Is God responsible for man's sins?

[makesends]

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/>

—'Approved of the sin' in what sense? Expand on what you mean, there. Be specific.

While you are at it, since I will take you there later, anyway, consider the many meanings of 'responsible'.

 

[fastfredy0]

However, this does not mean that God is implicated in human sin and evils

God is implicated/involved in all things. Acts 17:28 For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being]. If God would stop actively supporting life moment by moment then we would turn to dust (Job 34:14-15)
So all things, according to scripture, require His power.

His effectual determinations respect the liberty of secondary causality, the actions of creatures in accordance with their particular natures.

People's natures are created by God ... you can't create yourself from nothing.

He must have in that case at least approved of the sin. Which makes God responsible for that sin at least.

God has also determined that men are responsible for Adam’s sin by the principle of representative headship and legal imputation (Romans 5:12–19). Clearly, free will is in no sense the precondition of responsibility for imputed sin, but accountable to God for Adam’s sin men are nonetheless. Thus free will in the Arminian sense is not the necessary precondition of a man’s responsibility for his sin. A lawgiver is the necessary precondition of responsibility. Robert Reymond A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (Romans 8:7). This means that man is morally responsible even if he lacks moral ability – man must obey God even if he cannot obey God. Thus moral responsibility is not based on moral ability or freedom; rather, moral responsibility is based on God's sovereignty. Man must obey God's commands because God says that man must obey.
Moral responsibility (or accountability) has to do with whether God has decided to judge us; it has no direct relationship with whether we are free. Moral responsibility does not presuppose human freedom, but it presupposes divine sovereignty. We are responsible not because we are free from God, but we are responsible precisely because we are not free. V. Cheung

 

[jeremiah1five]

Was Lucifer always an un-holy Cherob?

Profane.
The angels that sinned were created sinful.
To think otherwise is to exalt Lucifer to Deific status.
And it's spelled "cherub" with a lower case "c."

 

[Arial]

God is implicated/involved in all things. Acts 17:28 For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being]. If God would stop actively supporting life moment by moment then we would turn to dust (Job 34:14-15)
So all things, according to scripture, require His power.


People's natures are created by God ... you can't create yourself from nothing.


God has also determined that men are responsible for Adam’s sin by the principle of representative headship and legal imputation (Romans 5:12–19). Clearly, free will is in no sense the precondition of responsibility for imputed sin, but accountable to God for Adam’s sin men are nonetheless. Thus free will in the Arminian sense is not the necessary precondition of a man’s responsibility for his sin. A lawgiver is the necessary precondition of responsibility. Robert Reymond A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (Romans 8:7). This means that man is morally responsible even if he lacks moral ability – man must obey God even if he cannot obey God. Thus moral responsibility is not based on moral ability or freedom; rather, moral responsibility is based on God's sovereignty. Man must obey God's commands because God says that man must obey.
Moral responsibility (or accountability) has to do with whether God has decided to judge us; it has no direct relationship with whether we are free. Moral responsibility does not presuppose human freedom, but it presupposes divine sovereignty. We are responsible not because we are free from God, but we are responsible precisely because we are not free. V. Cheung

I have found in these discussions the the above is usually missing from the arguments that see the doctrines of grace in Reformed theology as making God responsible for man's sin. It regards sin as happening in a vacuum and random. There is no understanding of or acknowledgement of federal headship in Adam through whom the human being became a sinful being (one that sins by nature). And, also, has no recognition that God is a lawgiver, as Reymond states, and we are under His kingship as His creatures in His image and likeness, and are obligated to not sin against Him or pay the penalty. Much of the glory, perfection and power of the cross is never seen if these things are not also known and believed.

 

[Arial]

Ok, let me get my head around this:

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

Nobody comes into existence except by the will of God in a first casual sense. Asking the questions "How does this operate?" and "When is it finalized?" makes no sense whatsoever. And the assumption that if a person fornicates then God must have wanted that to happen is illogic on steroids. The person chose to fornicate because they wanted to fornicate. You are again confusing predestination with fatalism. As though the person did what they did because God created them do it. I think you do not understand what is meant by "does no violence to the human will" that is in the confessions. You are presuming that the radical depravity aspect in the doctrines of grace are saying that man lost his will.

