Did God create sin? If not, then who did?

MilitaryBrat2007

MilitaryBrat2007

Puritan Board Freshman
All things come from somewhere, nothing comes from nowhere. All creation comes from God or it does not. If God is sovereign over all things, and created all things, then most certainly sin must have also been created.

Objection to the creation of sin: "God simply ‘allowed’ sin into existence." How do we define allow?

-Do we mean that sin is a thing that has always existed?

If that is the case, then God is not the only thing to have existed, and that there must be something, either than God that existed, before things were brought into existence. Thereby making the interpretation of Genesis (that nothing else existed, except God, before the world) false.

-Do we mean that God created things with the ability to sin?

If that is the case, then this is contrary to God’s nature. God did not create sin, and, by stretch, did not create the means to sin. Sure, the temptation may have been there, all on its own (i.e. by establishing a rule so that man could break it), but the ability for man to break something could not have been made by God, or else that’s sin/ability to sin being made by God. And this is in contradiction to the common interpretation of everything “being made good, in the sight of God.”

-Do we mean that God does not have full sovereignty over what he has created?

If that is the case, then this is a contradiction to the definition of God. This also contradicts the logical necessity for a God to maintain the universe.


Sin came from somewhere. These syllogisms got me pondering this question for a while now, and I wanted to hear your thoughts on the origin of sin.
 
Well for one, sin isn't a "thing" and it doesn't have the property of existence like rest of creation. Evil is the absence of good and the only way to know what evil is, is by defining good, which is what God is. As to its origin, its called the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Ths 2:7) for a reason.
 
God has attributes that are either communicable(able to be shared), or incommunicable(unable to be shared).

One of the incommunicable attributes that God did not share with his creation, namely man, was the attribute of immutabilty(inability to change).

Consider the Westminster Shorter Catechism question 10.

Q10: How did God create man?

A10: God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.

However, man was not created immutable. God had decreed, that man would fall from this blessed estate by means of being deceived by Satan, and falling into disobedience.

Satan, also was created as a mutable creature. No doubt Satan's rebellion takes place before Adam's. There is something about creation being mutable, as opposed to God's immutable perfection, that allowed it to be corrupted and twisted, despite God creating it good.
 
For a good answer to this question, you can check out "The Orthodox Evangelist," John Norton, Chapt. IV, "Of the Decree," pgs. 78-84 (PDF.) He goes from the Objection that God is the author of sin, to an Objection of Reprobation. It is too long to post here.

Look for: Obj. 3. If sin followeth necessarily upon the Decree, then God is the Author of sin; But sin followeth necessarily upon the Decree: Therefore God is the Author of sin.

The Orthodox Evangelist (eBook) | Monergism

by John Nortonin ePub, .mobi & .pdf formatsThis text has been initially updated from EEBO-TCP by Project Puritas (Logan West, David Jonescue, Alex Sarrouf)
www.monergism.com
 
Last edited:
RamistThomist said:
As Augustine said, we must look for a deficient, not efficient cause of sin.
Click to expand...
You(and Augustine) said it with far fewer words than I attempted to.

The deficient cause being manifest as a result of the creatures lack of immutabilty, and lack of inherent perfection?
 
If we take the statement “sin is lawlessness” 1 John 3:4, we can see that sin is a lack of something and not a thing in itself that was created.
 
I think we go on the wrong track when we try to say that sin doesn't have existence, or (with Augustine), that it is merely the negation of what is good. I think a more helpful analogy is that evil is a parasite, twisting the good into something else, somewhat like orcs are a twisted version of elves. It doesn't have the same kind of ontological existence that a person does, but that is not the same as saying that it has no existence at all. Satan was the first to rebel against God in the realm of the angels and demons, and then we humans brought it into this world.
 
