might have been created by God. While God does not sin (and never have) it is nearly impossible to say that something existed, or was created, outside of God's plan.

Now, here's the question then. Since God had the preknowledge of sin and condoned evil to take place in the garden of Eden, does this mean God's preknowledge of sin equals Him creating sin?

After all, if something is contrived in God's mind, does it not already exist from then on? The very idea of God interacting with the essence of nothingness and not bringing it to light, to existence, doesn't seem very likely to me.

What do you think?

 

[oneofchrists]

I believe in My heart that Our Gracious Heavenly Father Forenew the result of Freewill as he created Luciferand all other angels, seeing the results of what freewill does to lucifer and a third of the heavenly Angels also Forenew what freewill would do to man.

I don't believe That God created sin I believe sin is a result of how frewill was used...............My opinion and I realize it dosn'trealy go that far in answering Your question but that is all I can fathom in regard to it...........God Bless you , and in Christ's name continue to post ...........Dave

 

[Corallary]

Thank you for your reply, Oneofchrists. The concept of God giving freewill to humanity is certainly not new. I also believe that God gave us the will and ability to choose. However, if the end result of disobeying God (sin) was not created by God, how else then would sin even come to be? If Satan was the sole perpetrator who devised sin behind God's back (though this very idea negates God's omnipotence) even then, God would have had to give His "okay" sign.

 

[holyrokker]

Part of the problem here is a misunderstanding of "foreknowledge".

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that God, from eternity past, knew (and knows) every single thought, choice and action that every single person who would ever think, choose and do.

Foreknowledge refers to God knowing those who will and won't believe, thereby being adopted as His sons. The foreknowledge isn't from an eternity in the past of every individual, the foreknowledge refers to God knowing each individual so intimately that He knows our choices before we even make them.

 

[Corallary]

Part of the problem here is a misunderstanding of "foreknowledge".

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that God, from eternity past, knew (and knows) every single thought, choice and action that every single person who would ever think, choose and do.

Foreknowledge refers to God knowing those who will and won't believe, thereby being adopted as His sons. The foreknowledge isn't from an eternity in the past of every individual, the foreknowledge refers to God knowing each individual so intimately that He knows our choices before we even make them.

Then your post rejects the fundamental attribute of God: His omniscience.

I believe that even before the creation of the world, God knew me intimately and was aware that I'd be saved one day. He gave me the option to choose while He already knew the end result. But certainly, God giving me the option to choose does not mean He is limited?

 

[holyrokker]

Then your post rejects the fundamental attribute of God: His omniscience.

I reject an unbiblical definition of omniscience.

I believe that even before the creation of the world, God knew me intimately and was aware that I'd be saved one day. He gave me the option to choose while He already knew the end result. But certainly, God giving me the option to choose does not mean He is limited?

Why do you believe that? Is that what the Bible teaches?

 

[Corallary]

I reject an unbiblical definition of omniscience.

Why do you believe that? Is that what the Bible teaches?

If you find my definition of "omniscience" unbiblical, then do please tell me how your own definition is more biblical than mine?

And yes, I believe that God knew me intimately before I was even born. Before He created me in my mother's womb, I believe that God knew me and loved me. Here are the passages from the Bible which back up my points.

"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves" (Ephesians 1:4-6).

"For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
.............................................
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be."
(Psalm 139, l. 13, 15-16)

As you can see, my explanation is Biblical. Why else would Jesus have died on the cross for my sins and yours before our time, unless He loved us even before we were born? Otherwise, there would have been no love on Jesus's part, save for those select few who lived and died almost 2000 years ago, if He did not know us intimately then just as He loves us now.

 

[elopez]

I just had a glimpse of another person's thread and what struck me as interesting was the notion that sin might have been created by God. While God does not sin (and never have) it is nearly impossible to say that something existed, or was created, outside of God's plan.

Now, here's the question then. Since God had the preknowledge of sin and condoned evil to take place in the garden of Eden, does this mean God's preknowledge of sin equals Him creating sin?

After all, if something is contrived in God's mind, does it not already exist from then on? The very idea of God interacting with the essence of nothingness and not bringing it to light, to existence, doesn't seem very likely to me.

What do you think?

