Who Created Evil?

The Reason For My Faith ^ | 9/24/22 | Chuck Ness

[OneVike]

The debate about who created evil is an important one, since atheists and skeptics use the existence of evil in their arguments against theism. To begin with, Christians are told we must believe what the Bible tells us. Even a popular children's song has in its lyrics these words,

“Jesus Loves Me this I know, for the Bible tells me so"

If it is incumbent upon Christians to believe what the Bible tells us, then we can start with the first verse of the Bible that says,

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
(Genesis 1:1)

So, if God created everything, and if evil is in the world, doesn't it follow that God created evil? After all, in his Gospel, the most beloved Disciple tells us,

“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”
(John 1:3)

Thus God made everything through Christ. However, are there any Scriptures that specifically say God is the author of evil? Well, the closest we can get is,

“I make peace and create calamity”
(Isaiah 45:7)

Then we read what the Prophet Amos wrote,

“If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?"
(Amos 3:6)

Ok, so can we then point to any passages that might elude to God condoning evil? Probably the best examples would be the time Joseph confronted his brothers who sold him into slavery,

“you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good"
(Genesis 50:20)

Then in Exodus we read that God sent Moses to Pharaoh with this message, Now, to make an honest Scriptural argument for my stance on this issue, I had to first share with you the verses used by those who argue that Scriptures prove God is the author of evil. Those who come from the persuasion that God has foreordained the entire course of events  as Calvinists do, then reason and logic would suggest that God must be the author of evil. However, Calvinists who teach that God is the author of evil would be wise to pay attention to the following quote from (John Calvin) himself:

“It is helpful, I think, to understand that sin is not itself a thing created. Sin is neither substance, being, spirit, nor matter. So it is technically not proper to think of sin as something that was created. Sin is simply a want of moral perfection in a fallen creature. Fallen creatures themselves bear full responsibility for their sin. And all evil in the universe emanates from the sins of fallen creatures.” Calvin goes on to state unequivocally that, “God's role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things--including all the fruits of all the evil of all time--work together for a greater good.”
[Institutes, 3:23:8]

Mind you, the biggest defenders among Christians who believe God created evil are those who adhere to the teachings of John Calvin. Well it seems to me that there is a bit of a schism in the ranks of the Calvinist movement.

Two verses used to defend the belief that God created evil are (Isaiah 45:7) and (Amos 3:6). In both instances the word evil, not calamity, is used in 12 of the 21 Bible translations I have. It is important to note that all but one of the translations using the word evil were published before 1948. This is important, because in 1948 the (Dead Sea Scrolls) were discovered by a shepherd boy in the caves of Qumran in 1948. After exhaustive and painstaking investigation,it was learned that the Scrolls revealed that the proper translation for these verses would actually be disaster or calamity, not evil.

Now some may argue that a calamity is an evil, because it causes pain and misery and so they will still argue that God is the creator of evil. However, when speaking of evil in regards to the nature of sin, it should be observed that there are three kinds of

[OneVike]

I would be curious as to how many who have an opinion, actually read the whole commentary before you responded.

Since some of you agree with the commentary, yet you write as id you disagree with it.

Do not be fooled by a commentary that has a question for the title.

[aquila48]

“Rather, God willfully created a perfect being, with a perfect free will which potentially could become evil, which therefore meant this perfect being, with a perfect free will could make choices, and choose to disobey Good, thus resulting in evil. “

That is the most tortured abuse of the language I’ve seen in a long time. It’s almost as good as saying men can get pregnant and women can have penises.

So your perfect, all loving God created perfect beings and part of this perfection included the ability to do the most cruel of things.

Now THAT’S what I call “perfection” and “all loving”.

Moreover, being an omniscient being, your God knows that all this evil is going to happen and being all powerful he has the power to stop it but chooses not to.

Yep, it’s exactly what I would do if I was an all loving, all powerful, all knowing perfect God.

Is that what you would do?

[daniel1212]

the illogical premise that perfection must preclude having the ability and freedom to choose to act contrary to His creator, and thus uncompelled, willfully choose to defile himself. Only by stubbornly persisting in his implicit premise that perfection must mean inability to make moral choices can the author insist in his charge that "God willfully created evil."

