Some of the greatest revelations from God, about Himself, are often forgotten. I think there are a lot of things that can be pointed to as reasons for forgetting what God has revealed. Insecurity and laziness are some specific reasons. These can become idols that enslave. For example, we feel insecure about studying doctrines that are deep and difficult. So we excuse ourselves from this task by reserving this task strictly to our Pastors' (after all, they have degrees in theology). Insecurities help us become lazy by relying too much on our Pastors' sermons instead of studying for ourselves. These idols of insecurity and laziness begin to shape how we view God. They control us, even to the point that they motivate us to keep control over our lives from God. They can lead to God being ignored from the Bible. Such that, we become more susceptible to throwing out Biblical exegesis and systematic theology. In turn, our idols "tell us" God has become untrustworthy and/or distant.
The solution is to: (1) identify any given idol of our hearts, and (2) regard it for what it is in light of God's revelation, namely an idol; finally, (3) turn from any given idol to the only true God, whom paid the penalty for sins at Calvary, so that in Him and through Him God can conform us to His image. By the eyes of faith , we can repent, believe, and rejoice in what Christ has done on our behalf. He died in our place to rescue us from sin--from idolatry-- that in Him we would become the children of God. The rags to riches story come true. So we are to no longer live ruled by idols for meaning, purpose or value. Idols cannot give any of these things. All they can do is enslave us on an endless search for meaning, purpose and value where it cannot be found. Meaning, purpose and value can only be found in Christ. Only in Him do we see God's goodness, love and grace poured out for us on the cross. He who is beautiful become ugly for us that we might be beautiful in God's sight. He who was invulnerable become vulnerable that we might find safety and security in Him. Despair and defeat is conquered, by hope and victory in, and through, Christ's death, burial and resurrection.
In this paper (here) Dr. James N. Anderson, Associate Professor of
Reformed Theological Seminary, has masterfully taken up the subject of
Calvinism (with its respective doctrines of God, providence and sin) to address
those that charge it of implicating God as the author of sin.
I do not wish to give a complete summary here. I’d prefer to
commend readers to it. I wish only to discuss some of the paper with comments.
Dr. Anderson begins with a familiar discussion in Christian
Theology of the devastating nature and effects of sin brought by Adam’s
transgression. God created Adam and Eve after His image good--with the ability
to choose good or evil. Adam for unknown reasons chose to violate one of God’s
commandments. Subsequent to Adam’s transgression, sin was imputed, inherited
and imitated, by all mankind.
Dr. Anderson asks the deep and difficult questions we are
confronted with, as Calvinists, in light of Adam’s transgression. It is the
very same questions believers in the past have had to struggle with such as St.
Augustine and Jonathan Edwards. Dr. Anderson states, “the most perplexing
question of all is simply this: If Adam was created good, why did he commit
evil?”[1]
Dr. Anderson stresses that it must be admitted, from the start,
that all theological traditions face difficulties. Nevertheless, all
theological traditions must each attempt to construct a coherent model to make
sense of God’s providence in relation to Adam’s sin. As we take Calvinism to be
the most faithful theological tradition to Scripture. We affirm: (1) God either
directly or indirectly determines all things (which includes Adam’s
transgression), (2) man freely determines actions and acts, and (3) God is
neither the author nor approver of sin. Yet it is precisely these affirmations
that require us to construct a coherent model. But many from other theological
traditions deem this as an impossible task. Dr. Anderson in the rest of his
paper directly addresses objections to the possibility of a Calvinistic model,
critiques alternative models, and then offers a Calvinistic model, which best
affirms (1), (2), and (3), with less (severe?) philosophical difficulties than
alternative models.
Dr. Anderson states that Calvinism is committed to divine
determinism in which God is the sufficient cause of all things. But how God
precisely determines and causes all things does not necessarily entail physical
or causal determinism. So then, in what way are we to understand “God
determines all things” and “God is the cause of all things?” Dr. Anderson
points out that Calvinism essentially is not committed to any specific view of
causality. Therefore many views are open to Calvinism. In this paper Dr.
Anderson takes cause generally in its ordinary sense, namely, to bring about a
state of affairs. With this definition in mind, Dr. Anderson distinguishes
between creator and creature causation. There is a creator/creature distinction
that vastly separates God essentially from His creation. For example, God can
cause things to exist from nothing. But creation cannot cause things to exist
from nothing. By this distinction, Dr. Anderson argues that divine causation
can be properly understood as analogical. Thus God determines C by X and man
determines C by Y. Divine causation is not transitive to human causation.
