Why was sin created in the first place?

[JagDragon]

Why is it not a choice? An easy choice is still a choice.

But if you are arguing that God made us with free will (and therefore sin) so that we would choose to follow him, then gives us a stupid choice like "Either come with me, or suffer for all eternity at the hand of my good chap Satan here," what was the point of giving us free will?

An easy choice is no choice at all.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

But if you are arguing that God made us with free will (and therefore sin) so that we would choose to follow him, then gives us a stupid choice like "Either come with me, or suffer for all eternity at the hand of my good chap Satan here," what was the point of giving us free will?

An easy choice is no choice at all.

Your making a mistake in believe that the gift of free will ends up embodying sin. Free will gives us the capability of sin, not the necessity to sin.

 

[Mallon]

But if you are arguing that God made us with free will (and therefore sin) so that we would choose to follow him, then gives us a stupid choice like "Either come with me, or suffer for all eternity at the hand of my good chap Satan here," what was the point of giving us free will?

Believe it or not, many people actually chose the latter. It's easier and the short-term payoff is much more rewarding.

An easy choice is no choice at all.

By definition, it is.

 

[gluadys]

So if sin cannot exist without free will, then that must be how he created us this way. But if when we go to heaven, and we are freed from sin, that means our free will is stripped as well. So does that mean that heaven is just as silly as creating us as mindless robots?

Calvin said just the opposite: that in heaven our free will is fully restored to us.

It is in this life that our will is not free, because we are in bondage to sin. We are incapable of willing the good simply because it is good. We are incapable of loving fully and freely without a speck of self-interest and "what's in it for me."

Calvin called this condition of being tied to our ego and selfish interests by sin "depravity" and it is the total opposite of free will.

So we have a cycle. Originally created in innocence and with freedom to accept or reject the ways of God, we reject God and so fall into bondage to sin. And this is a real bondage. It it the absence of freedom, not freedom. We no longer have free will. We have an illusion of free will because we make choices, but in every choice, we still serve ourselves first, not God or others.

Christ frees us from this bondage. Of course in this physical life we still have temptations and lapses, we are constantly pulled back toward evil. So we still don't feel completely free. We are in some ways like dogs on those flexible leashes. We can move about in many ways freely, but there are still ties that limit our freedom.

In the resurrection though, even those ties are done away with and we are fully free to love the one who set us free. And why wouldn't we?

For Calvin the epitome of free will was the capacity to will only the good. He calls this the state of glory.

 

[simonpeter]

I don't think any logical explanation helps here. God does what he does. He is the author and life is his story, which means he can do nothing.

The problem with logic is that it can always be countered by a new set of argument. Either God created sin directly or indirectly by giving us free will; either way, God is responsible for sin. There is no getting around that.

 

[Mallon]

The problem with logic is that it can always be countered by a new set of argument. Either God created sin directly or indirectly by giving us free will; either way, God is responsible for sin. There is no getting around that.

It sounds to me like you're trying to pass the buck. As Searching For Christ said, God may have granted us the ability to sin, but ultimately, we're responsible for our actions. We're the ones who choose to sin.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think any logical explanation helps here. God does what he does. He is the author and life is his story, which means he can do nothing.

The problem with logic is that it can always be countered by a new set of argument. Either God created sin directly or indirectly by giving us free will; either way, God is responsible for sin. There is no getting around that.

You know in a twisted way that is true. We had very little to do with the sin of Adam and according to the Scriptures can take no credit for the grace that broke the power of the sin at the cross. Maybe you had no real choice about sin otherwise how could we all be sinners before we are even born. We do have a choice about whether or not we remain in that condition.

Maybe we would all do well to bear that in mind.

 

[shernren]

Shame on you, that's something you should have outgrown in grade school.

All the way, my shaver bleeds me

what have I to mask me-sides ...

When I make serious theological or scientific points you refuse to engage them - or better still, you refuse to acknowledge that I have made any in the first place; but when I make random jokes, you take such light-heartedness so seriously.

John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say "He has a demon." The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say "Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!"

Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.

 

[simonpeter]

It sounds to me like you're trying to pass the buck. As Searching For Christ said, God may have granted us the ability to sin, but ultimately, we're responsible for our actions. We're the ones who choose to sin.

God gives X free will, and X uses that free will to torture Y. But since God is all-knowing, he knows beforehand that X is going to use his free will to torture Y. In other words, God knows Y is going to be tortured but allows it to happen just the same.

No logic will convince Y that it is only X's free will that is responsible; Y might as well say that since God gave X free will, it is only God who is ultimately responsible.

 

[shernren]

God gives X free will, and X uses that free will to torture Y. But since God is all-knowing, he knows beforehand that X is going to use his free will to torture Y. In other words, God knows Y is going to be tortured but allows it to happen just the same.

No logic will convince Y that it is only X's free will that is responsible; Y might as well say that since God gave X free will, it is only God who is ultimately responsible.

