Is God responsible for man's sins?

[FutureAndAHope]

Robert Letham from the The Gospel Coalition states:

God’s purpose is settled and sure. There is nothing over which God does not have control. His decree is immutable (Psa. 33:9–11, Isa. 14:14,27, 46:9–10, Dan. 4:34–5, Rom. 9:11–2, 19–21, Heb. 6.17–18). However, this does not mean that God is implicated in human sin and evils, which result from the fall. His effectual determinations respect the liberty of secondary causality, the actions of creatures in accordance with their particular natures. (Latham, Robert)

I assume this is generally what a person who believe's in Calvanism would say.

However, I had a thought today about this idea. It is:

If God foreknows everybody, knew them before creation. How did He foreknow a person born to fornication? He must have in that case at least approved of the sin. Which makes God responsible for that sin at least.

Thoughts?


References
Letham, Robert, Predestination and the Divine Decree, The Gospel Coalition, accessed 14 February 2024 <https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/predestination-divine-decree/>

 

[Josheb]

Is God responsible for man's sins?

No.

Robert Letham from the The Gospel Coalition states:

God’s purpose is settled and sure. There is nothing over which God does not have control. His decree is immutable (Psa. 33:9–11, Isa. 14:14,27, 46:9–10, Dan. 4:34–5, Rom. 9:11–2, 19–21, Heb. 6.17–18). However, this does not mean that God is implicated in human sin and evils, which result from the fall. His effectual determinations respect the liberty of secondary causality, the actions of creatures in accordance with their particular natures. (Latham, Robert)

I assume this is generally what a person who [believes in Calvinism] would say.

It's not what I would say and I am an ardent monergists whose views are well within orthodox. mainstream, classic Calvinism. Letham is a well-established professor at leading Reformed seminaries, but I believe he has erred using the word "respect." because it implies God had any regard for future human decisions and actions when He ordained things from eternity (before a single human cell had ever been created). That web article says a few things inconsistent with classic Calvinism, so I'm surprised to read them coming from Letham.

For one, as I just mentioned, God's not a respecter of human anything when it comes to His eternal ordinances. I just searched the entire Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and I could not find a single mention of the Confession ever saying God did what Letham claims. What the WCF does state is that what God ordained did not violence to the human will or the contingencies of secondary causes. Another concern is Letham's use of the word "control." He does so with some degree of ambiguity and confusion because liberty and control are antithetical to one another. I am pleased to see he articulated a distinction between foreknowledge and predestination, even though I think he has left out at least one important aspect of foreknowledge because foreknowledge can also mean God knows what will happen before it happens, and he splits hairs emphasizing knowledge of a person and the expense of all else God knows. It is worth noting Letham uses Calvinist language, such as effectual knowledge so the average reader should first learn the terms as Cals use them and not assume ordinary definitions.

Also, the small portion quoted from the article proves to be a quote mine because, by itself, it does not represent the whole of the article. Thankfully, the article was cited so everyone can read it in its entirety to better understand Letham's view(s). Note the article is not specifically on God's responsibility. The article is on predestination and divine decree. In other words, the article isn't even about the whole of predestination, only its intersection with divine decree.

However, I had a thought today about this idea. It is:

If God foreknows everybody, knew them before creation. How did He foreknow a person born to fornication? He must have in that case at least approved of the sin. Which makes God responsible for that sin at least.

Thoughts?

I think you have not thought it through sufficiently and it is likely anti-Calvinism biases are getting in the way.

References
Letham, Robert, Predestination and the Divine Decree, The Gospel Coalition, accessed 14 February 2024 <https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/predestination-divine-decree/>

I really appreciate the link. Thanks for including that.


Let's see if we can't sort out some of this. When you ask, "How did God foreknow a person born to fornication?" what are you meaning to ask? Are you really asking about the mechanics of God's foreknowledge? Are you asking a question about possibility; how is it possible He foreknew? You should read and re-read you won question because your "if" treats foreknowledge as a given, and then asks how the given exists? It is a question-begging question. Given foreknowledge, how does God foreknow? If you, @FutureAndAHope, acknowledge God is omniscient then the better question is how can an all-knowing Creator not know a created person (whether that person be born to fornication or not)?

