toldailytopic: God, Satan, or man. Who is the cause of on sin?

[Persephone66]

Man

We made up God, Satan and sin.

 

[Nihilo]

For your consideration: Lecture on Ethics

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I believe that God is sovereign, and that this sovereignty, which is my worship, implies necessarily that both good and evil, good deeds and evil deeds, originate in God, the Creator and Sustainer of Creation. I subjugate my idea or thought of what is evil and what is sin, to my idea of God being sovereign. I consider it pious and reverent to ascribe evil to God, and to leave the paradox at His feet. He is the one who created the paradox, after all. I do think that there is a clue in the story of the Garden. I do think that the knowledge of good and evil has something to do with it. I do think that if we did not have this knowledge, that we would not accuse God, who is the cause of everything, of being evil.

There is no paradox.

God is sovereign. So sovereign in fact that He has control over His sovereigness. And He chose to give up some of His control when He created man with a will of his own.

Said in short... God created man with a will of his own and that's the way God wanted it.

Therefore man has a will apart from God's and man often times grieves God by choosing to do things that are not parallel with God's will. And just as scripture clearly states (James 1:14) it is man's will that desires to sin, not Gods.

So why would God create us with the ability to grieve Him?

Simple. God gave us our own will because the entire purpose for creation is God wanted to create something that He could love and fellowship with. God is loving and relational. Therefore God created us in such a way that we could truly choose to love Him and He can love us back. But with that arrangement comes the natural possibility that we might choose NOT to love Him and sin.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I will, if convinced otherwise. That might not happen in this conversation, but I am open to be convinced otherwise.

Fair enough. I would assert that the moment we ascribe evil to God we have blurred His character is an irreparable way.

God is responsible for all things good....

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

It is man (and sometimes fallen angels) that have perverted goodness, and used their freedom to do bad things.

 

[elohiym]

Well!!! Could it possibly be that when Jesus came and fulfilled the Law, He fulfilled it for woman too! Just a thought.

I previously mentioned that Christ abrogated Leviticus 15:30.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.

These verses help prove that God, as the creator of the law, is the cause of that specific sin, because when Leviticus 15:30 is abrogated the sin of menstruation is no longer imputed, i.e. menstruation is no longer a sin.

 

[Sherman]

One thing to consider about Old Testament Laws: There are three kinds--Symbolic Laws, Laws toward Man and Laws Toward God. Laws regarding Menstruation would be symbolic laws. Symbolic laws are an object lesson for Israel and they also set Israel apart from other nations. The repeated cycle is very reminiscent of how Israel repeatedly wanders from God and has to be cleansed again. Without a permanent solution like Jesus, the cycle of uncleanness repeats itself.

Symbolic laws are always an object lesson. The natural cycle of woman is not in and of itself a sin.

Symbolic laws are not practiced by the church today. Laws toward God and laws toward Man still exist.

Not taking God's name in vain is a law toward God. Not stealing is a law toward man. Even not committing adultery is a law toward man.

 

[bybee]

I previously mentioned that Christ abrogated Leviticus 15:30.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.

These verses help prove that God, as the creator of the law, is the cause of that specific sin, because when Leviticus 15:30 is abrogated the sin of menstruation is no longer imputed, i.e. menstruation is no longer a sin.

I apologize for missing that! Thanks for the reply.

 

[elohiym]

:think: What would you think of the explanation that menstruation was brought about by the Fall? I mean, we don't have any real passage in Scripture that sheds any light on fertility cycles before the Fall, but we do know that menstruation makes women uncomfortable noid and that God said that one of the curses of the Fall was that the process of bearing a child would be more difficult and painful (Genesis 3:16). What do you think?

We know that, before the Fall, the man and woman could procreate (Ge 1:28), necessitating menstruation, assuming no change in the design of the woman. My position is the Fall did not entail a change in the woman's anatomy and physiology, only a perceptual change (Ge 3:7). Genesis 3:16 does not undermine my position, but strengthens it if God is truly the cause of her sorrow and conception ("I will greatly multiply..."). Furthermore, menstruation, even if it started after the Fall, is involuntary; Eve didn't alter her own physiology, if it was altered; she didn't choose to menstruate; yet, a "sin offering" and "atonement" with God was required for her menstruation.

 

[Sherman]

Man

We made up God, Satan and sin.

If you die in an elevator, make sure to push the UP button.