" And what is my false dilemma. What choices have I left out? And please cut out the word salads and be concise and explicit. " What is so hard to comprehend? Is it that you cannot tolerate actual reasoned analysis of your illogical implicit premise that perfection must preclude having the ability and freedom to choose to act contrary to His creator, and thus uncompelled, willfully choose to defile himself, in preference for irrational anti-theist rants?

[Rurudyne]

Not an obfuscation at all. Evil is simply the absence of goodness, or rather godliness, and I suggest is something subsequent to the real defect. It is not the case that people have to have the option to be evil if they are to be good. We need to back up from that idea, for if we make wisdom and morality, our “goodness”, the thing we have still placed something on the throne of our heart in place of the Lord. That is where the rubber meets the road.

You may have heard claims that Genesis presents Adam and the Woman (he didn’t give her a name till after the fall) as somehow being set up to fall, that they lacked what they needed to resist temptation; however, in part taking a cue from what Christ would later say about how people had to become like little children to enter the Kingdom, I want to suggest that they were well equipped to resist temptation.

What they had going for them is the experience and time with the Lord so that they did not just have to trust Him as small children more or less automatically trust their parents but had time to learn that they can trust Him based on experience, on the relationship. The temptation to become wise was couched in the suggestion that the Father could not be trusted, that He was holding out on them.

The violation of that relationship, that dependence and trust, is what brought a want for holiness and the restoration of the trust and dependency (ultimately and finally in Christ) like children is what restores the relationship and holiness.

Knowing both good and evil is just a symptom of the underlying defect, the lack of holiness and rightly knowing the Father, which is why morality — being moral is both an obligation and itself part of the problem we face ... discriminating against sin (evil) and in favor of the good is what we simply ought to do — is not something worthy of a non-proverbial ticket to heaven. Much more is needed (”unless your righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees you cannot enter the Kingdom” doesn’t mean they were immoral, after all, for they were very, very moral ... and they had Him crucified).

[daniel1212]

"So you’re telling me God has as much control over us as a parent has over a rebellious child. Doesn’t sound very powerful, does it?"

While God has more control, in both cases the rebellious child could be prevented, but in context, the analogy only refers to how you can be grieved by the actions of person even though he could have prevented the person from exercising his will. Why the child is so is another aspect.

"Also, a parent has little control over the inborn traits of his offsprings, whereas God supposedly has total control, so why does YOUR all powerful, all loving god create imperfect and even evil beings and let them run amock?"

Supposedly? You mean you find that having total control is contrary to allowing man much control? That is simply not rational. Of course, neither the devil nor Adam and Evil were rebellious by nature in sinning, while as said, man is only judged for what he is culpable for, and to that degree, not for sins of his parents or consequences, but for what he does with what he has. As in giving "it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." (2 Corinthians 8:12)

That’s something only a sadistic SOB would do. No?""

Rather, your irrational rage seems to be against God allowing perfect beings to be able to make moral choices, and thus sin, and become morally prone to sin, and to continue to make choices, and to allow them to affect others.

Which is simply reiterating the irrational anti-theist rant that a good God is inconsistent with allowing evil, as if exceedingly finite minds as mere specks in this exceedingly vast, well-ordered, systematic universe, exquisitely finely tuned for earthly life with its extensive diversity and astounding complexity, are in any kind of position to even judge what is ultimately evil.

But perhaps you in your presumed omniscience have a better plan, in the light of all that can be known, in time and eternity. So as offered, let us consider some alternatives:

God could have,

• 1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible, even as with clouds].

• 2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices, and no devil or God].

• 3. left man only with recourse to finite competing sources as his ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security, and supreme judge of what is good [atheism and atheistic governments].

• 4. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. Yet always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]).

• 5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices].

• 6. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [isolated consequences to choices].

• 7. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of judicial and eternal consequences, positive or negative].

• 8. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose between, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice].

• 9. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for what is Good, with justice yet with mercy, and grace, towards those who want good, and who thus the One who is supremely Good.

• 10. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees relative to iniquity and accountability, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given].