What does it mean to say that God created sin? Surely sin is not "created" in the same way the universe or man was "created." Sin is the negative result of an immoral action, or specifically something that is contrary to God's will. In this sense it would be more appriopate to ask, "Did God cause sin?" instead of, "Did God create sin?"

So if God does not sin, nor has He ever, He evidently did not cause sin. If we say that has God caused sin we have to prepare to answer how it is possible God could act in a contrary manner to Himself? It would make a hypocrite of God to say He created sin.

But down to your foreknowledge issue, think about it in scope of the creation of the universe. We could say that under the assumption of foreknowledge, prior to God creating the universe He knew that it was going to happen. Though God knowing it was going to happen is not the same thing as God actually actively creating. In other words, knowing beforehand that something is going to happen does not equate to participating in said occurrence.

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

Sin is essentially the absence of God, similar to how Darkness is just merely the absence of Light.


The result of not following God is simply Sin .
With the creation of Free Will and the option to follow God - the opposite option would simply be Sin. God had no part in creating the opposite option as if He would contradict His own being had He been involved in Sin. He would not be God (the God He defines Himself as) if He was involved in Sin.

Sin is the absence of God.

 

[ittarter]

I just had a glimpse of another person's thread and what struck me as interesting was the notion that sin might have been created by God.

This notion is ridiculously common on CF. Basically it's not much different than saying that, if I have a child, I am responsible for everything that child does. It's primarily an issue of primary vs secondary causality and I don't really see how it's even an interesting or worthwhile debate. Unless, of course, you're a determinist (you believe God controls every decision and free will is an illusion). Then it's a major theological problem and you eventually have to decide on an order of decrees, supralapsarian or infralapsarian, and then you're a sad Calvinist who is too worried about consistent theology and not privy to the secret that THEOLOGY WILL NEVER BE CONSISTENT BECAUSE TRUTH IS PARADOXICAL IN NATURE. We all need to grow up and stop forcing our diverse experience to conform to some predetermined rational framework. My two cents.

After all, if something is contrived in God's mind, does it not already exist from then on? The very idea of God interacting with the essence of nothingness and not bringing it to light, to existence, doesn't seem very likely to me.

If you're committed to an anthropomorphic model of God, then, people imagine things all the time, or "interact with the essence of nothingness," and by definition this is NOT the same as making it happen.

 

[elopez]

This notion is ridiculously common on CF. Basically it's not much different than saying that, if I have a child, I am responsible for everything that child does. It's primarily an issue of primary vs secondary causality and I don't really see how it's even an interesting or worthwhile debate. Unless, of course, you're a determinist (you believe God controls every decision and free will is an illusion). Then it's a major theological problem and you eventually have to decide on an order of decrees, supralapsarian or infralapsarian, and then you're a sad Calvinist who is too worried about consistent theology and not privy to the secret that THEOLOGY WILL NEVER BE CONSISTENT BECAUSE TRUTH IS PARADOXICAL IN NATURE. We all need to grow up and stop forcing our diverse experience to conform to some predetermined rational framework. My two cents.

While I agree that the notion that God created sin on account of foreknowledge or for any other reason is uncommon and even fallacious, it is totally different from saying that one is not accountable for everything a child does. Of course not everything, but the parent is held accountable for the child's behavior. I think a better analogy would be with one parent and a adult child. And you're right, knowledge is not a causal relation that could cause an event. But even foreknowledge is deterministic in the sense that whatever God foreknows must happen, and nothing other than what God foreknows can happen.

 

[holyrokker]

But even foreknowledge is deterministic in the sense that whatever God foreknows must happen, and nothing other than what God foreknows can happen.

This view of "foreknowledge" would mean that God is limited. It makes the "future" some fixed event, and God is bound by it.

 

[ittarter]

This view of "foreknowledge" would mean that God is limited. It makes the "future" some fixed event, and God is bound by it.

So?

 

[ittarter]

... it is totally different from saying that one is not accountable for everything a child does. Of course not everything, but the parent is held accountable for the child's behavior. I think a better analogy would be with one parent and a adult child.

That was my intended analogy, albeit unclear.

And you're right, knowledge is not a causal relation that could cause an event. But even foreknowledge is deterministic in the sense that whatever God foreknows must happen, and nothing other than what God foreknows can happen.

Foreknowledge cannot be said to be deterministic, because the event (and the decisions which will result in that event) determines the knowledge, and not the other way around.