I'm also curious why you thought it okay to impose "born" and "born to fornication" on this Letham article since Letham never mentions either and does not address that condition. Can you explain why you did that?

God approving the fact of sin, or the fact someone (everyone) will sin is not the same thing as approving the sin, so I also wonder where you got the idea God mut have "at least approved of the sin." It appears there is an error in reasoning because categories are confused and thereby foreknowledge of a person and approval of sin are conflated. Furthermore, while foreknowledge can be causal, it is not usually causal. Foreknowledge is not predestination. God knowing a person will sin does not mean He caused the person to sin and is, therefore responsible for the sin's occurrence instead of the human who committed the sinful thought or act. Mu neighbor is an alcoholic who drinks every night and binges every weekend. I "know" he is intoxicated as I type this post, and if I went over to his house to verify that knowledge, I'd know I know he's drunk but that would not mean I caused him to sin, approved of his sin, or that I am God . And I say that being a creature living within the confines of time and space (which do not apply to God).


I do not mean to be unkind or personal impugn you in any way, but as a simple factual observation, these are high school level errors. As such they are also easily and readily corrected. Because these are all fairly basic errors in logic that are easily corrected I recommend perusing this site HERE for a review of some of the basic and most common logical fallacies. Note this source has several resources for improving critical thinking skills.


Lastly, and perhaps this is the most important observation, I do not know any Christian, any Christian theology, any Christian doctrine, or any view of predestination that holds God is responsible or sin. If that is true, then the entire op is a red herring - an argument built on something that does not actually exist anywhere. It's something useful only as a distraction or for the purpose of misleading the reader into thinking God being responsible for and approving sin is a real thing. It is not. Sadly, this comes up a lot in the Arm v Cal debate. The legitimate basis for the concern over God's culpability is not built on its possibility, but on its avoidance. The question is not whether or not a doctrine makes God responsible for human action, but how the doctrine avoids committing that error.

That is why I answered the title's question immediately, succinctly, and unilaterally with an unqualified single word: No! No, God is NOT responsible for man's sin...... at least not in Calvinism's view of predestination and the divine decree.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I'm also curious why you thought it okay to impose "born" and "born to fornication" on this Letham article since Letham never mentions either and does not address that condition. Can you explain why you did that?

I was not saying Letham said that, it was my observation. I still think it is a valid point. Why?

• If God knew that person before the creation
• He willed everything into existence even a person born to fornication
• This was done by His predetermined will
• He must have wanted that to happen

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Ok, let me get my head around this:

Does God will a person into existence? How will this operate? And when is it finalized?

 

[Josheb]

I was not saying Letham said that, it was my observation. I still think it is a valid point. Why?

• If God knew that person before the creation
• He willed everything into existence even a person born to fornication
• This was done by His predetermined will
• He must have wanted that to happen

Let's look at the second bullet point. God willing a person and God willing a person to fornicate are two completely different things. Conflating the two is irrational, illogical, and a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism (a straw man). Calvinism does NOT teach God willed any person to fornication. Sometimes Calvinist teachers say something along those lines but 1) that is not something Letham says in that article, and when you read Cals making any such statement they are wrong. They are not teaching orthodox Calvinism Their mistake is easily and readily verified by the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which teaches God did not author sin, God does not violate human will, every human willfully chose to sin, there are three reasons secondary causes effect God's will (necessarily, freely, or contingently), God permitted sin (He did not cause it), and any foreordaining and design of those predestined for death occurs in the context of all the particulars I just cited.

In other words, according to Calvinism, there are several reasons why the second bullet point is not rue and not an accurate portrayal of Calvinism. It's wrong.


Now you just went on record openly stating this was NOT something Letham said but is, instead your own "observation," and you think it is valid.

It is not valid. It is not correct, valid, or veracious at all in any way. What it is, is a blatant falsehood, a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism that necessarily needs to be corrected because it is not true, because scripture directs us not to bear false witness and (presumably) you do not want to do so - especially not willingly - and especially since the WCF is available to all online and can be retrieve within a few seconds so that there is no excuse for anyone with a computer not to know or not to first verify what they read and what they think.