[OneVike]

That is the simplistic answer, and one many theologians fall upon. I am looking for a more in-depth response. However I do not wholeheartedly disagree with you.

I have been forced to pay good money to have an official web page designed, because, Google has been deleting some of my old posts. Since the other one is a free blogspot, they have that right. Wokeness has attacked me again. Similar reason I was fired by the newspaper the Enterprise record back in 2012.

So I went with a pay service and an official website. I only posted the excerpt to drive traffic and check all the stats and things. In time I will again go back to posting the full articles.

Yet, in the short 10 hours this post has been up, my tracker tells me approximately 700 people have opened this thread to at least check it out. Whether they read past the title and first paragraph I will never know, however, only 95 have actually visited the web page to read the full article.

I truly wonder how many actually followed the link to read the whole commentary.

If they had I would have expected some who wrote responses agreeing with me to concur, yet I see no responses to a video I posted. My reason for the video is related to my commentary. Anyone who read it would possible see the connection.

Yet, many have opinions they wish to share, and many of those will seldom if ever spend the time to actually read a full article to see if their opinion agrees with the article before writing their opinion. My commentary is in agreement with some interesting comments, which are worded in a way to think I believe otherwise. Or at least eluding to it enough to give them pause. Human nature is interesting, and the nature of FReepers always amazes me when it comes to their opinions, because so often their opinions belie their diligence to see if they agree with what they are responding to before posting their opinions.

[OneVike]

Wow. Wonder why this has never been discussed before.

Because so many think we all agree, when in truth we don't.

Read this comment I wrote to metmom, comment #66

[aquila48]

“You mean you find that having total control is contrary to allowing man much control? “

Well if I had total control and my aim was to create a “good” man, I would definitely not give man the ability to do evil.

I would not create a Frankenstein... or a Satan.

Makes no sense.

[daniel1212]

“Rather, God willfully created a perfect being, with a perfect free will which potentially could become evil, which therefore meant this perfect being, with a perfect free will could make choices, and choose to disobey Good, thus resulting in evil. “

"That is the most tortured abuse of the language I’ve seen in a long time. It’s almost as good as saying men can get pregnant and women can have penises."

No, that is simply a false analogy which is based upon your false premise of what perfection MUST mean in order for your anti-theist argument to be valid. Biologically man cannot become pregnant, but nowhere are perfect creations described as meaning the inability to make moral choices, and instead to be as clouds. Nor does it mean that such created beings must choose to sin.

Instead, you are imposing upon Scripture your own idea of what perfect created being must be, in order to maintain your irrational argument against God.

"So your perfect, all loving God created perfect beings and part of this perfection included the ability to do the most cruel of things. Now THAT’S what I call “perfection” and “all loving”."

Likewise, you are imposing upon Scripture your own idea of what “perfection” must be, and “all loving” (contrived) in order to maintain your untenable argument against God.

"Moreover, being an omniscient being, your God knows that all this evil is going to happen and being all powerful he has the power to stop it but chooses not to. Yep, it’s exactly what I would do if I was an all loving, all powerful, all knowing perfect God. Is that what you would do?"

You mean "all loving, all powerful, all knowing perfect God" from whom comes every good thing from air in your lungs to taste buds and sensual abilities and sun and rain, and good laws, and both restrains evil so that the whole world is not a N. Korea while in much longsuffering allowing men to misuse His creation, and knows both all the thoughts and intents of man, and what all the effects will be of even your next step in this life and eternity. And omnipotent, so that you can make all work out for what is just, as well as showing mercy and grace to those who want Truth over deception, Him over sin. (John 3:19-21; Romans 8:28)>

You want to know what I would do if I were this omniscient omnipotent being? I would do what is ultimately that latter, while as an exceedingly finite person in humanity and history and in this vast universe, you cannot sit in judgement on any omniscient omnipotent being without presuming omniscience yourself.

[ShadowAce]

Well if I had total control and my aim was to create a “good” man, I would definitely not give man the ability to do evil.

You are close in your theology, but still fall a little short of completeness (IMHO).

One CANNOT be "good" without the possibility of being "evil." Thus, I agree with you--God did create evil.

