If God created sin, what does that mean for Christians?

[josh623]

guys, guys, guys... can't we just all get along?

just to be up front about what i believe on the issue... lean much more heavily towards a reformed viewpoint on the issue, although I don't take it to the extent of some (that God brings evil about, that God saves people years before they actually repent & believe).

i know this argument tends to get heated... it sure did with my father about a year ago. we finally decided to agree to disagree b/c we didn't want it to damage our relationship.

since then, i have come to see something. think about this... if you could sit alone with just YOU and GOD'S WORD, with no other outside influences and start from scratch. throw out all your prior thoughts, theology, and doctrine. what would you come up with in reguards to predestination vs. free will? i would submit that you would probably come away from reading all the way through the Bible saying that you saw verses that would lead you to believe both were taught.

now, even though i've seen most of those verses, i can't get away from the over-arching theme in Scripture that God is in control over every facet of His creation and can do as He pleases, even with men's hearts. i know that it seems like, from our perspective, that we can choose or reject God as we see fit, but from God's perspective, I don't think so. consider the following passage, from the old testament...

"24 This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king:
25 And you shall be driven from men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. And you shall be fed with grass like oxen. And you shall be wet with dew of the heavens; and seven times shall pass over you until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of men, and He gives it to whomever He desires.
26 And whereas they commanded to leave the stump and roots of the tree: Your kingdom shall be secure to you after you have come to know that Heaven rules.
27 Therefore, O king, let my advice be acceptable to you: Even break off your sins by righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; so that perhaps there may be a lengthening of your prosperity.
28 All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar.
29 At the end of twelve months, he was walking in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon.
30 The king spoke and said, Is this not great Babylon that I have built for the house of the kingdom, by the might of my power, and for the honor of my majesty?
31 While the word was still in the king's mouth a voice fell from the heavens, saying, O King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: The kingdom has been taken away from you!
32 And you shall be driven from men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. You shall be fed with grass like oxen, and seven times shall pass over you until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of men, and that He gives it to whomever He desires.
33 That very hour the word was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar. And he was driven from men, and he ate grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of the heavens, until his hair had grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.
34 And at the end of the days, I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up my eyes to the heavens, and my understanding returned to me, and I blessed the Most High. And I praised and honored Him who lives forever, whose dominion is an eternal dominion, and His rule from generation to generation.
35 And all those living in the earth are counted as nothing. And He does according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among those living in the earth. And no one is able to restrain His hand or say to Him, What are You doing?
36 At that time my reason returned to me, and the glory of my kingdom, my majesty, and my splendor returned to me. And my counselors and my nobles sought to me. And I was reestablished in my kingdom, and excellent greatness was added to me.
37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and honor the King of Heaven, for all His works are truth, and His ways are justice. And He is able to humble those who walk in pride."

Is this an example of God not imposing His will on someone to bring about a heart change? Here I see an example of a REAL, genuine, heart change which was brought about by God to change Nebuchadnezzar's heart.

I would rather get to Heaven and have to apologize to God for ascribing Him too much power here on earth than not enough and thinking my salvation depended on me (even though I know that's not what most would say, that's how I view it.)

 

[billybtennessee]

Scripture says 'iniquity' was found in satan, he was created perfect. Clear as day, till it is twisted, satan is also guilty of twisting Gods word, not God. The accurate way, scripturally, to explain 'iniquity' is that God created satan, who lifted up himself against God, and God allowed this, and provided the remedy.

It would make God the author of sin, in answer to the question. God is the author of faith. God gave man and angels the freedom to love and serve Him, or not. Taking that away creates heresy. God allows that too. We reap what we sow.

 

[Tzaousios]

Lets fix your mess a little.

What mess? My reply to you cut through the rhetoric rather effectively.

First, try to not insinuate things that were not stated. Second, I am not an "anti-calvinist"...I am an anti-anything that does not line up with the whole word of God, its not my fault if calvin had messed up theology.

Oh, okay. What would be a more accurate description, then? That you have an extremely deep-seated dislike for Calvinism? I still do not understand how anyone could come to a different conclusion knowing your record of posts in Soteriology and seeing Branch Davidians juxtaposed with Calvinists in the same sentence.

Actually, no. You are trying to simply argue and place my words into your own personal categorization.

Right, which is the category of justificatory rhetoric. Language of the type you have displayed usually goes under that category in mine and others' books. You know, if the shoe fits...