greenbaggins said:
I think we go on the wrong track when we try to say that sin doesn't have existence, or (with Augustine), that it is merely the negation of what is good. I think a more helpful analogy is that evil is a parasite, twisting the good into something else, somewhat like orcs are a twisted version of elves. It doesn't have the same kind of ontological existence that a person does, but that is not the same as saying that it has no existence at all. Satan was the first to rebel against God in the realm of the angels and demons, and then we humans brought it into this world.
Click to expand...
I think it's helpful to note that Augustinians often reject the language of sin being a mere or idle negation of good.
Sin is negation; it is not a substance. Otherwise, we must posit a creator evil and we fall into Manichaeanism.
But it is not mere negation in the sense that we can say plenty of positive things about it; it is depraved, it is culpable, etc.
The Leiden Synopsis says the following:
"When, therefore, it is asserted by some writers of the Reformed church that evil is not a mere privation, it is not to be understood in such a way as if evil were to have some truly positive nature in itself, either physical or metaphysical, since every entity is a good thing, and from God alone, the author of all good; for in God “we live, and move, and have our being.” Act. 17:28. But this is understood by them concerning an inefficacious and idle privation, of such a sort as the privations that absolutely remove potency, like how blindness removes sight. Sin, rather, is an active privation, by which the acting principle, and the action itself proceeding from it, are deprived of rectitude alone, with the corruption, not the removal, of the principle itself. It is like the dislocation of a leg, by which movement is not removed, but the orderliness and rectitude of movement. From which it happens that sin is not only negatively spoken of in Scripture, but also affirmatively, and an efficacy is attributed to it contrary and inimical to holiness and righteousness. Rom. 8:7; Gal. 5:17. For that motion and action, to which that privation inheres, by virtue of that inherent privation, is opposed to holy and righteous motions and actions, and therefore, to the law of God."
Voetius expresses himself similarly:
" It can be said that they intend this: that this privation is not an idle privation, such as quiet is, or celibacy, or virginity; but it is such a kind as inflicts the subject with an evil disposition, such as tyranny, anarchy, and sickness. Many use this final comparison when they insist original sin is something positive (Danaeus; Keckermann in System. Theol.). Yet, sickness is a privative, not positive, entity, if we speak properly, and attend to the definition of sickness. A sickness is the weak action, or as Sennertius more fully speaks, it is the impotence, or ineptitude, of the living parts of the human body to exercise natural actions, which has its origin from their constitution, contrary to nature. Inst. Medicin. bk. 2. part. 1. ch. 1. For sickness is to be located in impotence to act, as it is with Gelanus, 1. de differ. Morbor. ch. 2. In this way, the formal and essential nature of sin is indeed that there is a privation of due rectitude in the act or active principle, in relation to the law, or the privation of conformity to the law. Keckermann rightly says, bk. 2, System. Theologici. ch. 4, with equal reason, that sin, in its genus, is not a bare and simple privation (such as quiet is), which introduces no evil influence and disposition; but it is a privation that affects and disposes the subject in an evil way, like a sickness. And in ch. 5, where he wishes for original sin to be a positive quality, he advocates this, and praises the saying of Thomas, q. 3, de malo, art. 1. “It is not a simple privation, as blindness is, but it retains some of what is deprived, like sickness.” Matthew Martinius, in Methodo Theol. p. 388, explains the privative quality of sin in general in nearly the same way."
 
MyCrows said:
You(and Augustine) said it with far fewer words than I attempted to.

The deficient cause being manifest as a result of the creatures lack of immutabilty, and lack of inherent perfection?
Click to expand...

It results from it, to be sure, but we also need to be clear that our mutability didn't cause it, per se.
 
MilitaryBrat2007 said:
All things come from somewhere, nothing comes from nowhere. All creation comes from God or it does not. If God is sovereign over all things, and created all things, then most certainly sin must have also been created.

Objection to the creation of sin: "God simply ‘allowed’ sin into existence." How do we define allow?

-Do we mean that sin is a thing that has always existed?

If that is the case, then God is not the only thing to have existed, and that there must be something, either than God that existed, before things were brought into existence. Thereby making the interpretation of Genesis (that nothing else existed, except God, before the world) false.

-Do we mean that God created things with the ability to sin?

If that is the case, then this is contrary to God’s nature. God did not create sin, and, by stretch, did not create the means to sin. Sure, the temptation may have been there, all on its own (i.e. by establishing a rule so that man could break it), but the ability for man to break something could not have been made by God, or else that’s sin/ability to sin being made by God. And this is in contradiction to the common interpretation of everything “being made good, in the sight of God.”

-Do we mean that God does not have full sovereignty over what he has created?

If that is the case, then this is a contradiction to the definition of God. This also contradicts the logical necessity for a God to maintain the universe.