I would not create a Frankenstein... or a Satan.

Without Satan, how would we be good? How would "good" be measured?

For those of you who think God cannot have created evil, Then where did Satan come from? Also, pay attention to the book of Job. Satan talks with God regularly. God is not apart from evil--yet He still maintains His holiness.

[daniel1212]

"Well if I had total control and my aim was to create a “good” man, I would definitely not give man the ability to do evil. I would not create a Frankenstein... or a Satan. Makes no sense."

Rather, it is your attempted arguments that are are non-sensible in the light of reasoned, objective, informed examination. Which you manifest that you have no real tolerance for versus parroted ignorant, nonsensical irrational anti-theist rants - most all of which parrots are also therefore liberal, as the only supreme moral standard is themselves.

[daniel1212]

"For those of you who think God cannot have created evil, Then where did Satan come from? Also, pay attention to the book of Job. Satan talks with God regularly. God is not apart from evil--yet He still maintains His holiness. "

Read the above refutations of the illogical premise that perfection must preclude having the ability and freedom to choose to act contrary to His creator, and thus uncompelled, willfully choose to defile himself. Nowhere are perfect creations described as meaning the inability to make moral choices, and instead to be as clouds. Nor does it mean that such created beings must choose to sin.

To the contrary, as defined by Scripture, perfect includes having the perfect ability to make moral choices and thus corrupt thyself. Not a bug but a feature:

Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (Ezekiel 28:14-15)

[Zionist Conspirator]

The debate about who created evil is an important one, since atheists and skeptics use the existence of evil in their arguments against theism.

This is idiotic. Objective evil cannot exist without G-d Who alone defines what is good and what is evil.

Non-theists have no business having a moral code of any kind, or believing that anything is evil.

[aquila48]

“but nowhere are perfect creations described as meaning the inability to make moral choices” “

You’re torturing the language again.

So you consider a creation perfect even though you allow it to make the most vile of choices.

Would you intentionally create a Frankenstein and call that perfection?

This really points to the essence of this discussion.

It’s about the definition of terms. It’s torturing semantics to the point that words no longer have any objective, or at least agreed-to, meaning, all for the purpose of justifying an illogical and inconsistent belief system.

In that effort you are reducing yourself to absurdities like defininv perfection as perfect imperfection, loving as torture, all powerful as not all that powerful. Or to quote Orwell - War is Peace.

Seems like you should be right at home with the belief that men can get pregnant and women can have penises.

Words mean what you want them to mean to serve your purpose.

I think it might have been Socrates who said, “You can resolve any argument is 10 minutes provided you first agree on the definition of the terms”

As it stands, you and I are speaking different languages.

[ShadowAce]

Non-theists have no business having a moral code of any kind, or believing that anything is evil.

Non-theists tend to use the same vocabulary, but use a different dictionary. "Evil" in their minds is whatever "harms" society, people, etc. It's harder to define.

But overall, I do agree with you.

[OneVike]

Awe but they poison the minds of those who are not yet exposed to the truth, so this must be a seeded to be sure the minds full of mush are not led astray before they even have a chance to realize they are being indoctrinated into evil

Would you truly send your child off to school before you prepared them for the possibility of being told lies?

Sadly many do, and todays youth is an example of parents not preparing them before they get indoctrinated

[JPG]

If he knows with 100% certainty what I’m going to do tomorrow or next year that means I have no choice in the matter - I have no freedom to choose what I’m going to do.

Knowing that something will happen is never the cause of it happening. You always have free will to choose your actions.

[aquila48]

“You are close in your theology, but still fall a little short of completeness (IMHO).

One CANNOT be “good” without the possibility of being “evil.” Thus, I agree with you—God did create evil.”

Good to hear we’re at least in partial agreement.

“Without Satan, how would we be good? How would “good” be measured?”

So you create evil so you can measure it?? Would it not be better and more humane to simply have a creation that is morally neutral without the need for suffering and judgment?

Or would that be too boring?

[Scrambler Bob]

This is not possible as God is good.
= = =

Do you have a Bible verse for that?

And, define ‘good’.

[Chode]

yup...