Was God responsible for Adam's sin?

[oatmeal]

so...you have a young child. And you have just bought a nice aquarium, with five expensive attractive tropical fish swimming in it...you need to go out, so you tell your child: "I will be out for a few hours now. You are on your own. Behave yourself, and whatever you do do not touch the Aquarium!"

You come back in a few hours- what are the chances that the aquarium is intact? How many fish are left?

So you would leave a young child to fend for himself?

Would you trust an adult to stay alone?

 

[egyptianmuslim]

What think you? I would say no. Adam sinned through free will.

Not completely.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

amr

Thats just one definition of responsibility, another definition is:

Being a source or cause, God is the First Cause of all things, of Adam as Well, If God would not have gave Adam being, could Adam have sinned ? NO he could not have. So who was responsible for giving Adam being so that he could sin ?

God created Adam, of course. The question being asked is not determining who the source of all that exists is, but who is being held to account for the sin of Adam? A blame is being sought by the question. Is God to blame? Adam?

The technical expressions “primary cause” and “secondary cause” came into use subsequent to biblical times. But their use summarizes distinctions found within the Bible. In Job 1:19 the house falls because of “a great wind”—a secondary cause; in Job 1:21 Job acknowledges God as the primary cause. Similarly, Exod 14:21 says that “the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind,” thereby acknowledging the Lord as primary cause and the strong east wind as secondary cause.

The instance in first Kings also shows us the truth of "secondary causation." Simply put, God Himself is not the one who enticed Ahab to sin. Rather, God brought this about through a secondary cause, namely, the lying spirit that was sent. The fact of secondary causes makes it easier to see how God can use circumstances to bring about a sin that is encompassed in His decree, and yet not be the positive cause of that sin.

One could multiply such examples.

God cooperates with all His creatures and causes them to act precisely as they do. There are real secondary causes in the world, such as the powers of nature and the will of man, and these do not work independently of God. God works in every act of His creatures, not only in their good but also in their evil acts. He stimulates them to action, accompanies their action at every moment, and makes this action effective. However, we should never think of God and man as equal causes; the former is the primary, and the latter only a secondary cause. Neither should we conceive of them as each doing a part of the work like a team of horses. The same deed is in its entirety both a deed of God and a deed of man. Moreover, we should guard against the idea that this cooperation makes God responsible for man's sinful deeds. This doctrine is based on Scripture, e.g., Deut. 8:18; Ps. 104:20, 21, 30; Amos 3:6; Matt. 6:45; 10:29; Acts 14:17; Phil. 2:13.

Just as the architect of a building, who devises the plans, and then employs the workmen to construct the building, we can see that these workmen are not forced or compelled. Yes, they are induced by money, benefits, etc., but the workmen work freely and happily carrying out the detailed plans of the architect. Thus the architect is the primary cause or will, while the workmen are the secondary cause or will. To a much greater degree God directs, induces, permits, etc., all our actions as the first cause. God wills righteously those things which men choose to do wickedly. We act according to our free agency as the second cause.

That the bad acts of moral agents can somehow be linked back to God is no more plausible than the limp arising from a deformity of our legs can be linked back to the power to move our legs, even though no limping would exist without that power.

For the non-Calvinist, God does not cause sin; he only permits it. Reformed have also used the term, but they have insisted that God’s permission of sin is no less efficacious than his ordination of good. In general, we Reformed deny that there is any “mere permission” in God. God’s permission is an efficacious permission. Otiose permission of sin separated from God’s will is repugnant both to the nature of the First Cause and to the divine and almighty foresight, to His nature and to Scripture. The Reformed use of permit is mainly as a more delicate term than cause, to suggest that God brings sin about with a kind of reluctance born of His holy hatred of it.

This usage by the Reformed reflects a biblical pattern. When Satan acts, he acts, in an obvious sense, by God’s permission. In this use, and in the Reformed theological use, permission has no connotation of moral approval as it sometimes has in contemporary use. God allows him to take Job’s family, wealth, and health. But God will not allow Satan to take Job’s life (Job 2:6). So Satan is on a leash, acting only within limits set by God. In this respect, all sinful acts are similar. The sinner can go only so far before he meets the judgment of God.

