The systematics speak of the origin of sin in terms of the fall both with respect to men and angels. The standard view is that all were created in the state of “good” Gen 1:31! and by their own action introduced sin into the universe. But even if we allow this scenario, which disconnects God from His action upon the creature (Concursus) it affords no answer because we can push it back further by asking... “why did God then >allow< these creatures to so rebel and introduce sin in the first place?” By phrasing the question in this fashion the idea of >permission< is unavoidable!  “Was He not able to prevent this?”  If we answer No then we question His omnipotence; but if we say Yes then we question His Goodness! It is within this framework that the idea of "permission" displays its vast inadequacy. The fact of the matter is that God in no way >allows< or >permits< anything. To say this is to weaken the doctrine of sovereignty. God did NOT allow sin to just happen. He actively Decreed, orchestrated and caused the Fall; Rom 11:36; Eph 1:11. We say God "caused" the fall because the activity of God as described in 2Sam 24:1 is presented to us in this fashion by reason of the Hebrew language.

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and *he moved* David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

We are told here that it was God who *moved* David to go do what he did. The Hebrew verb here for "move" is in the form HIPH'IL which depicts Active Causation. It means that God ...Actively Caused.... David to sin!  There just is no way around the language. But there is a relief for the same is said of Satan in the parallel verse in 1Chron 21:1

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and *provoked* David to number Israel.

Here the word *provoked* is the same Hebrew word for *moved* in the Samuel passage and is in the same form which, as I said, shows active causation. The difference is that where Satan is culpable for sin God is not! For one thing, because God is absolutely righteous and holy it is impossible for Him to do any unrighteous thing.  Therefore, whatever He does is right; even if He *moves* His creature to rebellion! Anything that God does is 'Good' by right of the fact of His being GOD! He can do no other. This means that no matter what the condition of the universe was as it came from the hand of God, it was Good! We see no problem at all in Gen 1:31. Whether or not evil angels existed has no bearing on the Divine pronouncement that all was Good; for it was so!

Whether we are talking about men or angels it makes no difference. The doctrine of Divine concurrence is just as applicable otherwise we limit the activity of God. Does not the Judge of all the earth have a right to do what He wills with His creatures? NONE can stay His hand or question Him. Dan 4:35
Thus, in considering the matter of the origin of sin, the nature of the creature is of major importance. Theologians talk about the constitutional make up of Adam; this can well be applied to the fallen angels as well. The question that plagues us is... how in the world did the creature find the wherewithal to rebel against God if he was created "good"?... leaving the word "good" in quotes since we have not yet defined it. The quest then is to try and determine as best as possible what “good” means. The problem is that the Bible supplies insufficient information to allow us to arrive at a conclusive position with respect to the original nature of Adam... and Eve, as they came from the hand of God. Without question they both were without sin and this presents no problem. But does "good" mean that they were unable to sin?  Obviously not for they sinned. Some say that Adam was created “perfect”  without sin.  This included his will; but then they also say Adam’s will was “mutable”. They speak of a “propensity” toward sin. When we then attempt to apply the doctrine of Divine Concurrence by saying that God "moved" Adam to choose sin, as He "moved" David
[2 Sam 24:1] they accuse us of making God the Author of sin because He forced Adam to sin against his will!  But if Adam’s will was mutable, and he had a “propensity” to commit sin, that means he could choose EITHER good OR evil; in which case, for God to “move him” to choose evil would not constitute a forcing of the will, nor would it do violence to Adam's nature.  Moreover, If the will has a propensity for either good or evil how can it be said that an influence in either direction constitutes a forcing of the will? Further, all agree that the will acts according to the nature of the creature! Thus if Adam was able to choose evil, (which obviously he was, for he did so!) then how can it be said that God's moving Adam to sin was a violation of his nature seeing that the "propensity" or ability to sin was of Adam's nature?! John Calvin is not without thought on this matter and I cite him here.

"Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have called her to; eJgemoniko;n.[Greek stuff]. To this he has joined will, to which choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and judgment, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life, but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness.
Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the authority of reason. In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was  -*pliable in either direction and he had not received constancy to persevere,*- that he so easily fell."
Institutes.  Book 1; chap 15; section 8.  my emphasis

If, as Calvin so pointedly states, Adam's will was "pliable in either direction" and "he had not received constancy to persevere", then we have absolutely no problem with the application of Divine concurses to Adam and concluding that, just as God "moved" David to the sin of numbering Israel... so He also "moved" Adam, [and Eve] to the sin which resulted in the fall of the entire human race.
This is a valid application in both instances because in both instances no violence was done to the nature of the creature; neither was there a "forcing" of the will contrary to that nature. Conversely, if Adam totally lacked either the ability or even the "propensity" to sin the objection might well be sustained that God "forced" the creature against his will and nature, and in so doing becomes the direct cause of sin! But this has yet to be proven from the Bible!  Again Calvin addresses this matter...

"At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition,--to make man such, that he either -*could not or would not sin.*-  Such a nature might have been more excellent;13[0] but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give."  ibid.   my emphasis.

Here Calvin is showing that Adam indeed was created with the ability to sin and to call God into account for how He created Adam is itself sin! Then Calvin goes even further by referring to Divine preservation and inquiring why God did not preserve Adam from sin in the garden.

"Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man's fall he might extract materials for his own glory."  ibid.

And so, with this view we confidently affirm that the fall of the human race in the person of Adam came to pass by the process of Divine Concurrence, whereby God, who "energo" all things after the counsel of His own will Eph 1:11 by reason of Divine energy, so moved Adam to do what he did, yet did Adam do so totally and fully of his own will and volition and thereby brought sin and death upon all men... for that all have sinned; in Adam! Though God "moved" him to sin, he so acted of his own volition that he rightly incurred the righteous and just judgment of a Holy God upon himself and all his posterity!

A further problem arises when men say that man in his Redeemed state is restored to the condition that Adam was in before the fall! This places man in the precarious position of being able to fall again!
On the other hand, some want to say that Adam, in his state of perfection had a will that could only choose good... then the problem arises; if he could only choose good how is it that he chose evil and ate the fruit?? This same argument can be applied to angels. The problem is that the Bible is silent on the exact constitution of the nature of men and angels that were created “good”. Why then did only some angels rebel and not all? The only answer to all this is the absolute sovereignty of God in controlling all the decisions and actions of His creatures within the confines of Divine Concursus and the Doctrines of Creation and Providence. This then leaves the holiness and sovereignty of God  intact while at the same time leaves the creature fully responsible and accountable for all his actions and decisions! FIN.

        Return to Theodicy