It is true to say that God created mankind with the capacity to sin.
But I think it is better to say, and to think, that God created us not God. Or, creatures are not the Creator. That is, it is precisely because we’re not God–because we’re creatures–that we have the capacity for sin. Only God is perfect in his being, and incapable of sin. The two ways of saying this are really two sides of the same coin, but there seems to be a clearer picture of the goodness of God in the second way of saying it. The first way seems to imply that God set us up to fail–that he rigged the machine, sprinkled a little ‘evil’ in the Adam-mix–to ensure his plans would come to pass. He didn’t. After creating everything, he said it was “very good.” And when God says “good” he means it in every sense, including the moral.
I appreciated something I came across recently (in Calvin, I think): that nothing, and no one, has an inherently evil nature. That is, God created nothing evil; evil is the total corruption of the created (good) nature. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. (Genesis 1:31, ESV [show] [31]And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (ESV)
) He said it, and He meant it. And those who would say, “Did God create evil? No? Then who did?” do no justice to the goodness of God, though they try to do so. The only answer to that question is “no one; no one ‘created’ evil.” Only God can create, and God created only what is good. It is the devil–himself once good but corrupted–who corrupts the good into evil. The devil cannot create, and God creates only what is good.
And so none may justly turn a finger toward God, when looking for someone to blame for sin and evil in the world. The only way absolutely to ensure that there could not ever be any evil anywhere or at any time, would’ve been for God not to create us. Only because something other than God exists in the universe, does there exist any capacity for sin in the universe. It may not be too much to say that the existence of evil, or at least the capacity for it, is a necessary outcome of there being a creation at all–of there being something not God.
What about verses like, “shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?” (Amos 3:6, KJV), or “I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]” (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)? The translators of the ESV have been very helpful here in translating these words as ‘calamity.’ Neither verse (nor any verse) means that God creates or brings about moral evil; for “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” God does bring calamity upon men (like Job) and cities (like Sodom and Gomorrah), but this is better understood as calamity–or, experiential evil. More simply, “bad times.” But it’s not moral evil. Often it is judgment, which, when brought by God, is by its very nature just–and therefore evil’s opposite. Justice is an expression of the goodness of God (see Psalm 96 [show] Oh sing to the LORD a new song;
sing to the LORD, all the earth!
[2]Sing to the LORD, bless his name;
tell of his salvation from day to day.
[3]Declare his glory among the nations,
his marvelous works among all the peoples!
[4]For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised;
he is to be feared above all gods.
[5]For all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols,
but the LORD made the heavens.
[6]Splendor and majesty are before him;
strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.
[7]Ascribe to the LORD, O families of the peoples,
ascribe to the LORD glory and strength!
[8]Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name;
bring an offering, and come into his courts!
[9]Worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness;
tremble before him, all the earth!
[10]Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!
Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved;
he will judge the peoples with equity."
[11]Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;
let the sea roar, and all that fills it;
[12]let the field exult, and everything in it!
Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy
[13]before the LORD, for he comes,
for he comes to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness,
and the peoples in his faithfulness.). But it can be called evil because, well, it sure ain’t a good time.
Others may ask, “Well, then why was there evil in the first place?” The simple answer is, “there wasn’t.” Again, God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. (Genesis 1:31, ESV [show] [31]And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (ESV))
Just a few thoughts on evil.
[update: this morning (2/13) I started Chapter XV of Book I of Calvin's Institutes. The heading (in my edition) for section i of this chapter reads Man proceeded spotless from God's hand; therefore he may not shift the blame for his sins to the Creator. This kind of thing, where a common theme appears in Scripture, and in the books, articles, or sermons we're going through, all at the same time, happens so often, doesn't it? Isn't God good to us? What a wonderful Maker, Teacher, Guide...]
gmail.com
I’m taking a Christianity course at SDSU and I read this essay by Reinhold Niebuhr. I thought I’d share, it’s pretty long..
“The Christian doctrine of sin in its classical form offends both rationalists and moralists by maintaining the seemingly absurd position that man sins inevitably and by a fateful necessity, but that he is nevertheless responsible for actions which are prompted by an ineluctable fate. The explicit Scriptural foundation for the doctrine is given in Pauline teaching. On the one hand, St Paul insists that man’s sinful glorification of himself is without excuse.. and on the other hand, he regards human sin as in inevitable defect, involved in or derived from the sin of the first man..
)
He is the absurdity in a nutshell. Original sin, which is by definition an inherited corruption, or at least an inevitable one, is nevertheless not to be regarded as belonging to his essential nature and therefore is not outside the realm of human responsibility. Sin is natural for man in the sense that it is universal but not inthe same that it is necessary. Calvin makes this distinction very carefully..