It is appropriate, therefore, to use permission to refer to God’s ordination of sin. But we should not assume, as non-Reformed do, that divine permission is anything less than sovereign ordination. What God permits or allows will happen. God could easily have prevented Satan’s attack on Job if he had intended to. That he did not prevent that attack implies that he intended it.

Certainly God has some prerogatives that he forbids to us, such as the freedom to take human life. But, for the most part, the moral laws that God imposes upon us are grounded in his own character (Ex. 20:11; Lev. 11:44–45; Matt. 5:45; 1 Pet. 1:15–16). God will not violate his own character. What Scripture denies, yet is regularly overlooked by some posting herein and elsewhere, is that man has sufficient understanding of God’s character and his eternal plan (not to mention sufficient authority) to bring accusations against Him.

AMR

 

[Totton Linnet]

God is versatile, he creates good and he creates evil.

"The buck stops here." (Harry S. Truman)

He did create evil but He told man to leave it the heck alone.....man was not created for evil or for the knowledge of evil but for good only.

 

[glorydaz]

This is exactly what feewill theology does and why I argue so vehemently against it.

It blames God

You didn't see the wink? It was a joke.


Freewill "theology" doesn't blame God for creating us with freewill. We praise Him.
Nor do we blame God when we choose to disobey God. God made us higher than the animals, capable of reasoning and choosing to do right or wrong.

And we thank Him that He didn't create puppets who would use their inability as an excuse for their behavior.....puppets would have a reason to blame God, but God says man is without excuse.

 

[glorydaz]

He did create evil but He told man to leave it the heck alone.....man was not created for evil or for the knowledge of evil but for good only.

God didn't create evil. He only left room for it to come into being.

 

[WeberHome]

-
The problem with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that it gave
humanity an intuitive knowledge of good and evil instead of a knowledge
obtained by competent instruction.

Christ's followers are encouraged to sharpen their knowledge of good and
evil; but of course not their intuitive knowledge; but their knowledge of good
and evil obtained by competent instruction.

†. Rom 12:2 . . And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed
by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and
acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

†. Heb 5:12-14 . . In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you
need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over
again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an
infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid
food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to
distinguish good from evil.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[The Gospel Matrix]

What think you? I would say no. Adam sinned through free will.

There must be an understood delineation between the Elohim of Genesis 1 and Yahweh, introduced in Genesis 2. The Elohim is what we could call "Prime Creator." This is the "good" God that is in All; the all pervasive Consciousness. (All in Genesis 1 was considered good.) It is Yahweh (the God of duality as per Genesis 45:7) that created the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and introduced the very concept and possibility of "sin."

Therefore, it depends on what, or whom, you consider to be "God" that determines whether or not "God" is responsible. Yahweh is responsible for all sin, which is why, after causing the corruption of creation and exalting himself throughout the Old Testament, he was forced to humble Himself in the New Testament and die for the sins of the world.

Hell is no more, but for those who have a strong desire for its existence; Christians or otherwise.

 

[nikolai_42]

-
God knew what he was doing when He knowingly brought humans into the
world with a free will to sin. In like manner; parents know what they are
doing when they knowingly bring children into the world with a free will to
sin. So then; if God is to blame for His creation's sins, then parents are to
blame for their progeny's sins; because we certainly wouldn't want to hold
God to a double standard-- that wouldn't be fair.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Not sure I see that logic extending very far. Here's why :

1. Comparing earthly father and earthly son to the Heavenly Father and earthly son has obvious problems - omniscience being one big difference.
2. To that end, men are held accountable when they know (ahead of time) some evil act is going to happen and they don't stop it - or see it happening and don't intervene when they are perfectly capable and knowledgeable to do so. Even if we were to accept that God knows all things from eternity past without ordaining any of it (or little of it), then what do we make of Him who avoids intervening simply to uphold man's free will?
3. Or if, simply knowing something is going to happen, He intervenes to change that outcome (and all subsequent related outcomes), He has changed the course of history by simply intervening at one point. Isn't He (being omniscient and omnipotent) responsible for all that happens AFTER that (at least...)? So if it is simply a matter of foreknowledge in the simple sense (knowing ahead of time), He either has to do nothing at all and let history run its course from the beginning (sounds quite like Deism) or play chess against Himself and the rest of humanity in an attempt to both "outwit" the free will of man but not violate it and have all that He wills come to pass.