Now, I just linked you and everyone who might enter the thread to the WCF so there (hopefully) will not be any more straw men and so everyone can do their own homework and verify their own posts before they post them. I am also going to now give you a correct view of Calvinism as it pertains to whether or not God is responsible for any human's sin, individually or collectively. I'm just going to make the statements consistent with Calvinism. If you want to know where something posted can be found in scripture, then just ask - and ask before you protest. Scripture will save us both time if need should arise.

The short version is this: every single human ever born commits sin because they choose to do so and not because God made them do so. God eternally knows that and, in His grace, has chosen some from the whole of humanity who have all sinned for salvation. He knows all that is involved with that gracious choice also from eternity. None of it is temporal. I'll post a more detailed version in a separate post.

 

[Josheb]

The longer, more detailed version is...

• God made the first two humans good, unashamed, and sinless.
• God also commanded the first two humans not to disobey Him, lest they die, and the specific point of command was the forbidden tree.*
• Adam and Eve had liberty, not freedom, to obey or disobey God and that one command.
• God did not author sin.
• God did not violate Adam's or Eve's will.
• God did not violate any of the causalities leading up to their disobedience, or the contingencies thereof.
• God did design creation and both the angelic and human creatures in such a way that disobedience, otherwise known as sin, would bring death to the creature who was also designed with the ability and limited liberty to make real choices.
• Two of the design aspects relevant to the above are that everyone who disobeys was all already predestined for destruction.
• God, in His omniscience, knew and knows who those people are and He (fore)knew that knowledge before He created a single atom of creation, before a single cell of any human was ever created BUT his knowledge was not causal in any way that authored sin or violated the good and sinless human's volition.
• When Adam disobeyed God sin entered the world and with sin also came death, the death of sin or transgression.
• All would sin, and all have sinned.
• Sin is not solely a matter of conduct; it is also a matter of disposition. Everyone born after Genesis 3:6 sins because they are sinful, and they are sinful because they sin. It's not linear; it's reciprocal.
• By grace God chose to save some from among the all who would otherwise all be dead in sin, guilty and subject to the just recompense of disobedience and God's wrath.
• God exists external to creation; He is not subject to or limited by anything within creation - including time and/or space. God did not look down the timeline of human history and then decide who to save or who to destroy.
• God did not look at any attribute or performance of the sinner when He decided who to save. Scripture does not report the specifics or particulars of God but it does plainly state God is self-existent, almighty, sovereign over all things, and needs nothing from sinful humanity.
• God, being sovereign over sin once it entered the world, can and often does use sin for His purposes to effect the predetermined outcome for all of creation.
• God is glorified whether sinners die or sinners live. He is glorified as a just God when He metes out the just recompense for sin, and He is glorified as a gracious God when He saves some.
• God is not responsible for humanity's sin, individually or collectively.

Most of that is not unique to Calvinism. Classic Reformed Arminianism agrees with every point and I'm pretty sure Provisionism agrees too. Points of disagreement occur outside that bullet list and, as far as I know none of those three soteriologies hold God responsible for man's sin. The premise is a red herring, and when it is laid on Calvinism (or any of the other soteriological povs just mentioned) it's a straw man.

One last point for future reference: People disagree. That's simply reality. Why people disagree and how they disagree varies. Sometimes people make what's known as "honest mistakes," which is the posting of factual errors incorrectly believing they are true when they are not true. That happens to everyone, but it is a readily and very easily corrected mistake. Because of the ease and necessity of correction, the teaching of such errors qualifies as falsehood. Falsehoods, or factual errors, are something much different than lies. A lie happens when someone posts something they know not to be factual or true and they does so with an intent to deceive, to lead others to think the falsehood is correct, factual and/or true. I am telling you this for two reasons: First, Theologians are very educated people and THDs are educated and trained in logic so they KNOW what I just posted. The same may or may not be true of MAs and those who've attended seminary or Bible college. This means when a theologian posts something that isn't factually or truthfully correct they are either incompetent or lying (or both). The second reason I post this is because you have now been provided with an authoritative document held to be authoritative by Calvinists and this matter of the second bullet point has been addressed.