I don't think calvin was demonized as you are trying to make others think that I am

Yes, but why would you admit it? It would not be in your best interests to do so.

I just think that when a man who was only three years old in Christ when he came up with what you now call the 5 points of calvinism, lives another 30 years or so and NEVER changes his mind about his original thoughts on the subject...there's something wrong there.

"I just think..." As I said before, it is justificatory rhetoric. Why does anyone, much less one of history's prolific theologians, need to change their mind about doctrine in order to be legitimate?

I do not know anyone who has been around in the christian arena who has not learned something new from study of God's Word, much less after 30 years.

Perhaps you should refrain from employing the common anti-Calvinist tactic of basing Calvin's entire intellectual and theological production on the TULIP acrostic (i.e. purposefully making a hasty generalization). You don't expect me to believe that you have read a man you vehemently detest's entire literary corpus, do you?

No, calvin was not demon possessed or whatever you think I am saying (that I am not), he was a man who had biases just like you, who didn't never change his mind on things because he was full of pride and stating that he was wrong (if he ever discovered that he was) would have hurt too much.

More justificatory rhetoric. With a "Calvinists are wrong because they are prideful by nature" trope thrown in for effect. In the end, it sounds like the quack psychology that Erikson applied to Luther in thinking that his extreme sense of guilt was based upon him being perpetually constipated.

In other words, you have no argument based upon facts.

Facts? What have you offered? What I have seen is the same old rhetorical patterns coupled with the excoriation of Calvinism based upon your own theological presuppositions and assumptions about a particular theology you detest. At best, they are a personal interpretation of soteriological facts contained in Scripture, defined specifically in opposition to what is perceived as Calvinism.

That is because that's what you want to think...perhaps you need to take of the calvinistic rose-colored glasses and begin to re-read scripture, beginning from Genesis, and see just how much "calvinism" you can find there before reading the NT.

Who said I was a Calvinist, much less one in the dogmatic sense? Perhaps you should remove the coke-bottle glasses of narrowly viewing everyone who opposes your particular brand of non-Calvinism as a big, bad, dogmatic Calvinist.

Keep in mind that the Apostles only had the OT scriptures...and there is nothing about the 5 points of calvin in there anywhere.

That was a tu quoque retort of the elementary playground variety.

Let me guess, your position (virulent anti-Calvinism), adheres perfectly and spiritually to "what the Bible plainly/clearly says," while Calvinism is mired in the demonic, carnal mind of the flesh?

Well, your guess is wrong.

Alright. Let's see you describe Calvinism as compared to your theological persuasion without employing any of the false dichotomies of "I believe only what the Bible clearly says/Calvinism twists Scripture to make it say other things," "My beliefs are entirely pure, spiritual, and Biblical/Calvinists' beliefs are carnal, fleshly, and doctrines of men/demons," "I listen exclusively to the Holy Spirit/Calvinists do not have ears to hear and are spiritually blind because of their pride, hate, evil, etc."

If you are honest about your presuppositions, I do not think that this is possible for you to do.

You are right about that...and prideful blindness goes before the fall...

Case and point. The trope of "Calvinist theology is wrong because its subscribers are prideful and spiritually blinded."

 

[spiritual warrior]