Things in creation do not cause Y by Z and God causes creation to cause Y by X
where XYZ are equivalent. There are two levels of causation that must be kept
in tact. The first level is divine causation and the second is creation
causation. On the latter we experience daily in creation. It is a linear
perspective of causation. However, the first level, God causes the creation to
exist; He sustains its existence and concurs with its causation precisely in
accordance with His will. I think Paul Helm reinforces Dr. Anderson’s model
when he writes,
“(9) Wherever one person X causes another
person Y to do moral evil X does moral evil.
(10) Wherever one person X upholds
another person Y and knowingly that Y will do evil does not prevent Y from
doing evil, X does moral evil.
… it is by no means clear that even if X does moral
evil he is doing the same moral evil as Y. Moreover, whether or not X is guilty
of moral evil is presumably a matter of what rule or law X has broken or whether
his upholding and permitting of X to act in an evil manner is in furtherance of
some greater good for which X’s evil act is a logically necessary condition. It
is not obvious that either a law has been broken in such a case, or that X’s
evil act is not a logically necessary condition for the achieving of certain
further goods.”[2]
Dr.
Anderson gives helpful insight to divine determinism with discussion on
particular models of providence. The first he calls the Domino Model and the
second Authorial Model. The first takes causation as straightforwardly causal
determinism. The world and everything in it is like a giant game of
dominos. In the game of dominos, each individual domino is placed face to face
with another domino. Typically a long chain of face-to-face dominos is spread
out like a train. And once the first domino of the chain falls, it causes the
adjacent domino to fall, continuing on from domino to domino. Eventually,
through the chain of causes and effects, all the dominos fall. In the same manner
as dominos the Domino model of providence views everything that happens in the
world as a chain of causes and effects. God just taps the first domino to fall,
as it were, and everything happens precisely in accordance with His will. The
Authorial Model takes providence much like an author writes a book.[3]
The author controls every element in the story; he can even write himself into
the story. But how the author writes the story is not the same as how the
characters act in the story. The author can write that a particular character
commits a wicked deed, without approving or applauding it, but the author does
not thereby commit a wicked deed.[4]
Moreover, there is a one-way streak of moral accountability in the Authorial
Model. Since the author can rightly hold its characters accountable for their
actions. But the characters have no right to hold their author accountable for
their actions.[5] Furthermore,
to the least extent, the author is merely telling a story with characters that
participate in evil, but the author himself does not participate in evil. Dr.
Anderson sees that Calvinism with this Authorial Model of Providence is most
helpful in understanding divine determinism.
Dr. Anderson after developing the Authorial Model to
understand divine determinism, he moves his attention to addressing possible
objections to such a model of providence as it relates to the first sin. Dr.
Anderson then critiques alternative non-Calvinistic models of providence in the
face of Adam’s sin.
I think Dr. Anderson brings great clarity to the
difficulties for those who wish to affirm libertarian freedom. First, he points
out that such a view violates a moderate principle of sufficient reason (ironically the very
law many Arminians vehemently defend in the Cosmological argument).[6]
That is to say everything has an explanation for its existence either by
necessity or contingency. But Dr. Anderson points out that if libertarian
freedom is true there is no explanation for any given person’s decision. Since
reasons merely influence any given person, but decisions are made, if any given
person wills them. Thus why any given person chooses to will one decision over
another remains inexplicable. I think Arminians and Molinists alike would
respond to Dr. Anderson that Adam sinned simply on the basis he willed it. So
in that sense there is something in Adam. But such a reply does not escape Dr.
Anderson’s criticism.
Dr. Anderson concludes with “…five significant virtues of
the Calvinist account:
1. Unlike its competitors, the Calvinist account does full
justice to the divine perfection of aseity (God’s self-existence and absolute
independence). There are no events in the creation that take place apart from God’s
will, and God’s knowledge isn’t dependent on brute facts or on anything in
the creation.
2. Unlike its competitors, the Calvinist account doesn’t
require God to take chances or to rely on “good fortune.” (Even the Molinist
account subjects God to some degree of chance insofar as God has to play the hand
of feasible worlds that is dealt to him, so to speak, by the counterfactuals
of freedom.)
3. Calvinism affirms the doctrine of meticulous providence,
which receives strong support in both the Christian scriptures and the
Christian tradition.
4.On the Calvinist account there is an ultimate sufficient
explanation for the first sin, namely, the good and wise decree of God. God
has authored a creational story in which human sin plays an integral
role. While the first sin may have been irrational in terms of Adam’s nature,
character, and circumstances, it was not irrational in terms of God’s
decree. The first sin was not ultimately an irrational brute event in God’s
universe. God worked out his sovereign plan through Adam’s sin rather than around it.
