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.
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.
1. A person cannot rightly claim that Christ died for
him, unless he knows he's elect.
This objection is answered when we understand that a person
can know he/she is elect by repenting and trusting in Christ for salvation. It
is true that Calvinism teaches that Christ did not died for every single
individual. However, Calvinism asserts that Christ died for all those that
repent and trust in Him. Thus people can know they’re elect by obeying
God—repenting and trusting in Jesus Christ.
2. Doesn’t God have to “force” a person to believe the
gospel?
It depends on what is meant by ‘force.’ If one means that
God does everything, including believe for a person, then no. That would be
hyper-Calvinism. If by it one means that God makes a person believe, like a
person is forced to give money to a gunman, then no.But if force is understood as changing a person’s heart, and
desires to willingly want salvation, then yes.
3. If God makes a person trust in Christ, then a person
does not have to do anything.
This objection is confusing Biblical Calvinism with
Hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that God changes a person’s heart giving
him/her the ability to trust in Christ (Eph 2:1-5). Thus a person does
something, namely believes in Christ, but behind this action is God’s
enablement. In modern terms, a person commits him/herself to the person of
Christ. But this commitment is only possible by God’s grace. Everyone is
obligated to commit one’s self to Christ. Have you attempted to do so? If not
why?
4. If Calvinism is true people do not need to preach the
gospel.
This objection is a repackage of the previous
Hyper-Calvinist idea that God does not need or require means to accomplish his
will. Again, this is against what scripture teaches. God does whatever He
pleases (Psalm 115). It is true that God does not need anything, but if God
requires means to accomplish His will then we cannot object to it. God has
commanded Christians to preach the gospel as a means to draw people to Himself.
Furthermore, if God commands something, it is sufficient to
obligate us to obey. So if God says preach, we should preach. If God says
believe, we should believe. If He says repent, we should repent.
5. It doesn’t matter what your motive is for believing in
Christ.
This is not true. The very reason why there is a distinction
between pure and impure motives testifies to the fact. A pure desire for
salvation is one that is Scriptural. For example, in Luke 13 Christ commanded
people to repent or perish, indicating that fear of hell is a proper motivation
to obey God. A more broad definition could be that pure motives are ones that
consider God as the primary one offended by our sins. Thus we should seek to
please and make right, the wrong done by our sins the way God has commanded
through his Son. The offended party should be our primary concern, which is
God. In summary, pure desires/motives are Scriptural and Theo-centric
(God-centered). Motives, although maybe noble, cannot be based on a desire to
please man but God. For example, a person should not desire salvation merely to
be a part of a Christian community. Nor should a person trust in Christ in
order to please their Christian friends or family. A person should want to
please God and have a right relationship with Him, regardless of anything else.
Thus a person, individually, trusts Christ for salvation because of awareness
of sin and the only remedy Christ.
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