 

[Universalist]

It confuses you because it's a contradiction and goes against reason. Faith may go beyond reason at times but it doesn't go against reason.

Faith and reason do not go together in every instance.

This is why we are given the liberty by our creator to seek him for ourselves on whatever we desire to seek him about. None of us are obligated to take any mans word for anything concerning God, not even mine or yours.

If you want the truth, you go to the horses mouth. Anything anyone tells you about the horse, seek the horse about it if the Holy Spirit is not witnessing to you concerning it. There are some things we will have to seek the Lord on and he will reveal in his own time.

Yes, that is my message to "Baby Christian".

What a beautiful thing.:first:

 

[red cardinal]

It appears that men needed to make a sin offering for any "issue" that flowed from them as well. This included "copulation". So it seems women were not alone in their "sin". [Lev 15]

Interesting ... that women who gave birth required a sin offering as well. So ..... does that mean Mary sinned by giving birth to Christ? [Lev 12]

 

[BabyChristian]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 27th, 2011 11:28 AM

toldailytopic: God, Satan, or man. Who is the cause of on sin?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

For all good that God created, there’s an opposite for those who choose to reject God. So it’s dark where God’s light is absent, and sin where His righteousness is absent. By creating us with our free will, He did create everything that we do, and sin is basically going against His will.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

These verses help prove that God, as the creator of the law, is the cause of that specific sin

Lets say for sake of argument you can find a small amount of sins that God directly caused in the pages of the Bible (I disagree with that argument but for sake of a larger argument I want to concede that point).

Lets assume that God caused a few specific sins... would it then follow that God causes all sin?

God caused a flood in Genesis, does it then follow that God causes all floods?

God caused Jonah to end up in the belly of a fish. Does it then follow that God is the reason every other person that ever was eaten by a sea creature was God's doing?

God caused earthquakes, does it then follow that God causes all earthquakes?

God punished people occasionally by making them deaf, mute, and blind. Does it then follow that every deaf, mute, or blind person is being punished by God?

These questions should be perceived as rhetorical as I would hope than any person that loves God would recognize that God is not the cause of all of our suffering. We are the cause of our own suffering through our disobedience towards God and the chain of events that we created through sin.

 

[BabyChristian]

These verses help prove that God, as the creator of the law, is the cause of that specific sin, because when Leviticus 15:30 is abrogated the sin of menstruation is no longer imputed, i.e. menstruation is no longer a sin.

So often I see things in the O.T. that are just plainly misogynist and seems to me NOT to be God inspired but a man thing.

bybee I'm sure you're done with your monthly sin by now and I'm heading that direction too. :devil:

The O.T. really bothers me sometimes.

 

[Son of Jack]

We know that, before the Fall, the man and woman could procreate (Ge 1:28), necessitating menstruation, assuming no change in the design of the woman. My position is the Fall did not entail a change in the woman's anatomy and physiology, only a perceptual change (Ge 3:7). Genesis 3:16 does not undermine my position, but strengthens it if God is truly the cause of her sorrow and conception ("I will greatly multiply..."). Furthermore, menstruation, even if it started after the Fall, is involuntary; Eve didn't alter her own physiology, if it was altered; she didn't choose to menstruate; yet, a "sin offering" and "atonement" with God was required for her menstruation.

I certainly agree that man and woman could procreate before the Fall, as evidenced by the verse you mentioned. In addition, I agree that a woman menstruates involuntarily and that it, of course, requires a sin offering in order to restore the cleanliness of the woman. That said, it would matter immensely if the woman underwent a physiological change after the Fall. For, if that is the case and menstruation were the consequence of the man and woman's choice, then it follows that man, and not God, was responsible for menstruation and the subsequent need for a sin offering.

So, at the crux of the issue is whether or not the man and woman underwent any sort of physiological changes when God rendered the curse, and this seems to be something that we can't know for sure. While we do know that child birth became quite a bit more difficult as a result of the Fall, we don't know to what degree. Additionally, we do know that there was some pain or difficulty before the Fall, but again we don't know to what degree. One might conjecture that the serpent underwent a physiological change (Genesis 3:14), but I think that assumes too much.

So, I write all that to simply say....:idunno:

In the end, I think the real matter of the bigger issue is whether or not a person differentiates between God causing and God allowing and how much He does one or the other.

 

[elohiym]

Lets assume that God caused a few specific sins... would it then follow that God causes all sin?