 

[CrowCross]

Profane.
The angels that sinned were created sinful.

Where does the bible teach this?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Nobody comes into existence except by the will of God in a first casual sense. Asking the questions "How does this operate?" and "When is it finalized?" makes no sense whatsoever. And the assumption that if a person fornicates then God must have wanted that to happen is illogic on steroids. The person chose to fornicate because they wanted to fornicate. You are again confusing predestination with fatalism. As though the person did what they did because God created them do it. I think you do not understand what is meant by "does no violence to the human will" that is in the confessions. You are presuming that the radical depravity aspect in the doctrines of grace are saying that man lost his will.

But the fact remains if God created a person with a sinful nature, He foreknew that nature would exist. If He refuses to give that person repentance, then He has become responsible for their sins. The fact God has given the cross to all people (1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:3-6) shows that God is not responsible in any way. Rather:

For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made (Rev. Dods 1867, Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 43)

References
Rev. Dods, 1867 Justin Martyr - First Apology | Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, eSword, eBook, accessed 15 April 2023, <https://www.e-sword.net>.

 

[Arial]

But the fact remains if God created a person with a sinful nature, He foreknew that nature would exist. If He refuses to give that person repentance, then He has become responsible for their sins. The fact God has given the cross to all people (1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:3-6) shows that God is not responsible in any way. Rather:

Another person who pays no attention to what is said to them, but dismisses it. God didn't create anyone with a sin nature. The sin nature came from and through Adam. Read your Bible for comprehension. God would only be responsible for a person's sin if He made them sin. Do you think He does that? God did not give the work of Christ on the cross to everybody. If He did everyone would be saved. He withhold hearing the gospel from no one, and He does not restrict salvation to any nation or types of people. But to say your free will choice would make God not responsible for our sins, would not work---it just sounds better to you and neither that or the Calvinist position are followed through to conclusions or an careful critical thinking.

In free will you would still have God creating people with a sin nature, and the fact that they get to choose or reject Christ would not remove any culpability.

 

[CrowCross]

But the fact remains if God created a person with a sinful nature,

No He didn't. When Adam fell he obtained the sin nature and as a result so did all of his progeny.

Adam was created with the ability to sin...and he did.

 

[fastfredy0]

He withhold hearing the gospel from no one

Seems God told Paul to not go to Asia ... is this not withholding?
Billions of people have died having not heard of Christ (the gospel) .. is this not witholding
Millions of people have been killed by wars and depots thus restricting for many of them the opportunity to hear the gospel.
Mat. 15:24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” ... is this not withholding the gospel?
Seems more accurate to say God withhold the gospel from none of the elect (disregarding tangential subject of the "age of accountability").

 

[Arial]

Seems God told Paul to not go to Asia ... is this not withholding?
Billions of people have died having not heard of Christ (the gospel) .. is this not witholding
Millions of people have been killed by wars and depots thus restricting for many of them the opportunity to hear the gospel.
Mat. 15:24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” ... is this not withholding the gospel?
Seems more accurate to say God withhold the gospel from none of the elect (disregarding tangential subject of the "age of accountability").

You are right in saying that He withholds the gospel from none of the elect. But what I meant was "Many are called, but few are chosen." He does not withhold it from all the non-elect so that they do not hear it. He does not only send it to select nations, but to all nations. As for God not sending Paul to Asia, He did not send Paul there. But Asia has heard the gospel. Even in nations today where it is a crime to preach Christ and Him crucified, it still is preached. Does everybody hear it? Probably not, but in a way even many of those who do not hear it directly, know of it, and it is countered. For example, many Islamic nations.

 

[makesends]

Seems God told Paul to not go to Asia ... is this not withholding?
Billions of people have died having not heard of Christ (the gospel) .. is this not witholding
Millions of people have been killed by wars and depots thus restricting for many of them the opportunity to hear the gospel.
Mat. 15:24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” ... is this not withholding the gospel?
Seems more accurate to say God withhold the gospel from none of the elect (disregarding tangential subject of the "age of accountability").