5. Calvinists can affirm that the first sin considered in
itself was a supremely evil act while at the same time affirming that God decreed
Adam’s sin for his good and wise purposes—ultimately, for his own glory
manifested in his mercy and his justice—as part of the overall storyline of the
history of creation.”[7]
[2] Paul Helm. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time (Oxford: Oxford UP,
2010)pp.161-162.
[3] John M. Frame. The Doctrine of God. (Philipsburg, N.J.,:P&R Pub., 2002)p.p.154-159.
See also Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s discussion of cause and authorship in Christian Philosophy, vol 4. (Unicoi: Trinity
Foundation, 2004)p.p. 268-269.
[4] Dr. Anderson
even points out that most, if not all, good stories must contain some amount of
evil. http://www.proginosko.com/docs/Calvinism_and_the_First_Sin.pdf;
p.11. See also Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Richard Francks, and R.S. Woolhouse. Philosophical
Texts (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998)p.252.
[5] I see no
reason why a moderate divine command theory of ethics cannot be incorporated in this
model. See Edward John Carnell. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1981. pp.302-303. Gordon H. Clark. Christian Philosophy, vol 4. Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004. p. 269. Paul Helm. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time. Oxford: Oxford UP,
2010.pp.161-162.Morland, J.P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical
Foundations For A Christian Worldview.Downers
Grove: Intervarsity P, 2003.pp.531-532.
[6] William Lane Craig. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/leibnizs-cosmological-argument-and-the-psr
There are many biblical doctrines articulated with ambiguous language which breeds misunderstanding.
I hope to clarify a few of these doctrinal misunderstandings.
1. God is Triune
Christians explain the Biblical teaching that God is one eternal being who is simultaneously three persons. Yet many Christians speak as though the three persons are separate in nature. Biblical Christianity, however, sharply defines the persons as distinct but not separate. The essence of God is neither divided nor separated. Thus Christians are just plainly mistaken when they define the Trinity with the word 'separate.' This is not merely a semantical quibble here, it is foundational to distinguish trinitarian monotheism from polytheistic tritheism. Therefore, an informed Christian will properly define the doctrine of the Trinity as one eternal being (neither divided nor separated in nature) who is simultaneously three persons, namely, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In other words, God is one what and three who's. More discussion of this topic is in my post here.
2. Divine Attributes
Christians often say God is all-powerful and all-present. From the sounds of it, Christians seem to be saying, God can do absolutely anything and He is present even in the depths of hell. So these attributes need to be carefully but briefly defined. Christians' believe God is all-powerful in the sense that He can do whatever He wills; and what He wills is consistent with His nature. This implies there are things God cannot do that have no affect on His omnipotence. For example, God cannot create a married bachelor since such a thing would contradict His rational nature. Moreover, such a thing is not any thing at all but merely a contradiction of terms. So creating a married bachelor amounts to creating nothing. But of course God could have refrained from creating.
God is all-present in the sense that He is cognoscente of all things in virtue of causally ordaining and sustaining all things. This means God is not spatially located everywhere, but rather, God is "causally present everywhere" since He controls all things.
3. Sin
Sin is a general term that refers to anything that does not conform to God's revealed: nature, purposes, or commandments in the states of beings, motives, or actions. With this definition in view it shows sin is essentially spiritual and not merely physical. In the case of humans, when Adam sinned, all mankind became sinners by imputation, inheritance, and imitation. To explore, further, how we might characterize man's condition, please review my posts here and here.
4. Indwelling of the Holy Spirit
It is said Christians are indwelled and filled with the Holy Spirit. This simply means Christians are controlled and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Thus there is not two spirits (i.e the Holy Spirit and the human soul) indwelling the physical body of any given believer.
W. Paul Franks argues that a broad robust free-will defense of Christian theism against the problem of evil requires abandoning original sin or significantly rethinking it.
Franks argues that if an agent cannot choose his own will, then he is not blameworthy for actions that flow from it.
One cannot be held accountable for what could be but only for what will be the case. In other words, one is not held responsible for possible actions he or she would commit in different circumstances; rather, one is responsible only for those actions he or she will commit.
Franks thinks the traditional formulation of original sin as inheritance, imputation and imitation should be revised lest God be implicated as the source of sin and evil. He suggests possible revisions are to remove inheretence and replace imputation with association. On his model humans would be guilty by association. When Adam sinned God associated all humans with him. Thus we all are guilty by association. The implications of such a view is to neglect exegesis. First, guilt by association is based on a hasty generalization. It is often called the fallacy of association. But more importantly, it assumes, as does imputation, that God set the laws, commandments, and punishments for mankind prior to Adam's sin. Second, it drastically affects justification. If Adam's guilt is not imputated then nor is Christ's righteousness imputed. Then how do men stand righteous before God? By association? Third, such a robust revision is unnecessary with other possible models available to account for sin and evil. Forth, guilt by association does not remove the knotty problem of sin and evil. How is sin universal? Why are all humans by nature children of wrath?