You now know better.

You now know better than to post that nonsense again. Or, at a minimum, the onus is now on you to check and verify what I posted. It's your responsibility to read the WCF so you know what Calvinism teaches. It's now your responsibility to avoid posting things you should now know are not Calvinist. It's now your responsibility not to post red herrings and straw men you know to be fallacious. I am now going to bookmark this thread so if you post this same error you and I both know it's something already discussed and something for which you have already been provided objectively verifiable information so that 1) you do not fall prey to the influence of other theologians committing these same red herrings and straw men (or any of the other fallacies upon which we might stumble when we read extra-biblical sources), and 2) you do not repeat the mistakes made here in this thread. If I see it happen again, I may link your subsequent ops to this thread to remind you and show everyone there you are lying.

Once is a mistake. When that happens repeatedly and knowingly it's a lie.



You do not have to agree with Calvinism, but it is ungodly and sinful to misrepresent anyone. You and I should be able to have a godly conversation, even in disagreement, without the red herrings and straw men and on the occasion such things arise on either side they can and should be immediately corrected. You need to ditch the second bullet point. It needs to be discarded because it's logically fallacious and not something Calvinism teaches.

You are free to ask me anything about the above as long as it relates to the title of this op (you can ask me anything but I will answer only op-relevant questions ).








*Technically, there were two commands, one affirmative and the other prohibitive, and both were disobeyed, but for the purpose of this op it is the violation of the prohibitive command not to eat that is most salient and germane.
.

 

[Josheb]

I was not saying Letham said that, it was my observation. I still think it is a valid point. Why?

• If God knew that person before the creation
• He willed everything into existence even a person born to fornication
• This was done by His predetermined will
• He must have wanted that to happen

I'd like to address this third bullet point, too.

The wording of the third Bullet point makes God's will causal and that is not (always) the case. The third bullet point uses the word "by" when it should use the words "in accordance to," or "in accordance with" God's will. There is also a problem with the phrase "predetermined will" because God's will is His will. God does not exist in time and space; God is eternal. Time and space are created conditions of creation; not conditions in which God exists prior to creation. The prefix "pre-" is therefore a misnomer. Yes, the phrase may be common to the theological debate between monergists and synergists but the commonality of the error does not make the error true, valid, or veracious.

Words are important.

God did not and does not predetermine HIs own will. That premise is flawed on its face. What those words mean is God had a will that then determined His will. That's circular. It begs itself. The circular question-begging premise is nonsensical prima facie.

The correct wording of the third bullet point would be something like

• A person born to fornicate occurs in accordance with God's eternal will.

or

• A person born to fornicate occurs in accordance with God's pre-existing will.

God did not cause people to sin. God's will is not the cause. God is not the author of sin, and He what He ordained from eternity did no violence to the human choice.



Summary: The second and third bullet points are both logically flawed and have nothing to do with Calvinist (monergistic) soteriology. They do not accurately reflect Calvinist doctrine in part or whole.

 

[Josheb]

Ok, let me get my head around this:

Does God will a person into existence? How will this operate? And when is it finalized?

Well, to the degree that God's thoughts, volition, and conduct are wholly integrated, and God has integrity, yes God does "will" people into existence, but it should be understood action is necessarily involved (logically) and that is what scripture reports. God can think an infinite amount. It's not accurate to say "God can think an infinite number of things" because the use of the word "number" is antithetical to infinity. Not everything God thinks may happen, any more than everything He knows may happen in creation, or everything He wills may happen. God must act for something to happen.

So, if the first question is intended to ask, "Did God make every human and does his action bear integrity with His will?" then the answer is an unequivocal, "Yes."

How God make humans is unknown, but if you ever discover the facts how He does so I would be interested in reading it .