Anyway, my point was merely to indicate that imagination and reality are separate, even in God's case. God can "imagine" what a hypothetical world would be like, and in fact does so numerous times in the Hebrew Bible. He mourns over Israel's choice to disobey and rebel, and states what he would do "if" they repent. God is capable of modal thinking.

 

[elopez]

This view of "foreknowledge" would mean that God is limited. It makes the "future" some fixed event, and God is bound by it.

God is not bound to the thing He foresees, it is the thing God has foreseen that is bound by it. How is God limited if He exercises foreknowledge?

 

[elopez]

That was my intended analogy, albeit unclear.

Foreknowledge cannot be said to be deterministic, because the event (and the decisions which will result in that event) determines the knowledge, and not the other way around.

Anyway, my point was merely to indicate that imagination and reality are separate, even in God's case. God can "imagine" what a hypothetical world would be like, and in fact does so numerous times in the Hebrew Bible. He mourns over Israel's choice to disobey and rebel, and states what he would do "if" they repent. God is capable of modal thinking.

Are you saying the event determines the knowledge? I don't think so, it is the other way around.

The knowledge of the event precedes the actual event. The knowledge of the event that precedes it is infallible and certain; nothing can surprise God, or God's knowledge is not incorrect. So the event must happen necessarily, which is deterministic.

I agree with that point. It was the above and the child analogy I was talking about.

 

[ittarter]

The knowledge of the event precedes the actual event. The knowledge of the event that precedes it is infallible and certain; nothing can surprise God, or God's knowledge is not incorrect. So the event must happen necessarily, which is deterministic.

In my understanding, this is determinism, not foreknowledge. The idea behind foreknowledge is that the future is set, but it isn't God who set it. God simply "knows" what will happen. I feel like I'm saying something straightforward here. Knowledge can't make anything happen; rather, knowledge is a result of my brain making contact with something real, in this case, a future event.

I don't know if I'm being clear or not.

 

[holyrokker]

In my understanding, this is determinism, not foreknowledge. The idea behind foreknowledge is that the future is set, but it isn't God who set it. God simply "knows" what will happen. I feel like I'm saying something straightforward here. Knowledge can't make anything happen; rather, knowledge is a result of my brain making contact with something real, in this case, a future event.

I don't know if I'm being clear or not.

How can a future event be an event. The future is the result of present and past events.

 

[elopez]

In my understanding, this is determinism, not foreknowledge. The idea behind foreknowledge is that the future is set, but it isn't God who set it. God simply "knows" what will happen. I feel like I'm saying something straightforward here. Knowledge can't make anything happen; rather, knowledge is a result of my brain making contact with something real, in this case, a future event.

I don't know if I'm being clear or not.

I just want to say you are being clear. I'm hearing you man. I don't think you're hearing me though. Could you explain in my last post what exactly you disagreed with? I don't see how you could if you believe in foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge means that God knew of an event prior to it's happening, correct? Does that not mean that knowledge of the event precedes the event? If not, explain how not. If so, it is knowledge that determines the event as this knowledge not only one, precedes the actuality of the event but two, must be infallible less we say that God's knowledge is incorrect. If we say that God foreknows of event x, but then something other than x happens, God's foreknowledge would be in error. Do you follow that and agree?

So let me say this. You are correct to say that knowledge is not a causal relation, well because it isn't. I agree. But that''s not what I'm saying, rather that that knowledge must be certain and infallible which means the event must happen and nothing other than that event can happen. If God foreknows x, x must come to transpire. That is what I mean that God's knowledge is deterministic. Not that God directly set's the future Himself, but by foreknowing the future it must happen.

I want to add one more thing. The notion of foreknowledge isn't compatible with the libertarian meaning of free will. There is only one future, and that is the future that God infallibly knows from eternity. This means free will should be defined differently, in the compatible sense were determinism and free will co - exist.

 

[elopez]

How can a future event be an event. The future is the result of present and past events.

This is actually almost correct.

All future events are the result of earlier obtaining conditions whose occurrence is sufficient for the occurrence of the event. Said differently, it must be the case that if these earlier conditions obtain, then the future event will occur.

I don't know if this will help or not, but try and think of it like this: either it will rain here on March 30th or it will not. Statements of the future are either true or false of when spoken today.