If sin [disobeying God's law] is created and God is uncreated and God creates sin, then the sin He creates can never become part of Himself because He Himself is uncreated.

[ It's a bit like a cook who makes cakes but by doing so never themselves becomes a cake by that action].

Could God creating sin ever make Him sinful?

  • The issue is only a language one: if something is not-created (uncreated), then it is not created. Commented Sep 24, 2020 at 10:30
  • 2
    What is the relation between the title and the post? God did not create sin, he gave his creatures free will. They sinned on their own. But in principle there is nothing wrong with uncreated X creating Y and then absorbing it into itself. Whether X then remains "uncreated" is a matter of semantics. But generally, it is accepted since Aristotle that entities can undergo changes while retaining their essential nature and identity.
    – Conifold
    Commented Sep 24, 2020 at 10:49
  • A cook is uncooked: he does not cook himself. God is uncreated: he does not create himself. The analogy seems to work... Commented Sep 24, 2020 at 10:55
  • @Conlfold You say "he gave his creatures free will". I would say "God withheld from Adam the grace to obey which was in Christ who did obey. Adam's will was not free of how and why God made it".
    – C. Stroud
    Commented Sep 24, 2020 at 11:47
  • 2
    Why are you not asking whether a cook can become a cake? You seem to think the questions are equivalent. I'd suggest this question be closed as too confused to be answerable. Commented Sep 24, 2020 at 13:55

1 Answer 1



Yes, depending on your definitions, "God" can become sinful, and an uncreated thing can become created.

Your question isn't entirely clear, so let's try and break it down a bit.

"Could something which is, and is uncreated, ever become created?"

It depends.

Let's define an entity, A, that has two characteristics:

  1. that A exists (now)
  2. that A was not created

Now, the attributes of an entity can be of two kinds: "essential", and "incidental". Incidental attributes of an entity are those which can be removed from the entity without fundamentally changing the identity of the entity. For example, if I re-spray my car, it actually doesn't stop being my car. The colour of my car is incidental to its "car-ness". Essential attributes of an entity are those which, once they're removed, cause the entity to become something different entirely. For example, if I remove all the metal from my car and replace it with (say) tapioca, then it is arguable that my car isn't really a "car" anymore. I'm not sure what it is... but it isn't a car.

Whether or not an attribute is essential or incidental is entirely a matter of definition. Let's imagine you're helping me look for my car because I've forgotten where I parked it again. If I describe my car as a "Blue Volkswagen Beetle", then (in that context) "blue" is an essential attribute. You would ignore all the red, green and yellow beetles that you saw. Similarly, if I define my car as the "thing parked in my garage", then replacing the engine with some kind of food-stuff doesn't actually stop it being my car.

So, back to entity A.

If you define A in such a way that (2) "A was not created" is an essential attribute of A, then the answer to your question, "can A ever become created" is obviously NO.

In contrast, if (2) is an incidental attribute of A, then the answer is...

It depends

For example, you could imagine an A that has the ability to create B, an identical copy of itself with the exception of (2). Because A and B have the same essential attributes, it is fair to say that B is, by definition, equivalent to A. The new A is A, and A has become created.

I know, you could say that you now have 2 A's, and that the original one hasn't "become" created. Again, this is a matter of definition...

So, the answer to this question is:

It depends on how you define "something", and how you define "become"

But let's explore your ideas further:

"It's a bit like a cook who makes cakes but by doing so never themselves becomes a cake by that action".

That's right. A cook doesn't become cake by making a cake.

However, this example doesn't cover all possibilities: actually do exist entities that become the thing that they make. For example, a suicide victim does become a suicide victim when (s)he makes a suicide victim.

The essential difference between these example is self-reference. As long as your entity is operating on something other than itself, it cannot change its own nature. However, when it operates on itself (directly or indirectly), then there exists a possibility of a change in the entity's nature.

So, let's examine your final question:

"Could God creating sin ever make Him sinful?"

Philosophically speaking, the answer to this is... YES, as long as (a) we choose the right hypothetical "God", (b) we choose the right definition of "sin", and (c) we ensure that the when "God" creates "sin", the operation effects the essential nature of "God".

So here it is:

Let's suppose that "God" creates a rule that says, "making sin is forbidden". Let's also invent a hypothetical "God" who disobey his own rules. What happens when "God" creates sin? At that point "God" surely becomes sinful!

There is one big caveat to your whole line of thought. In the Christian tradition, it is nonsensical to speak of God as creating sin. Certainly, He created a universe where there was potential for sin, but He didn't create it as such.

Imagine I make a stack of wooden bricks for my son. Imagine that my son uses these bricks to create a facsimile of Stonehenge: a kind of "Block-henge". To what extent is it fair for me to take credit for my son't creation? In my view, it isn't really fair at all. I made it possible for my son to make his henge, but it isn't really my creation at all.

(Something else you said - in the comments - is also nonsensical from the Christian perspective. You suggested that, "God withheld from Adam the grace to obey which was in Christ who did obey". Assuming the Christian perspective on the nature of God, that really doesn't make sense: if Adam lacked the "grace" to obey because of something God did, then Adam can't really be held responsible for his actions. However, the Bible story clearly indicates that God held Adam responsible for his actions. The implication is that Adam was capable of resisting sin, but he chose not to do so. In contrast, Jesus was just as capable of succumbing to temptation as was Adam, but unlike Adam, He chose not to do so. The gist of the matter is this: from a Christian perspective God cannot be held responsible for sin; that's our choice, not His)

  • Technically, there's a massive tradition in theology (esp. Reformed) that denies free choice as such. I've never fully understood the idea, but there it is. Now the poster here only brought up whether an uncreated being can become created, as part of an argument against God being able to sin (if God could sin, He could switch from uncreated to created; but He can't switch; ergo...) However I am unsure if the poster actively accepts the argument... Commented Sep 25, 2020 at 7:44
  • @Kramii If only God is perfect then creation must be "less than" perfect. If God exposes this "less than" to point out the perfection of His Son Jesus, then that might be a holy motive for making a world in which there is sin. Gen 1:31 "very good" might = "fit for this purpose". I see judgement as receiving the consequences of how He made us. Where do you see Adam responsible for His actions? Do you mean instrumental or ultimate responsibility?
    – C. Stroud
    Commented Sep 25, 2020 at 20:15
  • @ Kristian Berry In my comment to Kramii I have put something which may work to clarify a comment of yours.
    – C. Stroud
    Commented Sep 25, 2020 at 20:21

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .