I've wrestled over this question for at least a year now. I hold to a calvanistic theology and in all things I'm a determinist. What this means relative to this discussion is that if God in fact decrees all things, or stated correctly, "whatsoever comes to pass, has been necessarily decreed by God. Yet, God is not the author of sin", then God is somehow connected with the causation of sin, since it occurs, yet is not the author of it. I always struggled with that last part. I thought, in what way could you be the decreer of a thing, but not the author of it? What does it mean to "author" sin? I've read many papers, I've searched this out, I've talked with colleagues and it even comes up in men's bible study.
I've been told that I shouldn't think this way. That I'm wrong to think that God can be the author or decreer of sin. Yet, I cannot escape, if all things have been determined, man has no substantive free-will. It's all done in God's eyes. That is, in some reality apart from this one, all things are already accomplished, even my sin which I don't have a choice about.
So then, what is the source of the problem? In part, so many say we CANNOT say that God is the author of sin. People I like, trust and respect. People who have taught me much about God. So then, I felt guilty, but still unable to rationalize anything logically consistent and biblically accurate. However I've been reading some work by Gordon Clark and Vincent Cheung recently and something hit me. A spark of clarity I've experienced before, but now so fully that I can articulate it and write it down. Let me start off with this;
1. There would be, if it were possible, nothing wrong with God being the author of sin. Nothing God does, thinks, believes, or decrees is sin or could be considered sin. There is no court higher than him and no entity to which he is responsible to speak, act or obey.
2. God is holy not because of what he performs, but rather because he is. Only men become things through performance, yet not even sons of God. Men run races and become winners and losers. God does not achieve, he simply is. All things are at his command and wait idly until he has a purpose for them. Nothing moves without God's divine intervention. My fingers move, not because of the neural synapses coalesced with an impatient desire to write something on the internet, but rather by the metaphysical control God is imposing on me at this very moment, directly and only. God is the first cause of all things. To believe otherwise is to desire autonomy from God. Which is foolishness. God isn't the better of a multitude of options, he's the only option. His truth isn't more truth than other truths, it's the truth and so all that he does and causes to do, is exactly the right way for things to happen.
SO then, to my realization;
Since sin is the transgression of the law of God, then God is not the author of sin because he is not transgressing his own law, nor does he ever. Yet, he can and does cause man to sin by decree but transgresses no law in so doing. This makes man the author of sin because before there was no law there was no sin, and before there was no transgression there was no sin, therefore when God causes man to sin he does so with a holy and righteous intent. And when man necessarily transgresses the law of God he becomes the author of sin. In this sense, Sin is not merely a status or precondition or a gene or dna so as to become part of the flesh, or a thing that needed to be created. It is simply the transgression of God's law, which the possibility thereof was created by the creation of the law of God. Therefore, sin has no preexistent condition that must be upheld, it simply occurs each and every time we transgress the law.
SO then, I agree with Augustine in that sin is not a physical thing that is in need of creation, storage or inventory, to be assigned or purchased by the rightful owner at the rightful time, but rather it is a metaphysical reality that comes into existence the moment that transgression occurs.
The body is such that you are born without the spirit of God, so as to be unable to obey the law of God. SO that, in every thought, word, and deed you utterly transgress the law of God and are utterly lawless. So then, you are the author and the doer of sin, but by the decree and ordination of God for his holy and righteous purposes.
When the Spirit of God is given the believer instantly becomes righteous but not as though they have earned it through knowledge, experience or understanding, but rather by being regenerated by the washing and renewing of the holy spirit. Thus, even though sin, the transgression of the law of God, remains in the fleshly members, it reigns as a means to show that sin is utterly sinful. It's purpose is part of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit to draw the children of the Light to God through sanctification.
Thus, God, since he's under no higher authority is not responsible for, nor is he the author of sin. Since He has no one to hold Him responsible and he never transgresses the law. He never transgresses the law, because the law does not apply to him. Whatever God does is right and holy. For him to transgress the law the Bible would have to explicitly articulate that God submits himself to the law he puts on man, or that decreeing sin is necessarily sinful, for God. Yet, so as to be in accordance with his attributes, which he cannot violate, he remains God. For to violate his own attributes makes him not God. But lest you believe that God's law are his attributes, let me explain what I'm saying further. God is said to be all-knowing, then, God is all-knowing, but if he ever ceases to not know something, then he ceases to be God. Some might say, does this make Jesus not God because He says that he did not know when the last day would be? No. God knows. God is still God. For Christ to lay down his deity in some sense or another is not a denial of the attribute of omniscience, it's simply the restraint of it, and, as it were, it was Christ who did this, not God the Father. So then, God acts freely and in accordance with his High Counsel of His Own Will and not in submission to anything or anyone.
What man could say that God causing me to lie, to ultimately save a nation for his own purposes, is God sinning? Or worse, who would reject God in so doing? This is a silly humanistic argument. Does God not have the right to employ any means he chooses to bring about his Holy Will? Consider that case in the story of Rahab and the two spies. Do you know who is in the line of Jesus? Rahab the harlot.
What man could say that God causing Joseph's brothers into the pit so that he could save a nation is God sinning? Does God not have the right and authority to use whatever means he desires? How could we, and with what logical authority could we approach Holiness and say that it's choices are suspect? That would mean that you are over God and God is subject to you, or your understanding of him. Since we know that it is scriptural to say that God DOES do these things, then it is unscriptural to say that he does not or believe that he does not.
I struggled before because I didn't understand what people meant by "author" of sin. I also could not see a rational reason why being the author of sin would be a problem. Since I could not perceive how this made God unholy or not God. Now I see that it's logically imprecise to say that. For the purposes that sin is not a created thing. It's simply the transgression of the law of God. Unlike a spider plant that needed to be thought up and created to have existed, sin is only the crossing of the boundary that God has defined. The manifestation of that sin is an act, which is not in and of itself sinful, but rather the moving across the line, or rather BEING on the other side of the line, which is sinful. For instance, plunging a knife into a person's heart is not sinful, the fact that it will kill them is. This may seem like a utterly fine point to draw, but the reality is, the only way to contend with life is to not make assumptions and work entirely with euphemisms, intentions, implication, inuendo, metaphor and colloquialisms. While for most, it's fine to live in that space to contend with everyday events, in order to understand and truly interpret your world-view, precision is the only course.
Finally, we are responsible to God since he is the authority over all creation, which was subjected to futility, but not willingly. We're responsible because God has made us so, and the mere making of us makes us responsible to him, for whatever cause he has created and destined us unto. So then it follows, man does not need to transgress the law to be responsible for his sin, his very existence of being born without the spirit of God makes him responsible to God for all sins that he will commit. That is not to say that he's born with sin, but he is born sinful. And thus, his nature is to be lawless and transgress God's law, and therefore doubly responsible to God. So since being born brings an immediate responsibility to God for what you will do, the actual commission of such a thing brings a double responsibility.
What is the purpose of this and why is this important?
I'm not certain it is important to all, but I also cannot understand how you could ever live at peace with your sin as the scripture says. We're born to live in life and peace, now. There's no condemnation. So if you're constantly trying to atone for your sins you lack the ability to advance your knowledge of God since you plainly reject what the scripture teaches. We're not under any condemnation. Not only are we already forgiven, but we've also been handed Christ's righteousness. Our sin was nailed to the cross and died with Christ, as we also died and when we were resurrected in Spirit, we were born unto the faith. So then how do you contend with the sin in your life? Do you beat yourself up? Ignore it? Pretend like it's not there? Or, do you live in freedom like Paul says, it is NO LONGER I that sins, but the sin that dwells within me! It would take up another volume for me to explain how to rightly live with sin in your life, but suffice it to say, you should obey the scriptures, obey your Father, confess your sin, but not feel false guilt or shame. If you feel those things because of your performance against the backdrop of a belief that you could choose better, you are setting your mind on the flesh; which cannot please God. The best word I've ever been able to come up with, that seems to rightly convey a non-performance view is remorse. And the reason is, I don't feel guilt because I don't expect me to do anything better than sin. To presume you can is the epicenter of false confidence, leading to shame and dishonor. Yet, is this what we're called to? NO! So then, you're totally depraved. Believe it. You sin so that you understand that you're totally sinful. It's part of God's economy of redemption and sanctification.
No comments:
Post a Comment