You are right in saying that He withholds the gospel from none of the elect. But what I meant was "Many are called, but few are chosen." He does not withhold it from all the non-elect so that they do not hear it. He does not only send it to select nations, but to all nations. As for God not sending Paul to Asia, He did not send Paul there. But Asia has heard the gospel. Even in nations today where it is a crime to preach Christ and Him crucified, it still is preached. Does everybody hear it? Probably not, but in a way even many of those who do not hear it directly, know of it, and it is countered. For example, many Islamic nations.

To me the question is moot, (except as demonstration by way of conjecture that God is not unfair), because as Romans 1 says, they are without excuse. They KNEW him, and suppressed that knowledge. If they knew him in any real way that leaves them without excuse, they had the Gospel in sufficient measure.

Or, at the very least, they have no excuse for the Gospel not being sent to them. That is, (—and to my thinking this too implies regeneration as causing faith—), if they have no excuse, because they knew enough that they should have desired God, but instead suppressed that knowledge, God should not be expected to send the Gospel to them, (unless among them was one of the Elect). Regardless, the fact remains upheld, that God is not at fault in anyone's reprobation. They did it to themselves.

We do so because it is so.

 

[Arial]

To me the question is moot, (except as demonstration by way of conjecture that God is not unfair), because as Romans 1 says, they are without excuse. They KNEW him, and suppressed that knowledge. If they knew him in any real way that leaves them without excuse, they had the Gospel in sufficient measure.

It may say they knew Him in some translations, I won't say it doesn't. In the ESV it says"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." Before that it says the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. After its says His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature are perceived in the creation. That is enough to know of His existence and His sovereignty and His holiness, which they (all people) should acknowledge and live accordingly. That would be faith in Him. God can be "seen" in His creation, but the way of salvation is not.

 

[makesends]

It may say they knew Him in some translations, I won't say it doesn't. In the ESV it says"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." Before that it says the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. After its says His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature are perceived in the creation. That is enough to know of His existence and His sovereignty and His holiness, which they (all people) should acknowledge and live accordingly. That would be faith in Him. God can be "seen" in His creation, but the way of salvation is not.

FWIW the specifics are not. His nature (essence of personality(?)) is visible, though not in specific empirical fashion perhaps. Still, yes, they are without excuse, so, regardless, that the Gospel was not preached to some is irrelevant to the question of God's fairness.

 

[fastfredy0]

To me the question is moot, (except as demonstration by way of conjecture that God is not unfair), because as Romans 1 says, they are without excuse. They KNEW him, and suppressed that knowledge. If they knew him in any real way that leaves them without excuse, they had the Gospel in sufficient measure.

Agreed ... from God's point of view (the only one that counts ... lol) sending the Gospel to the unelect is not the primary cause of their not being saved due to the "withholding of the gospel". I guess to some degree it's to their benefit they did not hear the gospel for their condemnation will not be as severe as the unelect who hear the gospel all other things being equal.

 

[CrowCross]

To me the question is moot, (except as demonstration by way of conjecture that God is not unfair), because as Romans 1 says, they are without excuse. They KNEW him, and suppressed that knowledge. If they knew him in any real way that leaves them without excuse, they had the Gospel in sufficient measure.

What is the Gospel? In your terms.

 

[makesends]

What is the Gospel? In your terms.

I've tried to reduce it to the least concept, or maybe even a feel, yet of necessary faith: Let's suppose a basically brainless clinical idiot, unable to see, hear, maybe even to sense, and certainly unable to form concepts or to "reason" as we know it, yet still human and alive —what would God do to save such. Not being given proof of Adam-style or even of animal innocence, I have to conclude that their 'flesh' (Rom. 8) is also at enmity with God, and as worthy of death as anyone else's. If God does not save such a one, his punishment will be precise, yet thorough. (To the degree that his heart is looked at by God as corrupt, he will be punished, thoroughly, but only precisely —no more than that.)