Without Divine Decree of some sort, I can't see how you don't end up with a God who is simply reacting to everything (His own Creation, yet!)

 

[beloved57]

God created Adam, of course. The question being asked is not determining who the source of all that exists is, but who is being held to account for the sin of Adam? A blame is being sought by the question. Is God to blame? Adam?

The technical expressions “primary cause” and “secondary cause” came into use subsequent to biblical times. But their use summarizes distinctions found within the Bible. In Job 1:19 the house falls because of “a great wind”—a secondary cause; in Job 1:21 Job acknowledges God as the primary cause. Similarly, Exod 14:21 says that “the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind,” thereby acknowledging the Lord as primary cause and the strong east wind as secondary cause.

The instance in first Kings also shows us the truth of "secondary causation." Simply put, God Himself is not the one who enticed Ahab to sin. Rather, God brought this about through a secondary cause, namely, the lying spirit that was sent. The fact of secondary causes makes it easier to see how God can use circumstances to bring about a sin that is encompassed in His decree, and yet not be the positive cause of that sin.

One could multiply such examples.

God cooperates with all His creatures and causes them to act precisely as they do. There are real secondary causes in the world, such as the powers of nature and the will of man, and these do not work independently of God. God works in every act of His creatures, not only in their good but also in their evil acts. He stimulates them to action, accompanies their action at every moment, and makes this action effective. However, we should never think of God and man as equal causes; the former is the primary, and the latter only a secondary cause. Neither should we conceive of them as each doing a part of the work like a team of horses. The same deed is in its entirety both a deed of God and a deed of man. Moreover, we should guard against the idea that this cooperation makes God responsible for man's sinful deeds. This doctrine is based on Scripture, e.g., Deut. 8:18; Ps. 104:20, 21, 30; Amos 3:6; Matt. 6:45; 10:29; Acts 14:17; Phil. 2:13.

Just as the architect of a building, who devises the plans, and then employs the workmen to construct the building, we can see that these workmen are not forced or compelled. Yes, they are induced by money, benefits, etc., but the workmen work freely and happily carrying out the detailed plans of the architect. Thus the architect is the primary cause or will, while the workmen are the secondary cause or will. To a much greater degree God directs, induces, permits, etc., all our actions as the first cause. God wills righteously those things which men choose to do wickedly. We act according to our free agency as the second cause.

That the bad acts of moral agents can somehow be linked back to God is no more plausible than the limp arising from a deformity of our legs can be linked back to the power to move our legs, even though no limping would exist without that power.

For the non-Calvinist, God does not cause sin; he only permits it. Reformed have also used the term, but they have insisted that God’s permission of sin is no less efficacious than his ordination of good. In general, we Reformed deny that there is any “mere permission” in God. God’s permission is an efficacious permission. Otiose permission of sin separated from God’s will is repugnant both to the nature of the First Cause and to the divine and almighty foresight, to His nature and to Scripture. The Reformed use of permit is mainly as a more delicate term than cause, to suggest that God brings sin about with a kind of reluctance born of His holy hatred of it.

This usage by the Reformed reflects a biblical pattern. When Satan acts, he acts, in an obvious sense, by God’s permission. In this use, and in the Reformed theological use, permission has no connotation of moral approval as it sometimes has in contemporary use. God allows him to take Job’s family, wealth, and health. But God will not allow Satan to take Job’s life (Job 2:6). So Satan is on a leash, acting only within limits set by God. In this respect, all sinful acts are similar. The sinner can go only so far before he meets the judgment of God.

It is appropriate, therefore, to use permission to refer to God’s ordination of sin. But we should not assume, as non-Reformed do, that divine permission is anything less than sovereign ordination. What God permits or allows will happen. God could easily have prevented Satan’s attack on Job if he had intended to. That he did not prevent that attack implies that he intended it.

Certainly God has some prerogatives that he forbids to us, such as the freedom to take human life. But, for the most part, the moral laws that God imposes upon us are grounded in his own character (Ex. 20:11; Lev. 11:44–45; Matt. 5:45; 1 Pet. 1:15–16). God will not violate his own character. What Scripture denies, yet is regularly overlooked by some posting herein and elsewhere, is that man has sufficient understanding of God’s character and his eternal plan (not to mention sufficient authority) to bring accusations against Him.