Not if: "in every feasible world where God creates free creatures, some of these creatures freely choose to do evil. In such a case, it is the creatures themselves who bring about evil, and God can do nothing to prevent their doing so, apart from refusing to actualize any such worlds. Thus, it is possible that every world feasible for God which contains free creatures is a world with sin and evil." (Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Moreland & Craig, pg 539)

 

[simonpeter]

Not if: "in every feasible world where God creates free creatures, some of these creatures freely choose to do evil. In such a case, it is the creatures themselves who bring about evil, and God can do nothing to prevent their doing so, apart from refusing to actualize any such worlds. Thus, it is possible that every world feasible for God which contains free creatures is a world with sin and evil." (Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Moreland & Craig, pg 539)

So? It doesn't change the fact that God allowed Y to suffer at the hands of X.

 

[JagDragon]

Not if: "in every feasible world where God creates free creatures, some of these creatures freely choose to do evil. In such a case, it is the creatures themselves who bring about evil, and God can do nothing to prevent their doing so, apart from refusing to actualize any such worlds. Thus, it is possible that every world feasible for God which contains free creatures is a world with sin and evil." (Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Moreland & Craig, pg 539)

It's a good point, but God is omnipotent. By saying that he can't create a world with free creatures and sin, we strip him of his all-powerful nature.

He can do anything, so why not create free creatures without the sin?

 

[Deut 5:29]

Being a first-timer here, I'm not sure if this is the right forum or not, but it's my best bet.

The other night we had a bible study on the topic of predestination. Mind-bending stuff, but while discussing that we moved on to the topic of God knowing us at the time of creation, way before we were born. Which raised some pretty hefty questions for me.


Provided that the Lord is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing, even about future events), and all-loving:

• Why did He create sin in the first place? I mean, if He didn't create sin, then there would be no need for any sacrifices at all!
• Why did He allow hell to be created, and why does He allow people to go there? I mean, sure, they have sinned, but it seems a bit extreme to condemn people He loves to eternal torture.
• What is with all this predestination stuff and condemning half the human race to hell before the world was even created?

These questions have been plaguing me for weeks, I would gratefully accept anyone's thoughts on this.

All your questions are baised on strange pagan superstitions and have no place in reality. They make no sense and are against everything the Bible teaches.

 

[crawfish]

Ok, don't worry about the fact that I serve if that's what you mean. We actually have some strict rules about using force. Besides that I'm a fueler, I don't do the combat arms things except in extreme circumstances. Trust me, what I do for a living has little to do with these silly debates, it's just a pass time.

Have a nice day
Mark

It's more about the look on your face. And maybe, just a little, the gun in the corner.

 

[gluadys]

It's a good point, but God is omnipotent. By saying that he can't create a world with free creatures and sin, we strip him of his all-powerful nature.

He can do anything, so why not create free creatures without the sin?

Because it is a logical impossibility, like trying to make a square circle or creating a rock so heavy God cannot lift it. Even omnipotence does not make logical impossibilities possible.

This was recognized long ago by medieval philosophers. Omnipotence applies to anything which is possible in the first place, not to what is inherently impossible.

We call God "omnipotent" because for anything which is inherently possible, he only needs to will it and it is done. We are not omnipotent because there are many things possible which we cannot do.

We should also note that included among things which are inherently impossible for God are actions which are seemingly possible, but go against his nature. God cannot lie, for example, because his nature is truth. And it is logically impossible for one who is truth to lie. It would be illogical to say God is not omnipotent because he cannot lie.

 

[Mallon]

No logic will convince Y that it is only X's free will that is responsible; Y might as well say that since God gave X free will, it is only God who is ultimately responsible.

Again, that sounds like a desperate attempt to pass the buck. It's almost like you've got an agenda to blame God.

Out of curiosity, do you believe free will is a gift? Or do you think it would be better not to have free will at all? This goes for JagDragon, too.

 

[simonpeter]

Again, that sounds like a desperate attempt to pass the buck. It's almost like you've got an agenda to blame God.

I am not. But it is true that God is the author of sin. If not, it's like saying man is more powerful than God.

 

[Mallon]

I am not. But it is true that God is the author of sin. If not, it's like saying man is more powerful than God.

That's like saying God is the author of darkness, which He is not. Darkness existed in the beginning (Gen 1:2) and God created light to overcome it. Darkness is simply the absence of light. As has been said previously, a similar analogy applies to good and evil.

Again, I ask: Do you not see free will as a gift? Would you rather live as a robot? Can a robot love?

 

[shernren]

I am not. But it is true that God is the author of sin. If not, it's like saying man is more powerful than God.

Who is "more powerful" in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the younger son (who rebelled) or his father (who gave his sons the possibility of rebelling)?

 

[simonpeter]

That's like saying God is the author of darkness, which He is not. Darkness existed in the beginning (Gen 1:2) and God created light to overcome it. Darkness is simply the absence of light. As has been said previously, a similar analogy applies to good and evil.

The problem with this analogy is that it would make darkness or sin (or anything else, for that matter) a powerful force existing independent of God! That would go against God's sovereignty.

Again, I ask: Do you not see free will as a gift? Would you rather live as a robot? Can a robot love?

Yes, free will is a gift and I never said being a robot is better. I do not see why you'd even ask this.