Check this new article out by James Anderson here.
Things to think about when you read Anderson's article.
“…God is the first efficient cause of everything, but evil
has come, not from His first act, but by a second act, an act of creatures.
God is the author of the author of sin, He cannot be the
author of sin itself, for sin is the result of a rebellion against God.
If God is not the author of sin, at least He must be charged
with being responsible for sin…A little reflection on the subject will show the
contradiction involved in charging God with responsibility. Let us ask one
question: Responsible to whom, or to what?...Obviouslyif we are talking about the Almighty,
He already is the highest power there is. Therefore, when God decreed this type
of universe where Christ was to die for the sins of all who believe, God was
responsible to none but Himself.”
Edward John Carnell. An Introduction to Christian
Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1981. pp.302-303.
“God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though He is
the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first
place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in
virtue of the fact that He does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard
external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God
does…God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God,
which forbids Him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is
lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of
God. But God is “Ex-lex.”
Gordon H. Clark. Christian Philosophy, vol 4. Unicoi:
Trinity Foundation, 2004. p. 269.
“(1) Necessarily, if God exist he is all-good.
(2) God exists and ordains whatsoever comes to pass.
(3) Necessarily, if A is a human action then A is causally
determined.
(4) There are morally evil human actions.
(5) Either God is the morally culpable author of the morally
evil actions or human beings are their sole morally culpable authors.
(6) (1) and the first disjunct of (5) are formally
inconsistent.
(7)(1),(3) and the second disjunct of (5) are not formally
inconsistent.
(8)Any agent who freely and knowingly sets up a
deterministic process with a certain outcome must be responsible for that
outcome.
(9) Whatever one person X causes another person Y to do
moral evil X does moral evil.
(10) Wherever one person X upholds another person Y and
knowingly that Y will do evil does not prevent Y from doing evil, X does moral
evil.
…moreover, it is by no means clear that even if X does moral
evil he is doing the same moral evil as Y. Moreover, whether or not X is guilty
of moral evile is presumably a matter of what rule or law X has broken or
whether his upholding and permitting of X to act in an evil manner is in
furtherance of some greater good for which X’s evil act is a logically
necessary condition. It is not obvious that either a law has been broken in
such a case, or that X’s evil act in not a logically necessary condition for
the achieving of certain further goods.”
Paul Helm. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 2010.pp.161-162.
“Since our moral duties are grounded in the divine commands,
they are not independent of God nor, plausibly, is God bound by moral duties,
since he does not issue commands to himself.
If God does not fulfill moral duties then what content can
be given to the claim he is good? Here Kant’s distinction between following a
rule and acting in accordance with a rule has proved helpful. God may act
naturally in ways which for us would be rule following and so constitutive of
goodness in the sense of fulfilling our moral duties, so that God can be said
similarly to be good in an analogical way….God is essentially compassionate,
fair, kind, impartial, and so forth, and His commandments are reflections
of his own character.”
Morland, J.P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical
Foundations For A Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: Intervarsity P, 2003.pp.531-532.
I have been listening diligently to your lectures on Systematic Theology through podcasts, so I do not have the luxury of interacting in the classroom. I have a few questions that I hope you might be able to shed some light on. First, concerning the origin of sin, how was it that Lucifer a creature with a good will was able to sin? Lucifer could not have had a libertarian free will for that would mean his choice was arbitrary. The account in Scripture implies he had a desire to be autonomous or as you have said independent. He wanted to be his own god. Where could this desire in Lucifer arise from in a creature that was good? I am truly struggling with this because I cannot consider any creature having a libertarian freewill.
Let me give you my account, for you to judge if it is misguided. Lucifer was a creature that was created good. This can only be the case because God is by nature God, therefore, all of his creation was good. God who is the only perfect being, independent, self-sufficient, and impeccable (by necessity of his nature) created creatures to glorify Himself. His creatures like Lucifer were good (this would seem to imply impeccable), but they were not perfect, independent, or self-sufficient. His creatures where created to be completely dependent upon Him. Thus in some sense God's creatures where deficient needing God for all things. They were and are, completely dependent upon Him. From a human perspective the deficiency in the creatures made it possible for sin to come into existence. Sin originated in the good will of Lucifer who choose the lesser good instead of the Ultimate Good. He choose to love himself, which is a good thing (self-love) more than God, which is sinful. Lucifer asserted his love for himself more than God thereby creating / authoring sin. This account would still be compatabilistic. Lucifer acted according to his nature even when he chose to sin.