What mess? My reply to you cut through the rhetoric rather effectively...Oh, okay. What would be a more accurate description, then? That you have an extremely deep-seated dislike for Calvinism? I still do not understand how anyone could come to a different conclusion knowing your record of posts in Soteriology and seeing Branch Davidians juxtaposed with Calvinists in the same sentence....Right, which is the category of justificatory rhetoric. Language of the type you have displayed usually goes under that category in mine and others' books. You know, if the shoe fits...Yes, but why would you admit it? It would not be in your best interests to do so...."I just think..." As I said before, it is justificatory rhetoric. Why does anyone, much less one of history's prolific theologians, need to change their mind about doctrine in order to be legitimate?...Perhaps you should refrain from employing the common anti-Calvinist tactic of basing Calvin's entire intellectual and theological production on the TULIP acrostic (i.e. purposefully making a hasty generalization). You don't expect me to believe that you have read a man you vehemently detest's entire literary corpus, do you?...More justificatory rhetoric. With a "Calvinists are wrong because they are prideful by nature" trope thrown in for effect. In the end, it sounds like the quack psychology that Erikson applied to Luther in thinking that his extreme sense of guilt was based upon him being perpetually constipated...Facts? What have you offered? What I have seen is the same old rhetorical patterns coupled with the excoriation of Calvinism based upon your own theological presuppositions and assumptions about a particular theology you detest. At best, they are a personal interpretation of soteriological facts contained in Scripture, defined specifically in opposition to what is perceived as Calvinism....Who said I was a Calvinist, much less one in the dogmatic sense? Perhaps you should remove the coke-bottle glasses of narrowly viewing everyone who opposes your particular brand of non-Calvinism as a big, bad, dogmatic Calvinist....That was a tu quoque retort of the elementary playground variety...Alright. Let's see you describe Calvinism as compared to your theological persuasion without employing any of the false dichotomies of "I believe only what the Bible clearly says/Calvinism twists Scripture to make it say other things," "My beliefs are entirely pure, spiritual, and Biblical/Calvinists' beliefs are carnal, fleshly, and doctrines of men/demons," "I listen exclusively to the Holy Spirit/Calvinists do not have ears to hear and are spiritually blind because of their pride, hate, evil, etc."
...If you are honest about your presuppositions, I do not think that this is possible for you to do...Case and point. The trope of "Calvinist theology is wrong because its subscribers are prideful and spiritually blinded."

These statements demonstrate quite plainly that there exists some pretty deep-seated issues, and that you are only here to argue and sling mud. Therefore, I suggest you put me on your ignore list, as there is no reason for us to dialogue any further.

 

[Tzaousios]

These statements demonstrate quite plainly that there exists some pretty deep-seated issues, and that you are only here to argue and sling mud. Therefore, I suggest you put me on your ignore list, as there is no reason for us to dialogue any further.

I have seen you say this to several other Calvinists. Are you going to request that they do the same thing? It seems now that there is a tendency to link Calvinism with mental disorder. Also, I am not here to argue and sling mud. I just call it how I see it. You cannot appreciate that?

 

[linssue55]

No! He created us. WE "CHOSE" to sin. He created Free will, WE chose to express that will in the wrong way.

 

[heymikey80]

After reading your link, I still stand by my statement. He may have read and written about the New Covenant, but it is painfully obvious to anyone else who knows the covenant that he didn't understand it.

He understands it quite a bit better than most modern viewpoints. And a viewpoint that alleges something without citing the issues clearly damages its base of credibility.

The view about calvin is not in error, the error is when people continually cling to a person's doctrine that they shouldn't be...like the Branch Dividians did.

As the Branch Davidians were incessant libertarian free-willers, that shoots the libertarian free-will viewpoint in the foot.

Look what happened to them for their error.

Yeah. A cautionary tale for libertarian free-willers.

 

[nobdysfool]

Once again, repeated pairing of Calvinists with Branch Davidians, a known and obvious cult. There is no doubt in my mind that this comparison is intentional, and meant to establish a link where absolutely none exists, doctrinally, or otherwise. It is inaccurate, it is offensive, and I ask that it stop. Please go back and remove the reference from your previous posts. Find some other point of comparison, or stop making such comparisons entirely. No useful purpose is served by inflammatory rhetoric such as this. It actually would tend to indicate that yours is the weaker position, since Scripture itself doesn't seem to quite carry your viewpoint as solidly as you would like it to. Resorting to such rhetoric is the mark of the person who is losing the debate, IMHO.

 

[Hismessenger]

linssue55 No! He created us. WE "CHOSE" to sin. He created Free will, WE chose to express that will in the wrong way.

Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well.

Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Psa 139:16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.

So there can be no misunderstanding of what is being said, I post these different translation to show that this notion of free will is man made and doesn't truly exist. We follow the role which God has ordained for us before we ever were.

Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.

© Info​

NKJV Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

© Info​

NLT You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.

© Info​

NIV your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

© Info​

ESV Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

You weren't even around when your choices to sin were made and yet there is still unbelief in the infallible will of God. Sin is to place our finite judgment upon the divine will of God without understanding what his eternal purpose is. That is what sin truly is. How many know this?

hismessenger

 

[billybtennessee]

Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well.

Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Psa 139:16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.

So there can be no misunderstanding of what is being said, I post these different translation to show that this notion of free will is man made and doesn't truly exist. We follow the role which God has ordained for us before we ever were.