Sin is to be regarded as neither a necessity of man’s nature nor yet as a pure caprice of his will. It proceeds rather from a defect of the will, for which reason it is not completely deliberate; but since it is the will in which the defect is found, and the will presupposes freedom, the defect cannot be attributed to a taint in man’s nature. Here again Calvins most precise: “Wherefore, as Plato has been deservedly censured for imputing all sins to ignorance, so also we must reject the opinion of those who maintain that all sins proceed from deliberate malice and pravity. For we too must experience how frequently we fall into error even who our intentions are good. Our reason is overwhelmed with deceptions in so many forms.”
The whole crux of the doctrine of original sin lies in the seeming absurdity of the conception of free-will which underlies it. The Pauline doctrine, as elaborated by Augustine and the Reformers, insists on the hand that the will of man is enslaved to sin and incapable of fulfilling God’s law. It may be free, declares Augustine, only it is not free to do good.. Yet on the other hand the same Augustine insists upon the reality of free-will whenever he has cause to fear that the concept of original sin might threaten the idea of human responsibility.. One could multiply examples in the thought of theologians of the Pauline tradition in which logical consistency is sacrificed in order to maintain on the one hand that the will is free in the sense that man is responisble for his sin, and on the other hand is not free in the sense that he can, of his free will, do nothing but evil..
The full complexity of the psychological facts that validate the doctrine of original sin must be analysed, first in terms of the relation of temptation to the inevitability of sin. Such an analysis may make it plain why man sins inevitably, yet without escaping responsibility for his sin. The temptation to sin, as observed previously, lies in the human situation itself. This situation is that man as spirit transcends himself. Thus his freedom is the basis of his creativity but it is also his temptation. Since he is involved in the contingencies and necessities of the natural process on the one hand, and since, on the other, he stands outside of them and forsees their caprices and perils, he is anxious. In his anxiety, he seeks to transmute his finiteness into infinity, his weakness into strength, his dependence into independence. He seeks in other words to escape finiteness and weakness by a quantitative rather than qualitative development of his life. The quantitative antithesis of finiteness is infinity . The qualitative possibility of human life is its obedient subjection to the will of God. This possibility is expressed in the words of Jesus: “he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:39 [show] [39]Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (ESV)
That turned out to to be more typing that I thought I committed to. ;)
Thanks for sharing that, Alli! I’m happy to find that anyone is still reading this much-neglected blog.
Not to be contrary, but I don’t think the will is the seat of our corruption. i think the will merely manifests our desires, which are the fruit of our fallen natures. The will is not much different than I steering wheel, I guess. Having a steering wheel means the car can turn in any direction, but it will only turn in whatever direction the driver wants it to. Does that make sense? “A man is completely free to do whatever his nature desires most.” Free from coersion, but not free from ourselves. I would say, instead, that our human nature–though created good–has been completely corrupted. This good-tree-gone-wild then yields corresponding fruit–it chooses what it wants, nothing otherwise.
Anyway, thanks for sharing the excerpts. I’ve heard of Niebuhr, but had never read anything by him…thanks for the intro!
What do you mean by ‘free from coersion, but not free from ourselves’?
You tell me what ‘The Flim Flam Man’ means, and then I’ll tell you…kidding. Good question.
Basically: we choose what we want.
Which means the choices we make 1) are not coerced, 2) are not arbitrary, random, or causeless, but instead 3) are the expression of our desires.
In other words, we choose what we do not because we’re forced from the outside, but because we’re (in a sense) forced from the inside. We want something, so we choose it. We’re free from external coersion (think Bastiat, the analogy works), but we’re not free from our own internal wants. Luther said it best: our wills are not “absolutely free” — they’re in bondage to our desires. We always choose what we want-nothing else. And if there are competing wants, we always choose what we want most. But either way, choices are neither coerced nor arbitrary.
And those wants are dictated by, or are expressions of, our nature–be it fallen or regenerate. The problem is, just as a leopard cannot change his spots, so too are we powerless to change our fallen natures. Being born again means having our nature ‘righted’ so that we want right things–which we then freely choose.
…better?
Well put, Gahagan. Sometimes I don’t agree with something (some of Niebuhr), but my articulation of ‘why’ doesn’t always work out. I like the explanation of born again. Thanks for the clarification. Keep thinking through these complex ideas and concepts, it’s helpful. I’m sorry to hear about Max… you must really miss him.
Oh, so it is like the story of the otter and the scorpion.
Big Grin.
Every ‘debate’ on free will, et all should include this sort of definition. I know we are all for absolutes, but people do come into ‘debates’ with differing definitions. I think, at least.
You don’t know who The Flim Flam Man is? Well, another great old movie for you to rent then. If you find the time.
Yes! The otter and the scorpion is a great example – nice reference. Being born again is like being changed from the scorpion to the otter.
True – that slippery old ‘meaning of meaning.’ I too am all for authorial intention–that something means only what the author (or speaker) meant it to mean. But what about when the author says “That’s true, hypodermically speaking…”? What did he “mean”?
No, I don’t know who the Flim Flam Man is. Google, here I come…