So, if God opens his heart (regeneration) to see (feel?) his sin and his need of the Savior, I have to imagine that he would with purity and joy reach for the God who though at an unreachable distance brought the enemy to his side.

But even that I have tried to describe is more than this person conceives, or even feels, in perhaps even one moment of the Spirit coming into him and making his home there.

The whole story (not the parts) of our temporal occupancy —Creation and all the subsequent activity and complication— is of God's invention, and it is the Gospel, yet it be just as simple as what that clinical idiot can know.

 

[fastfredy0]

What is the Gospel?

“The Gospel” is an ambiguous term. The word gospel means “good news”, but the contents of the good news varies from person to person.

 

[CrowCross]

I've tried to reduce it to the least concept, or maybe even a feel, yet of necessary faith: Let's suppose a basically brainless clinical idiot, unable to see, hear, maybe even to sense, and certainly unable to form concepts or to "reason" as we know it, yet still human and alive —what would God do to save such.

Don't know....the bible is silent. Do you have a verse that answers your question?

Not being given proof of Adam-style or even of animal innocence, I have to conclude that their 'flesh' (Rom. 8) is also at enmity with God, and as worthy of death as anyone else's. If God does not save such a one, his punishment will be precise, yet thorough. (To the degree that his heart is looked at by God as corrupt, he will be punished, thoroughly, but only precisely —no more than that.)

I can appreciate your conclusion..it shows you have given this thought.
You posted....

If God does not save such a one, his punishment will be precise.

Where does the bible say God will punish that person? I don't have an answer. Do you?
What about an aborted baby? What of a baby that dies 1 day after birth?

So, if God opens his heart (regeneration) to see (feel?) his sin and his need of the Savior, I have to imagine that he would with purity and joy reach for the God who though at an unreachable distance brought the enemy to his side.

I think if God opens anyones heart...like Lydia...or grants a person the ability to come to Christ....they will.

But even that I have tried to describe is more than this person conceives, or even feels, in perhaps even one moment of the Spirit coming into him and making his home there.

The whole story (not the parts) of our temporal occupancy —Creation and all the subsequent activity and complication— is of God's invention, and it is the Gospel, yet it be just as simple as what that clinical idiot can know.

What you posted is interesting...yet, not the Gospel. It may contain a fraction of how the Gospel works but all in all isn't the entire Gospel.

 

[Mr GLee]

I would offer another perspective. both books will be opened and compared to each other,

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Remember the living word of God as it is written is a spiritual book, a work of His faithfulness as Christ's labor of love .It is spiritual (not seen) It must be compared as a parable. . the spiritual unseen God's understanding to the same. . . . . called "faith to faith" or the unseen things of God to the same in Roman 1 .or another "face to face" mot the literal historical to the same without the spiritual understanding

Not the temporal historical to the historical

God's power working in dying mankind. Therefore not to comparing the temporal seen historical to the same .They must be mixed according to the 20/20 prescription in 2 Corinthians 4:18 or there can be no gospel rest (Hebrews 4:2-3)

2 Corinthians 4:18 a valuable tool overlooked by some . It helps the believer, I believe to rightly divide the parable that does use the temporal historical to show the eternal spiritual. Romans 1 speaks of the what I call 20/20 prescription given in 2 Corinthians 4:18

God uses thing seen the temporal to demonstrate the unseen power of Eternal.

God who is not a man as us. His ways as his understanding are as different as black is from white or Power and no power

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

2 Corinthians 4:181 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Romans 9 :6:13 Not as though the word of God (invisible things) hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated

It would seem in the end both books will have the same names. Those not elected. . just as if they were never born

God is not a God of vengeance as to how we see venngage just as anger man's anger does not bring the righteous of faith the unseen things of our Holy Father. His vengeance is mixed with mercy . In that way two kinds of mercy. Mercy seasoned with grace and mercy. . no more sufferings the daily pangs of hell .

God is subject to his own law. If he does not have mercy he is not a merciful God.

James 2:12-14King James Version12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

Roman 9: 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee,(the temporal things seen) and that my name (the eternal things not seen) might be declared throughout all the earth.Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?