The third question is a red herring. How? The word "finalized" is a temporal word, a word inherently involving time and causality (technically time is simply the measure of cause and effect). God does not exist in time. Time is a construct of creation, not eternity. From the Divine "position" outside of time and space there is not "beginning" or "end." There is only eternity and when temporal matters inside creation are viewed from that Divine eternal existence, they are all always and everywhere parts of the eternal now. God is now "I Was," or "I Will Be." God is the eternal "I Am." Therefore, the answer to the third question is there was never a now when it was not finalized. For God everything is all all decided but for all created creatures living and dying inside creation where time and space are limited and limiting conditions, we experience cause and effect in a linear manner. What is accomplished for God unfolds for us.

And any doctrine of salvation that confuses, conflates, or ignores these distinctions is always going to be a very flawed doctrine.


This is important for another reason often not considered in these discussions. We are all working from scripture and we're all working from man-made doctrines developed and established hundreds, even a thousand or more of years ago. Even though these views were developed and established via rigorous prayer and vigorous debate, they all were decided within what was predominantly a pre-Newtonian or Newtonian worldview and understanding of time. We now live in a time (pun intended ) when and where we know a lot more than they did. We know time and space are not linear. We know it is, (at least mathematically, or theoretically) possible to be in more than one place at one time, for time to be viewed in two entirely different ways by to identical or similar objects, and we know it is possible for time to cease being experienced relative to that person or objects place in time, space, and speed. We also now know it is all tied together by gravity, or what we now call a "singularity." Reformed thinkers knew little or none of this. Theologians in the age of Augustine and the earlier ECFs knew none or little of this. To speak of time and/or eternity as if the knowledge with which God has blessed us in modernity doesn't exist is irresponsible. I do not pretend to know His purpose in revealing the facts and theories of relativity and quantum mechanics in this era, but I do know God does not provide us knowledge, understanding, or wisdom without a responsibility to use it fruitfully. I also know everything we now know may be meager to what we know in another 100, 500 or 1000 years.

As Christians, we understand all this "science" is simply a sliver of what we know about creation. Scientists call it the "universe" but we call it "creation." Creation is finite. Time and space are finite. God is Creator, the infinite Creator of time and space, of the singularity and all that exists therein. When scripture speaks in temporal language that is exactly what it is: language describe temporal condition to temporal creatures. Very little in scripture describes eternity or the eternal perspective on temporality.

Everything is finalized for God. To say otherwise would compromise core Theological concepts and doctrines pertaining to God's omni-attributes. For example, if God has to wait for time to pass then He is not omniscient or omnipresent. If he has to wait on the effect of any cause to occur before He knows the outcome then He's not omniscient, either. God is eternal. He created time and space and, while He omnipotently comes and goes "in" and "out" of creation, He is not limited by either when He does so and He exists external to all of it.

Simply put, any soteriology that fails to correctly understand Divine ontology, God's omni-attributes, is likely to be a flawed soteriology.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

Words are important.

God did not and does not predetermine HIs own will. That premise is flawed on its face. What those words mean is God had a will that then determined His will. That's circular. It begs itself. The circular question-begging premise is nonsensical prima facie.

The correct wording of the third bullet point would be something like

• A person born to fornicate occurs in accordance with God's eternal will.

or

• A person born to fornicate occurs in accordance with God's pre-existing will.

If predeterimine is inaccurate (as presented above), then pre-existing in the latter example would also be incorrect under the same premise, would it not?

 

[Josheb]

If predetermine is inaccurate (as presented above), then pre-existing in the latter example would also be incorrect under the same premise, would it not?

No. Great question, though. Thanks for asking.

The reason is the existence for which God is "pre-" is that of creation. God re-exists creation. That is not only the necessary implication of the Creator creating the heavens and earth (Genesis 1:1); it is also a logical necessity for any Creator creating anything. What the other poster did was make a statement about a "pre-" existing in eternity, not in creation. He applied "pre-" to God relative to God, not God relative to creation.

Had the word "predetermining" been used instead of "predetermined" that would have been better but that then would still run into the problem of volition being casual (apart from action) and doing so in exclusion of multiple co-existing wills or desires. On its own the argument that was presented has several logical flaws. In the context of Calvinism, it has several red herrings and/or straw men. Somebody might teach those things, but it's not Calvinism.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

No. Great question, though. Thanks for asking.

