Anderson, Calvinism and the First Sin

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]

See also my posts Craig, Providence and Calvinism, Original Sin and Middle Knowledge and Harmatology.

                  

---

[1] James N. Anderson. Forthcoming in Calvinism and the First Sin in Calvinism and the Problem of Evil, edited by David E. Alexander and Daniel M. Johnson (Wipf & Stock, 2014) http://www.proginosko.com/docs/Calvinism_and_the_First_Sin.pdf p.3.

[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

[7]  http://www.proginosko.com/docs/Calvinism_and_the_First_Sin.pdf p.p.30-31

Analytic Theology and Calvinism

Here is a link to an article on Calvinism I just wanted to bring to the attention of my blog readers. It is Paul Manata using the helpful tools and insights of analytical philosophy and applying them to theology.  

God Responsible for Sin?

Page excerpt from Edward John Carnell's"Christian Apologetics."

Harmatology

Quick thoughts

Evil

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

1. Sin is any state, disposition, or act that violates God’s commandments.
2. Sin is anything that is contrary to the purposes, character, and nature of God. 

1. 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

1. 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. 

Previous posts that are directly related, When a Baby Dies, God, Why is there Evil?, Anderson, Calvinism and the First Sin, Craig, Providence and Calvinism, and Original Sin and Middle Knowledge.




Resources

Michael, C Rea. The Metaphysics of Original Sin  Here

Paul Copan.  Original Sin and Christian Philosophy Here

Jonathan Edwards. Original Sin Defended Here

Paul Helm. Blog Entry Here                             

Clay Jones. Original Sin: Its Importance and Fairness Here

James N. Anderson. Calvinism and the First Sin Here

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