Sin came from somewhere. These syllogisms got me pondering this question for a while now, and I wanted to hear your thoughts on the origin of sin.
Click to expand...
I think your problem is also taking this issue in a one to one relationship between God and man. What man does freely is not the same kind of thing as God doing sovereignty. Analogical difference.
 
Read Genesis 1:1-3. God said, "Let there be light." He never had to say, "Let there be darkness" beforehand. It was simply the absence of light.
 
Charles Johnson said:
I think it's helpful to note that Augustinians often reject the language of sin being a mere or idle negation of good.
Sin is negation; it is not a substance. Otherwise, we must posit a creator evil and we fall into Manichaeanism.
But it is not mere negation in the sense that we can say plenty of positive things about it; it is depraved, it is culpable, etc.
The Leiden Synopsis says the following:
"When, therefore, it is asserted by some writers of the Reformed church that evil is not a mere privation, it is not to be understood in such a way as if evil were to have some truly positive nature in itself, either physical or metaphysical, since every entity is a good thing, and from God alone, the author of all good; for in God “we live, and move, and have our being.” Act. 17:28. But this is understood by them concerning an inefficacious and idle privation, of such a sort as the privations that absolutely remove potency, like how blindness removes sight. Sin, rather, is an active privation, by which the acting principle, and the action itself proceeding from it, are deprived of rectitude alone, with the corruption, not the removal, of the principle itself. It is like the dislocation of a leg, by which movement is not removed, but the orderliness and rectitude of movement. From which it happens that sin is not only negatively spoken of in Scripture, but also affirmatively, and an efficacy is attributed to it contrary and inimical to holiness and righteousness. Rom. 8:7; Gal. 5:17. For that motion and action, to which that privation inheres, by virtue of that inherent privation, is opposed to holy and righteous motions and actions, and therefore, to the law of God."
Voetius expresses himself similarly:
" It can be said that they intend this: that this privation is not an idle privation, such as quiet is, or celibacy, or virginity; but it is such a kind as inflicts the subject with an evil disposition, such as tyranny, anarchy, and sickness. Many use this final comparison when they insist original sin is something positive (Danaeus; Keckermann in System. Theol.). Yet, sickness is a privative, not positive, entity, if we speak properly, and attend to the definition of sickness. A sickness is the weak action, or as Sennertius more fully speaks, it is the impotence, or ineptitude, of the living parts of the human body to exercise natural actions, which has its origin from their constitution, contrary to nature. Inst. Medicin. bk. 2. part. 1. ch. 1. For sickness is to be located in impotence to act, as it is with Gelanus, 1. de differ. Morbor. ch. 2. In this way, the formal and essential nature of sin is indeed that there is a privation of due rectitude in the act or active principle, in relation to the law, or the privation of conformity to the law. Keckermann rightly says, bk. 2, System. Theologici. ch. 4, with equal reason, that sin, in its genus, is not a bare and simple privation (such as quiet is), which introduces no evil influence and disposition; but it is a privation that affects and disposes the subject in an evil way, like a sickness. And in ch. 5, where he wishes for original sin to be a positive quality, he advocates this, and praises the saying of Thomas, q. 3, de malo, art. 1. “It is not a simple privation, as blindness is, but it retains some of what is deprived, like sickness.” Matthew Martinius, in Methodo Theol. p. 388, explains the privative quality of sin in general in nearly the same way."
Click to expand...
I think this is helpful because there are some who misunderstand the point about sin or evil being the negation of the good and treat it merely in this fashion.

It is very popular among the Missional/Culturalist wing to see every depravity of our modern society as a "negation of the good" and go on a search for what good is being negated in the perversion or wickedness. Homosexuality has been described as a twisting of those who have a "genius for friendship" and that "being gay" is something that will be redeemed as a treasure in the new heavens and the new earth.

I think it is useful to guard against heretical ideas that give rise to sin and evil but we also should not so define and philosophize about it that we think we have our arms around exactly what it is or how it is operating. The world, the flesh, and the devil are seen as constantly deceiving us and we are blind and enslaved under their dominion outside of Christ's power. Paul talks about "sin deceiving him" and we all sense the ways in which our flesh has a deceptive and powerful mind of its own to destroy us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top