AMR

another definition is:

Being a source or cause, God is the First Cause of all things, of Adam as Well, If God would not have gave Adam being, could Adam have sinned ? NO he could not have. So who was responsible for giving Adam being so that he could sin ?

Adam sinned according to the Sovereign Will of God, not by His Permission as if God would have preferred him not to have sinned, but God predetermined his sin according to the redemptive purpose preset in Christ. Christ before Adam was made, was ordained to be the redeemer of the Sons of God 1 Pet 1:18-20

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

He was slain already in Gods Purpose from the foundation Rev 13:8, so Adam was foreordained by God to sin before the foundation, his sin was according to Gods Purpose in Christ 2 Tim 1:9

Who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,


Not His permission, thats weak, But Adams sin was according to Gods Purpose ! God was the positive Cause of Adams sin as so much He is the Positive Cause of His Eternal Purpose in Christ !

Thats why folk like you i consider heretics !

 

[JosephR]

What think you? I would say no. Adam sinned through free will.

people die all the time from coconuts that falls from trees..

gravity does not seem to be on trial..so I would agree with you .

 

[bsmitts]

Of course, how else could Adam had sinned if God did not give him being ? Before God gave him being, God knew Adam would sin and He gave him being anyway ! So yes God was responsible for it, but God did not sin, Adam did !

That is heresy!

 

[exminister]

What think you? I would say no. Adam sinned through free will.

Did Adam have any inclining of what he was about to bring on?
Did he have time to consider it? Why was the serpent the only one explaining the "outcome"?

Was creation to the fall a very brief period? It reads so. Did Adam even have time to know God?

Why did God put the tree of good and evil into such a prominent place in the garden?

 

[exminister]

Per Job what we see in the world is God's will because He allows it. And historically He allows some pretty horrid things starting with the fall. It is hard to see the love through that but we see darkly. One day it will make sense. It would be nice to know it now but by His will we will continue to see darkly. It was thus with Abraham when told to sacrifice his son. This is what I see as faith. It is as far from expectation as you can get at least in this life. In spite of trials, tribulations and mankind harming itself over and over God loves us.

 

[WeberHome]

-

Why did God put the tree of good and evil into such a prominent place in the
garden?

†. Gen 2:9 . . And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree
that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the
midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Hebrew word for "midst" is a bit ambiguous. One of its other meanings
is "among". So the two trees were not necessarily right smack dab in the
center of the garden, but may have been dispersed. In other words: the two
trees may have been all over the place along with all the other varieties in
the garden.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[exminister]

-


†. Gen 2:9 . . And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree
that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the
midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Hebrew word for "midst" is a bit ambiguous. One of its other meanings
is "among". So the two trees were not necessarily right smack dab in the
center of the garden, but may have been dispersed. In other words: the two
trees may have been all over the place along with all the other varieties in
the garden.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Are you saying they were species of trees and there was more than one each? Avoid THOSE trees, not avoid this tree?

 

[chrysostom]

why would God create a free will
if
He knew it would choose evil?

it doesn't make sense

testing free will does make sense
and
that is why we are here

it is that simple

God is responsible for creating the free will of adam

adam and only adam is responsible for his sin

 

[exminister]

Are you saying they were species of trees and there was more than one each? Avoid THOSE trees, not avoid this tree?


Are you saying they were species of trees and there was more than one each? Avoid THOSE trees, not avoid this tree?

Weber, I answered my own question.

בְּת֣וֹךְ

http://biblez.com/searchhebrew.php?q=בְּת֣וֹךְ


Yes I see it was somewhere in the confines of the garden which was created in the east, but there was only one each.

 

[exminister]

why would God create a free will
if
He knew it would choose evil?

it doesn't make sense

testing free will does make sense
and
that is why we are here

it is that simple

God is responsible for creating the free will of adam

adam and only adam is responsible for his sin

Are you saying God didn't know Adam would chose evil?

 

[Truster]

What think you? I would say no. Adam sinned through free will.

Was God responsible for Adam's sin?

It depends on whether Yah Veh Elohim has free will and if He possesses the power to fulfil His will. Is He sovereign over time as He is over eternity ‘’Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven’’.