It would be evidence suggestive that He potentially does cause all sin directly or indirectly in some way. The problem is, if I say that God only creates some calamity, I have no way of knowing what calamity to attribute to God's will and what calamity to attribute to man's will, or Satan providing the devil is in the details.

We are the cause of our own suffering through our disobedience towards God and the chain of events that we created through sin.

Is your position essentially Plantinga's free will defense?

 

[surrender]

I certainly agree that man and woman could procreate before the Fall, as evidenced by the verse you mentioned. In addition, I agree that a woman menstruates involuntarily and that it, of course, requires a sin offering in order to restore the cleanliness of the woman. That said, it would matter immensely if the woman underwent a physiological change after the Fall. For, if that is the case and menstruation were the consequence of the man and woman's choice, then it follows that man, and not God, was responsible for menstruation and the subsequent need for a sin offering.

So, at the crux of the issue is whether or not the man and woman underwent any sort of physiological changes when God rendered the curse, and this seems to be something that we can't know for sure. While we do know that child birth became quite a bit more difficult as a result of the Fall, we don't know to what degree. Additionally, we do know that there was some pain or difficulty before the Fall, but again we don't know to what degree. One might conjecture that the serpent underwent a physiological change (Genesis 3:14), but I think that assumes too much.

So, I write all that to simply say....:idunno:

In the end, I think the real matter of the bigger issue is whether or not a person differentiates between God causing and God allowing and how much He does one or the other.

I'm gonna just throw this out there. Shouldn't we consider that these laws regarding cleanliness were there to protect them? It was a sin to disobey the Lord and not follow the laws regarding being clean, because disobedience was a sin. It’s not that being unclean was a sin; it was unhealthy. Ignoring God’s law to become clean was a sin.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It would be evidence suggestive that He potentially does cause all sin directly or indirectly in some way. The problem is, if I say that God only creates some calamity, I have no way of knowing what calamity to attribute to God's will and what calamity to attribute to man's will, or Satan providing the devil is in the details.

Not to mention that asserting that God caused some or all sin would fly in the face of the one very definitive statement God makes regarding this topic...

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

God could not have made His case more clearly than that. :idunno:

Is your position essentially Plantinga's free will defense?

That explanation is kinda hard to understand for me. All I can say is that based on what I understand from God's word... God created us to love and fellowship with, and the only way that was possibly was to create us with a will of our own. The flip side of giving us a will is that we might use that will to do things that are contrary to His will. While it grieves God that we do evil things, the alternative would have been worse i.e., no will, no freedom - which would have entirely defeated the purpose of creation altogether. Said in short... for God to give us the freedom to love... we needed the freedom to not love.

 

[surrender]

All I can say is that based on what I understand from God's word... God created us to love and fellowship with, and the only way that was possibly was to create us with a will of our own. The flip side of giving us a will is that we might use that will to do things that are contrary to His will. While it grieves God that we do evil things, the alternative would have been worse i.e., no freedom - which would have entirely defeated the purpose of creation altogether. Said in short... for God to give us the freedom to love... we needed the freedom to not love.

:thumb:

 

[elohiym]

So often I see things in the O.T. that are just plainly misogynist and seems to me NOT to be God inspired but a man thing.

I can understand why you would say that, but I encourage you to look more closely. God used the law to protect His people, from the actions and influence of others, and from their own ignorance. For example:

Numbers 31:21-24

21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses;
22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.
24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.

Those ordinances were clearly for disease prevention in the community when soldiers returned from war.

Deuteronomy 23:13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:

That ordinance was clearly for disease prevention, too. The "cat hole latrine" is still used by soldiers today.

When it comes to the commandments regarding menstruation it is likely that God established that law to mitigate and utilize for a great purpose an existing, likely negative, cultural perception of female menstruation in a blood-sacrifice patriarchal society. For example, God promised Abraham many descendants, necessitating that Israel be fruitful and multiply; menstruation ceases during pregnancy; discouraging menstruation encourages pregnancy.

Another interesting thing to consider is that retrograde menstruation is thought to be the cause of endometriosis. In one study I found, cervical occlusion and retrograde menstruation caused endometriosis in baboons. Therefore, it is possible that God's law regarding menstruation was to prevent sex during menstruation, which would imply that it's still a good idea to not have intercourse during a woman's menstrual period, law or not.