You weren't even around when your choices to sin were made and yet there is still unbelief in the infallible will of God. Sin is to place our finite judgment upon the divine will of God without understanding what his eternal purpose is. That is what sin truly is. How many know this?

hismessenger

Same Chapter, verses 24,25 24. Search me, O God, and know my heart, try me, and know my anxieties; 25. And see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

The very chapter you quote shows your error. But, according to the comment, it was meant to be. As was this. We did well.

 

[Hismessenger]

The verse you quote does not change the truth of what David understood and ultimately stated in the verses which I gave to show that before David made that statement, his words were already fashioned by God. Look at the beginning of the psalm.

Psa 139:2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.

Psa 139:3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted [with] all my ways.

Psa 139:4 For [there is] not a word in my tongue, [but], lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.

Pay close attention to the last verse I give for it is just as you say.

But, according to the comment, it was meant to be. As was this. We did well.

The thing is, there is no error in God's eternal plan nor in what has been said. He knows our words before we say them for he gave them to us.

hismessenger

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hi guys

I've spent a couple of days on this forum in particular and I'm seeing a lot of arguments that God made sin and God didn't make sin.

My questions are these:

Why is it important if God did/didn't create sin?
If God did create sin, what does that mean for the average Christian?

The reason I'm asking is I'd like to understand a lot of whats been talked about on here but I find a lot of the discussions quite inpenetrable. Could someone offer a fairly simple explanation/answer?

Five things I am certain of...

1.) He created the possibility or circumstances for sin to occur.

2.) He allowed sin to occur, in this, sin is not outside of His sovereignty or control.

3.) He knew it would occur beforehand, and at the same time had a plan of redemption beforehand

4.) There is no sin in God, if we define sin as something lacking, then yes, because God did not clone Himself, everything that is not God is less than God, and therefore lacking in one way or another, and given a kind of freedom in choosing (giving commands to not do contrary to the command would make no sense otherwise), capable of giving into that which is lacking, or being deceived. When the serpent tempted Eve, he told her she would gain something she lacked, knowledge of evil and become "like God" (which was a flat out lie).

5.) God alone can create circumstances for sin to not occur.

The way I deal with this difficult subject is this. God alone is uncaused, and He caused the first cause, and created sentient (conscious) beings also capable of causing, therefore a distinction should be made between causes from the Creator (first causes), and causes from His creation (secondary causes). In simple terms, I do not view God as the direct causer of sin, but indirectly He certainly not only created the circumstance for it to occur, but allowed for it to happen, even cursing all of mankind, in that as ancestors of Adam and Eve, humanity inherited the same weakness, the same nature, with the desires to disobey, which is sin.

 

[DonnyT]

Sin cannot be created because it doesn't exist as a thing. It doesn't exist in and of itself.

Sin is the disobedience of God's laws. It is something that is lacking, not something that positively exists.

What you really should say is that God decrees and purposes sin, for his own reasons, and purpose, and glory. When he does this, it's still the creatures fault for sinning, because the reason the creature sinned is because it is in his nature to sin, he desired and wanted to sin. Thus he is held accountable.

In quantum theory, the law of entropy is that matter and energy tend to rest at a state of chaos. IE: if you bake a cake, then smash it with a mallet, it tends form a viscous ooze of frosting and batter. The chances of it re-forming into a cake are slim to none. The same is true for heat, energy, etc throughout the cosmos. Why is that?

In the same way, I can ask, why does darkness exist in the absence of light? Why does sin exist in the absence of God?

Imagine God creating light and shining it into a room? Who created the room?

 

[DonnyT]

Are you saying that if you are given the power of choice, that you would NEVER EVER make a wrong one?




See above...




Of course it was, that is what choice is all about. you can go one way or the other...which will you choose?




Anyone who knows scripture knows that answer. His wife came to him and wanted him to take a bite, and he wanted to please her...so he chose her desire over God's desire.




You are greatly confused. God's sovereignty does not mean that He gets His way all the time, and that is what you seem to think. If that IS what you think, then that explains the answers that you give in all your other posts. God is sovereign, but He does not force His will upon us...that is not what scripture teaches, that is what man with messed up theology teaches.

A king is also the sovereign over his kingdom, but he does not rule and run everything that goes on in his kingdom.



See above.

The ability to make a wrong decision, suggests that "wrong" exists. In the Garden of Eden, there was no wrong. Wrong had to be introduced.