Concerning Middle Knowledge does it not reduce to entrapment? For if God knows what creatures would do in any given circumstances with their compabilistic wills, and puts them in certain circumstances to act; does not this entail entrapment?
To my final question what is sin or more specifically what is our sinful nature? Sin cannot be physical for the fallen angels would have a sinful nature, so what is it? I know it is a ruling principle Romans 6 makes it really clear, but how is it that one can have a sinful nature? I agree with the Traducian tradition, so it comes through heredity by Adam, but what is it? Is it that our souls are sinful and our bodies are simply instruments? This cannot practically be the case because when a person is regenerated he or she does not get a new soul, nor is the noetic effects of sin removed.
Jonathan Edwards seems to be the only one I found that has attempted to give an explanation. To sumerize Edwards. Within man God originally created two principles: the inferior, and the superior. The inferior principle which can be called the natural principle dealt with self-love, appetites, and self-preservation. The superior or Supernatural principle was the grace of God supplying man with the ability to communicate and love God which comprised true happiness for man. However, after the fall the supernatural principle was gone because God by His holiness could not continue to dwell in man. God withdrew himself from man because of sin this resulted in the inferior principle replacing the superior principle making man’s focus himself. This is like a candle that lights a room when it is removed it becomes dark. This is what happened to the heart of man it became darkened. From Edwards I conclude that at regeneration God does not reconstitute the Supernatural principle as originally, but instead bestows man with His grace and Holy Spirit. It is as if God brings light into the darkened hearts of the unregenerate making them new creations with new desires to serve Him. However, man still posses a slavish mentality to serve sin, and still contains some sort of desire for sin after regeneration.
Jonathan Edwards explains:
"There was an inferior kind, which may be called NATURAL, being the principles of mere human nature; such as self-love, with those natural appetites and passions, which belong to the nature of man, in which his love to his own liberty, honor, and pleasure, were exercised: these, when alone, and left to themselves, are what the Scriptures sometimes call FLESH. Besides these, there were superior principles, that were spiritual, holy, and divine, summarily comprehended in divine love; wherein consisted the spiritual image of God, and man’s righteousness and true holiness; which are called in Scripture the divine nature. These principles may, in some sense, be called SUPERNATURAL being (however concreated or connate, yet) such as are above those principles that are essentially implied in, or necessarily resulting from and inseparably connected with, mere human nature; and being such as immediately depend on man’s union and communion with God, or divine communications and influences of God’s Spirit: which though withdrawn, and man’s nature forsaken of these principles, human nature would be human nature still; man’s nature, as such, being entire without these divine principles, which the Scripture sometimes calls SPIRIT, in contradistinction to flesh. These superior principles were given to possess the throne, and maintain an absolute dominion in the heart; the other to be wholly subordinate and subservient. And while things continued thus, all was in excellent order, peace, and beautiful harmony, and in a proper and perfect state. These divine principles thus reigning, were the dignity, life, happiness, and glory of man’s nature. When man sinned and broke God’s covenant, and fell under his curse, these superior principles left his heart: for indeed God then left him; that communion with God on which these principles depended, entirely ceased; the Holy Spirit, that divine inhabitant, forsook the house. Because it would have been utterly improper in itself, and inconsistent with the constitution God had established, that he should still maintain communion with man, and continue by his friendly, gracious, vital influences, to dwell with him and in him, after he was become a rebel, and had incurred God’s wrath and curse. Therefore immediately the superior divine principles wholly ceased; so light ceases in a room when the candle is withdrawn; and thus man was left in a state of darkness, woeful corruption, and ruin; nothing but flesh without spirit. The inferior principles of self-love, and natural appetite, which were given only to serve, being alone, and left to themselves, of course became reigning principles; having no superior principles to regulate or control them, they became absolute masters of the heart. The immediate consequence of which was a fatal catastrophe, a turning of all things upside down, and the succession of a state of the most odious and dreadful confusion. Man immediately set up himself, and the objects of his private affections and appetites, as supreme; and so they took the place of God. These inferior principles are like fire in a house; which, we say, is a good servant, but a bad master; very useful while kept in its place, but if left to take possession of the whole house, soon brings all to destruction. Man’s love to his own honor, separate interest, and private pleasure, which before was wholly subordinate unto love to God, and regard to his authority and glory, now disposes and impels him to pursue those objects, without regard to God’s honor, or law; because there is no true regard to these divine things left in him. In consequence of which, he seeks those objects as much when against God’s honor and law, as when agreeable to them. God still continuing strictly to require supreme regard to himself, and forbidding all undue gratifications of these inferior passions — but only in perfect subordination to the ends, and agreeableness to the rules and limits, which his holiness, honor, and law prescribe — hence immediately arises enmity in the heart, now wholly under the power of self-love; and nothing but war ensues, in a constant course, against God, As, when a subject has once renounced his lawful sovereign, and set up a pretender in his stead, a state of enmity and war against his rightful king necessarily ensues. It were easy to show, how every lust, and depraved disposition of man’s heart, would naturally arise from this private original, if here were room for it. Thus it is easy to give an account, how total corruption of heart should follow on man’s eating the forbidden fruit, though that was but one act of sin, without God putting any evil into his heart, or implanting any bad principle, or infusing any corrupt taint, and so becoming the author of depravity. Only God’s withdrawing, as it was highly proper and necessary that he should, from rebel-man, and his natural principles being left to themselves, is sufficient to account for his becoming entirely corrupt, and bent on sinning against God."