The reason is the existence for which God is "pre-" is that of creation. God re-exists creation. That is not only the necessary implication of the Creator creating the heavens and earth (Genesis 1:1); it is also a logical necessity for any Creator creating anything. What the other poster did was make a statement about a "pre-" existing in eternity, not in creation. He applied "pre-" to God relative to God, not God relative to creation.

You're gonna' need to explain the distinction.
I'm not seeing it.

What I do see:
Earlier you said,

..God's will is His will. God does not exist in time and space; God is eternal. Time and space are created conditions of creation; not conditions in which God exists prior to creation. The prefix "pre-" is therefore a misnomer.

There is God's will (period).
The adjectives in both examples seem superfluous.

God exists eternity past to eternity future, so it is not wrong to say his "eternal/existing" will but both seem unnecessary based upon your premise. I don't see an application for God's pre-existing will.

I think the earlier poster was using the prefix "pre" in relation to the example given. i.e. predetermined, as-in determined before the individual or the event in question.

 

[Josheb]

You're gonna' need to explain the distinction. I'm not seeing it.

What determines God's will?

 

[His clay]

Robert Letham from the The Gospel Coalition states:

God’s purpose is settled and sure. There is nothing over which God does not have control. His decree is immutable (Psa. 33:9–11, Isa. 14:14,27, 46:9–10, Dan. 4:34–5, Rom. 9:11–2, 19–21, Heb. 6.17–18). However, this does not mean that God is implicated in human sin and evils, which result from the fall. His effectual determinations respect the liberty of secondary causality, the actions of creatures in accordance with their particular natures. (Latham, Robert)

I assume this is generally what a person who believe's in Calvanism would say.

However, I had a thought today about this idea. It is:

If God foreknows everybody, knew them before creation. How did He foreknow a person born to fornication? He must have in that case at least approved of the sin. Which makes God responsible for that sin at least.

Thoughts?


References
Letham, Robert, Predestination and the Divine Decree, The Gospel Coalition, accessed 14 February 2024 <https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/predestination-divine-decree/>

How do you get from foreknowledge of "a person born to fornication" to "approved of the sin." I'm completely missing the logic to make the jump happen. How does having prior knowledge of something become approval of that something? Please explain.

 

[Josheb]

Is God responsible for man's sin?



If God foreknows everybody, knew them before creation. How did He foreknow a person born to fornication? He must have in that case at least approved of the sin. Which makes God responsible for that sin at least.

Let's find out if the Calvinists in CCAM think God is responsible for humanity's sin. I set a poll HERE. Anyone can answer; you don't have to be Cal.

 

[CrowCross]

If God foreknows everybody, knew them before creation. How did He foreknow a person born to fornication? He must have in that case at least approved of the sin. Which makes God responsible for that sin at least.

Thoughts?

Are you suggesting God is stuck in our 3D + time world?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

God exists external to creation; He is not subject to or limited by anything within creation - including time and/or space. God did not look down the timeline of human history and then decide who to save or who to destroy.

Ok, let me clarify this point. What did God do? How did He select?

 

[CrowCross]

Ok, let me clarify this point. What did God do? How did He select?

The bible is silent on how God selects those who are to be saved.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Robert Letham from the The Gospel Coalition states:

God’s purpose is settled and sure. There is nothing over which God does not have control. His decree is immutable (Psa. 33:9–11, Isa. 14:14,27, 46:9–10, Dan. 4:34–5, Rom. 9:11–2, 19–21, Heb. 6.17–18). However, this does not mean that God is implicated in human sin and evils, which result from the fall. His effectual determinations respect the liberty of secondary causality, the actions of creatures in accordance with their particular natures. (Latham, Robert)

I assume this is generally what a person who believe's in Calvanism would say.

However, I had a thought today about this idea. It is:

If God foreknows everybody, knew them before creation. How did He foreknow a person born to fornication? He must have in that case at least approved of the sin. Which makes God responsible for that sin at least.

