Lately there's been talk between Arminians and Calvinists over determinism and its implications on who is the author of sin. Surprisingly, there have been questions over what "author of sin" actually implies. JC Thibodaux said, "The term 'author' as employed by Arminians/Synergists in this case, is used in an originative sense to describe where the evil ultimately arose from. If we can identify, "whose idea was this?", then we’ve found the author." He further explained, "the ‘author’ of an action doesn’t necessarily describe someone directly committing that action, rather it denotes the one who came up with the action to begin with" (seen here). But some have questioned that notion, either questioning what authorship is, or saying that authorship doesn't = blameworthiness.
It's surprising that this problem exists today, since early Calvinists such as Calvin himself and the Westminster divines clearly understood what was meant by the author of sin, and made sure to make clear that their views were not to be understood to make God the author of sin. Of course it would have been nice to see an explanation of that rather than just an assertion, because it seems that the logical progression would indeed end with God as sin's author.
If someone authors a book, that person is the source of the idea and the actual words that appear in that book. That person is blameworthy for anything in that book, whether positive or negative. Likewise, when one refers to someone as the author of a sin, the sin originated in and proceeded forth from whoever carried the sin out, making that person blameworthy. If someone authors something, whatever that something is, we should give that person due credit for whatever they authored. Therefore I think we can say if person x authors action A, A originates in x and proceeds from x. x also has the ability to refrain from A-ing, since A originates in x. Therefore, if divine determinism is true, all actions A originate in God and proceed from God, either directly or through secondary causes, and God would be responsible for A.
Let's look at it this way. I think God is the author of the universe as a whole. He caused the universe to come into being. I want to ascribe responsibility of what God has done to God because He deserves the glory for what He has done. God authored the universe. But if we're okay with God as author of the universe, since the idea originated in His mind, why would we say He isn't the author of sin if all sins originated in His mind?
But still, as Paul Manata said to me, these explanations or definitions of what authorship is remain "uninteresting" to the determinist. I can't see the issue determinists have with these definitions, and why they would be uninteresting. Language is such that you can only describe what something is, its definition, in so many ways. If the other person continues to press for further elucidation, then at some point things just become less clear than they actually were. I have a suspicion this is done to simply make the issue murky, which may be an effective tactic for the determinist, but it answers nothing.
It still remains for the determinist to say how his view actually does not implicate God in the authorship of sin. Yes, you can continue to ask exactly what the words mean. Yes, you can come up with clever allegories. But in the end, how would the determiner of all events not be the author of all events?