The things of God outside of Scripture are some what speculative if not mysterious, but to be a good student I feel I need to connect the dots as Theologian and Apologist.
I hope this is not an annoyance.
In Christ,
Ryan Dozier
Dr. Ware's reply:
Ryan:
As you know, email is not the best format for such complex questions. Please understand that I must be brief – MUCH briefer than these deserve.
1. You are on track, as I also see things. Lucifer had “freedom of inclination” (as we all do) and hence he always did what he most wanted. I think Gen 3:1-7 is instructive, since it shows how free agents can be influenced to have their inclinations changed and so want, for the first time, as their strongest inclinations, to go against God. Something like this happened to Lucifer who perhaps contemplated some portion of the vast created order that was NOT his, and he began to wonder why he should not have it – after all, he was so magnificent, why should it not be his? So, the same kind of mental transformation occurred in Lucifer as happened with the woman in Gen 3 (see esp. v.6), but it took place in his own mind w/o external temptation occasioning it. Your point about his dependency fits in here, since he was finite, created, and hence did not have everything (in contrast to God). Well, so freedom of inclination works to provide a plausible explanation.
2. No, it is not entrapment so long as the free agent does exactly what he most wants. The ordering of circumstances provides the occasion for the action, but it does not coerce or constrain the action.
3. The sinfulness that continues to mark (and mar) our new natures in Christ is the inner “drive” or “impulse” or “urge” to strike out in independence from God (which sin’s deepest urge is where ever it shows up). God chooses not to end this “urge for independence” w/in a believer, though he could! (Consider 1 Jn 3:1-2 – in a moment, it will be ended!!!). So, why not? I think because he wants us to learn more of the horrors of sin, and our need for grace (there is much in this answer that I can’t unpack).
No simple answer. Some (e.g. Oliver Crisp, Plantinga, Van Inwagen) would appeal to the possibility of libertarian freedom. Any agent can act contrary to her disposition and nature. This appeal fails to explain precisely how sin came to exist since libertarian freedom reduces to capriciousness. Others see sin as a privation of good. Still, others would argue Satan, a created peccable Angel, chose a lesser good, namely self-love, above the greatest Good, God himself. Notice, this is consistent with divine determinism and (compatibilistic)freedom.
Why would God allow this to obtain? God has a morally sufficient reason, it is for His glory and our good. I'll leave it there for now.
Sin
Sin was transmitted either by realism or federal headship. I take both to be true. If realism and traducianism are true then sin can be inherited. Adam sinned thus God justly remove his goodness and restraining Grace. The result was catastrophic the very heart of man was corrupt and darkened. Perhaps you reject realism and traducianism, then one can resort to federal headship with creationism. God gave a command to Adam. Adam disobeyed. Therefore, as punishment God creates each soul with a sinful inclination.
Federal headship accounts for guilt imputed. We possess Adam's guilt since he represented us before God. Once he sinned we were liable for his sin as our representative. We sin by imitation as we encounter sinful role models that influence us to sin.
Thus we are sinners by inheritance, imputation and imitation.
In Detail
The only difficulty, I see, is making sense of the origin of sin without appealing to any libertarian conception of freedom. And this directly leads to the question, who is morally responsible or blameworthy for sin? The moral character of God would strongly deny even the logical possibility of God as the author of sin. This is consistent with the Scriptures conception of God as the most perfect being. Some have affirmed hard determinism to unabashedly ague God is the author of evil yet without sin.
(1)God is the only agent that causes all things. [This is an important premise to distinguish hard and soft determinism]
(2) Man sins.
(3) God causes man's sins.
(4) God is responsible for man's sins.
But even if one grants hard determinism, this is not a problem, since all one has to do is adopt volunteerism. God could not be held responsible for sin, on such a view, given the fact God is ex lex. God would be above the laws and commands He gives to His creation. Furthermore, on such a view the requirement for responsibility would be satisfied. God the highest moral authority would hold man responsible for sin since He is the ultimate authority. I agree, though, such a view is not appealing. Perhaps a moderate view of divine command theory can be properly utilized to argue the same conclusion without the intractable problems of volunteerism.
So how could Satan sin? What is sin? How do people become sinners? The scriptures tell us that only Adam and Eve as the first humans became sinners every person subsequent to Adam is (i.e. exists qua) a sinner. Humans ‘are’ sinners while Adam and Eve ‘became’ sinners.
Sin: Definitions
Sin is any state, disposition, or act that violates God’s commandments.
Sin is anything that is contrary to the purposes, character, and nature of God.
Analysis: Let sin (as a verb such as "sinned" or adjective "sinful") stand for S, and A stand for agent.
(1) If, and only if, an agent is sinful, or wills sin or does sin, then a subject is sinful. This doesn’t seem broad enough to include circumstances thus a revision must be made.
(1)’ If, and only if, an agent is sinful, or wills sin or does sin in circumstances that are sinful, then a subject is sinful.
II.Origin of Sin
Satan:
It is speculative what sin Satan committed. Many people have refereed to pride, selfishness, or self-love as Satan’s sin. He wanted to take God’s place. Satan was good, but he was able to sin. God determined Satan to sin and Satan determined to sin. Satan must have reasoned he should have all that God possesses. Perhaps, external things influenced him; and he gained a stronger desire to sin than to obey God. Notice, however, no matter which sin Satan committed, he always had a reason that motivated him. At no point did Satan sin without a reason (though a bad one at that) or purpose.But how could good choose evil? How could a good creature choose to sin than continue to do good? This is logically possible when we understand Satan was not perfect, impeccable, or omni-benevolent. Therefore, he possessed the ability to do evil. Satan sinned in a way that was quite consistent with his nature.
III.Transmission of Sin
My analysis suggests sin cannot be thought of as a mere bad habit, or evil tendency learned and then internalized. It is not something nurtured in a child. Sinful desires can be cultivated or de-cultivated, but they do not derive from cultivation. Sin is a property all mere humans (thus excluding Christ who was not a mere human), possess. All members of a class possess the property of sin, iff the federal head of that class possesses. Adam sinned, therefore, all mere humans sinned in Adam. But what is the property of sin? Is it transmittable? Sin is not a physical property like H2O, nor is it a supervening property like wetness. It is a property that deals with the soul; therefore, it must be immaterial. Or could it be the lack of a property that gives rise to man's continual sinfulness? Edwards and Augustine thought so! Could it be that God created Adam with certain properties that enabled him to choose between good and evil, and after his choice of evil God was obligated to remove these properties in man? It is not clear if sin is a property or a privation. Whichever position is assumed will lead to different conclusions on the transmission of sin. Either, God, as punishment for Adams sin put in man a positive property for sin (i.e. disposition) or God removed a property from man as punishment for Adam’s sin. It seems more plausible that God removed than added a property that resulted in man being sinners. Such a conclusion would be consistent with God’s character. But what could the property be? Was Adam’s disposition towards good prior to the fall? If so, how could he choose to sin? If God created man to be in constant union with God, and to partake of his goodness this could be disrupted by Adam’s sin. God would have no choice but to punish Adam for sin by leaving man to himself. To leave man with a darkened heart. Man was to live with the light of God but once Adam sinned God was obligated to punish him. This could have resulted in man being left in darkness. God by removing the property of his grace and communion with man leaves man to himself. Man became self-centered and not God-centered. He loved himself more than God. Adam was created good, and therefore, must possess an inclination for good.This inclination was over come by Eve who was convinced by the serpent. The chain of causes and effects lead directly back to Satan. Satan, Adam and Eve were constantly influenced to do good but they determined in their own minds to do that which is evil. Their strong desires to do evil were planned by God. But only those beings which sin can be held responsible for sin since they willingly, deliberately, knowingly and purposely sinned. Some may object and say that since God knew their motives he should have stopped them from sinning But where does this ‘should’ come from? Obviously it is from God, right? If so, we must assume God planned sin and evil with a morally sufficient reason. Both the Calvinist and Arminian must conclude God included sin and evil in His divine plan for a good reason.