Thoughts?


References
Letham, Robert, Predestination and the Divine Decree, The Gospel Coalition, accessed 14 February 2024 <https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/predestination-divine-decree/>

I think you should consult Constantinian Gentile books or commentaries only to read what others might say, but if you're a mature believer and have a good translation and Hebrew and Greek concordance (if you don't speak the languages) studying under the anointing is sufficient to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Here is the basis to answer that question:

There is only One God.
There is NONE like Him.
He gives His glory to NO ONE.

The next thing is this passage also in Isaiah:

6 That 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.
7 I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:6–7.

The Hebrew word for "evil" is " raʿ" and it means "bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral.)

The Gentile theology states there was a "fall" (there was not), and that Adam (man) was created either "holy," or "sinless," or "righteous," or "innocent," and even "righteous." But this would mean that sin comes from those conditional states of man. Or, in other words, "sin come from holy," or "sin comes from "sinlessness," or "sin comes from "righteous." This definitely cannot be the case for sin does not come from "holy" as the last Adam Christ proved. He was Holy, Sinless, Righteous, and Innocent. Taking these I form my belief that God created Adam (man) sinful, or as the Greek word "sin" (hamartia) is translated, "missing the mark."
What is that "mark" he "missed"?
The glory of God. Or the glory that is God.

Now, the question must be asked: How can a Righteous God create an unrighteous being (man)?
The answer is in Revelation:

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 13:8.

In the heavenly Tabernacle God, the Father (shades of Abraham and Isaac) performed a sacrifice which allowed a Righteous God to create and unrighteous being (man.)
It's the same principle of the high priest being allowed to enter the Holy of Holies in the earthly Tabernacle. There must be a sacrifice made and certain ritual cleansings performed before the high priest can enter the Presence of God on earth. Taking Revelation 13: 8 to its logical conclusion it says, "and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world.
Before God created heaven, earth, and man a lamb was slain. This prefigures Christ and the work He was sent to earth to perform. This heavenly sacrifice allowed a Righteous God to create an unrighteous being. So, in effect, God created man "sinful." And from this sinfulness Adam sinned.
The Gentile theology between Calvinism and Arminianism addressed this question but neither are entirely correct if I understand both theologies.

The Scripture is clear that sin comes from sinner. We sin because we are sinners, as opposed to the other theology that says, we are sinners because we sin.
One position supports the Doctrine of Imputation, the other destroys the Doctrine of Imputation. Christ came to die for our sinful nature, not merely our sinful acts. It was a nature-swap. He takes our sinful nature, and we take His Righteous nature. Otherwise, if we say Christ died for our sins, then the sin nature remains unatoned.
Many Gentiles cannot come to this conclusion. It's like a stumbling block or obstacle of sorts they cannot get passed and even make excuses and misinterpret Isaiah who stated as a prophet of God that God Himself says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

There was no "fall." The Gentile theology states in certain words that Adam was created holy or righteous and that he disobeyed God and sinned and therefore is his "fall" from grace. But then we ran into where sin came from.
We answer with, "we are sinners because we sin," or "we sin because we are sinners."

For me, the question is answered. We sin because we are sinners.

Sin comes from sinner. Sin does not come from holy.

 

[Josheb]

Ok, let me clarify this point. What did God do? How did He select?

Let you clarify what point. Be specific.


But FIRST acknowledge the fact God, the Creator, does not exist in time and is not in any way limited by time, space, or anything else He created. Please do not delay, obfuscate, or avoid the question. A simple, plain, direct, unqualified answer like "Yes, God does not exist within the limits of time and space," or "No, God does exist solely within the confines of time and space and is thusly limited by His creation," will do.

Then, once you've clarified your question I'll gladly respond in kind; immediately, directly, unequivocally and succinctly (and with scripture read exactly as written wherever I can).




Has the pol bee checked? Three answers all deny God's responsibility for humanity's sin.

 

[CrowCross]

Sin comes from sinner. Sin does not come from holy.

Was Lucifer always an un-holy Cherob?