However, the Arminian says that God wanted to preserve libertarian freedom, which necessitates the possibility for sin and evil to enter into any possible world. In fact, the arminian argues that there is no possible world with creatures that possess libertarian freedom, with the amount of people like the actual world, in which each creature freely chooses not to sin. The number of people with libertarian freedom increases in any state of affairs the potential of sin and evil being committed by those free creatures. Out of all the possible worlds God could have created the options were limited according to the Arminians by God's desire of what was feasible. The Arminian says God could not make a possible world obtain where God determined all of His creatures would freely love and worship Him. Since such a state of affairs would be logically impossible. Something cannot be both determined and free according to the Arminian. God chose the possible world in which He could achieve His plan. The dispute between Calvinists and Arminians is on the nature of God’s plan. Both agree God does not coerce his creatures to act. Hence, they agree God’s moral creatures voluntary act. Thus sin can only rightly be traced back to free creatures. However, the objection still stands, that if God knew X was going to obtain, and he could prevent it, is He not responsible for X obtaining? As Paul says, “Who are you oh man to answer back unto God?” We cannot object to God’s actions since we do not have a moral or logical standard apart from Him. God is all wise, all good, and all knowing, so on faith, we must trust He knows best. So is this the best possible world? Only God is in a position to say what is ‘best’ not us. Only God is intrinsically God. Adam was derivatively good. Adam was created in God’s image. But moral perfection is exclusively an essential property of God not man. Hence man is not in a moral position to question God. However, we can determine that if God can stop Adam from sinning but did not, even though knowing Adam was going to sin; we must conclude it was for a morally sufficient reason. If what I have stated thus far is true, it follows its both metaphysically, logically and morally impossible for God to sin given His moral character and nature. For sin would violate God’s nature which He has revealed. Therefore, we can say in some sense the cause of sin is God, but the author of sin is free-creatures. Only creatures can be properly blamed for sin not the Creator of those creatures. But how does sin get transmitted? Before I can answer this question, I must go back to the subject of sin. The more I think about sin in my own life I am convinced it must be more than a lack or privation. An inability to do what I ought doesn’t seem to require a new nature as 2 Corinthians 5:17 states. It seems the positive disposition toward sin could not merely be a privation. Perhaps God when He instructed Adam and commanded him not to eat of the forbidden fruit the violation of the command had the consequence of dying spiritually that entailed guilt, and a disposition to sin to all mankind. This disposition became natural when it was unnatural. Adam was created with a disposition of righteousness, but then this disposition changed to unrighteousness as punishment for sin. The sinful bias in man from Adam to his decedents was passed on by a legal declaration, inheritance and imitation. God transmits the sinful bias in man either directly or indirectly. Sin deals with the soul. But the human soul is either individually created by God or by humans with God’s directive. Either God gave man the ability to reproduce after their own kind which includes both body and soul. Or man produces bodies by procreation and God creates souls for them. It seems to me we should understand sin as being transmitted by procreation. The sinful bias is transferred by inheritance. Person X reproduces with person Y and conceives a child XY with dispositions from both parents. What is included in all cases with mere humans is they are all born sinners. As a human soul inhabits a body and all its various physical parts this likely includes any given woman's egg, and man's sperm.
Summary
Sin is a state, disposition or action that violates God’s commandments, which reflect His essential good nature. Sin originated with His creatures and not the Creator. Satan and Adam sinned willfully according to their natures. They were never forced to sin but chose by their own reasoning. Subsequent to Adam’s sin, man died spiritually. This entails man is born sinful in a fallen world. Man inherited from Adam a sinful nature, i.e. a soul that ultimately desires sin and uses the body to reach that end. Sin is transmitted by imputation, inheritance, and imitation. Sin is inherited through procreation. A man and woman reproduce after their own kind; hence they reproduce bodies and souls by procreation. A man with a woman produces a human being with a sinful nature. At regeneration a person is given a new nature and therefore, his sinful nature is removed. Thus his new nature, with its desires, is to please God. He still sins but not fully willing. He does not fully consent to sin nor does he find his identity from it.
Clay Jones. Original Sin: Its Importance and FairnessHere
James N. Anderson. Calvinism and the First SinHere
Paul Helm. The Great Christian Doctrine(Original Sin) in A God Entranced Vision of All Things: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton, IL: CrossWay, 2004) p.p.175-200.
Paul Copan. "If God's Creation Was 'Very Good', How Could Evil Arise?"Here
Personal Reflections
The problem of sin and evil can be resolved by the fact God is the standard of good. His commandments and actions are a reflection of His omnibenevolent nature. The reason God planned the existence of evil and sin in His providence is not fully disclosed by God but He has revealed Who He is. Hence, He must have a morally sufficient reason for why He has planned sin and evil to existence given His nature. Furthermore, God uses sin and evil for ultimately good. Therefore, we ought to trust God and His providence.
A wonderful argument by Paul Helm regarding sin and evil.
See
Paul Helm. Eternal God. 2nd Ed. (Oxford: Oxford P, 2010)p.162.
Downing, William. The Problem of Evil Here
