Author of Evil?

[stevezemlicka]

I have some questions that I was hoping to get a non-reformed perspective on. It seems that a common objection to reformed soteriology is with regards to God being the author of evil under a reformed perspective. It seems that this contention stems from God making decisions or taking actions that necessarily bring about evil, particularly in people's specific actions or their choice (or lack thereof) with regards to salvation. Hopefully that is an accurate, albeit succinct, representation of the objection.

For those who have used and consider this objection to be reasonable, how do you avoid the inherent implications?

When I consider this objection, I run into aspects of it that I find difficult to reconcile. Let's, for a moment, presume that it is right to think that if a decision or action of God's necessarily brings about evil, that makes Him the author of that evil. Let's also presume that God knows the future decisions and actions of future people (evidenced by prophecy). Even if people are afforded libertarian free will, how does God avoid culpability considering He knows the evil someone will enact (though freely) if they are created and yet, in spite of this certainty, nevertheless creates them?

Disclaimer: In case it wasn't obvious, I'm sure most would consider me reformed or "Calvinist". I hope this does not dissuade participation or stifle dialog. I am not looking to spark an argument. I am, though, looking to understand other perspectives better. I also don't consider myself a particularly bright individual so I'm sure this question has been asked and answered before. I apologize if it has. I just couldn't find it anywhere else. Finally, I apologize if anyone doesn't like the term "non-reformed" but I know there are many positions that fall into this category (Arminianism, Provisionism, Traditionalist, etc.) and I don't know of a better term to encapsulate as many of them as possible.

 

[Cameron143]

I have some questions that I was hoping to get a non-reformed perspective on. It seems that a common objection to reformed soteriology is with regards to God being the author of evil under a reformed perspective. It seems that this contention stems from God making decisions or taking actions that necessarily bring about evil, particularly in people's specific actions or their choice (or lack thereof) with regards to salvation. Hopefully that is an accurate, albeit succinct, representation of the objection.

For those who have used and consider this objection to be reasonable, how do you avoid the inherent implications?

When I consider this objection, I run into aspects of it that I find difficult to reconcile. Let's, for a moment, presume that it is right to think that if a decision or action of God's necessarily brings about evil, that makes Him the author of that evil. Let's also presume that God knows the future decisions and actions of future people (evidenced by prophecy). Even if people are afforded libertarian free will, how does God avoid culpability considering He knows the evil someone will enact (though freely) if they are created and yet, in spite of this certainty, nevertheless creates them?

Disclaimer: In case it wasn't obvious, I'm sure most would consider me reformed or "Calvinist". I hope this does not dissuade participation or stifle dialog. I am not looking to spark an argument. I am, though, looking to understand other perspectives better. I also don't consider myself a particularly bright individual so I'm sure this question has been asked and answered before. I apologize if it has. I just couldn't find it anywhere else. Finally, I apologize if anyone doesn't like the term "non-reformed" but I know there are many positions that fall into this category (Arminianism, Provisionism, Traditionalist, etc.) and I don't know of a better term to encapsulate as many of them as possible.

You just began a thread. Many people might respond. Some may feel strongly about this subject. Some who feel strongly may communicate with others who feel equally strongly the opposite way. They may sin during their discourse. Are you responsible?

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Is God the Author of Evil?

I think He can work with whatever is out there for His glory. For example, Pharaoh hardened his heart against letting Israel go repeatedly. So God saw that and thought to Himself, "Hmm, I could work with that to bring glory to myself before Israel (and Egypt too) and punish Pharaoh at the same time. So God confirmed Pharaoh in the hardness of his heart and brought the Plagues against Egypt.

The next thing you know, Israel is being eagerly escorted out of Egypt. Was God to blame for Pharaoh's hardness of heart? No, but worked with Pharaoh's sin against him to free Israel.

What it all boils down to is God is incredibly creative and knows how to work with anything for His glory and our good!

 

[stevezemlicka]

You just began a thread. Many people might respond. Some may feel strongly about this subject. Some who feel strongly may communicate with others who feel equally strongly the opposite way. They may sin during their discourse. Are you responsible?

I suppose if I knew without a doubt that people would certainly sin as a direct and sole result of my post, possibly. That's a great question.

 

[stevezemlicka]

Is God the Author of Evil?

I think He can work with whatever is out there for His glory. For example, Pharaoh hardened his heart against letting Israel go repeatedly. So God saw that and thought to Himself, "Hmm, I could work with that to bring glory to myself before Israel (and Egypt too) and punish Pharaoh at the same time. So God confirmed Pharaoh in the hardness of his heart and brought the Plagues against Egypt.

The next thing you know, Israel is being eagerly escorted out of Egypt. Was God to blame for Pharaoh's hardness of heart? No, but worked with Pharaoh's sin against him to free Israel.

What it all boils down to is God is incredibly creative and knows how to work with anything for His glory and our good!

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I'm not sure that addresses my question. Can you help me correlate this response a bit more directly to the questions I posted?

 

[stevezemlicka]

I suppose if I knew without a doubt that people would certainly sin as a direct and sole result of my post, possibly. That's a great question.

Bear in mind, this is with the presumptions listed in the OP (the ones necessary to make sense of the objection). This doesn't necessarily reflect my actual belief.

 

[Cameron143]

I suppose if I knew without a doubt that people would certainly sin as a direct and sole result of my post, possibly. That's a great question.

In one regard, God is the first cause of all things because in the beginning, God...
But being first cause doesn't make one responsible or culpable for the choices of others. The possibility of something doesn't cause it to come to pass.

 

[Magenta]

Even if people are afforded libertarian free will, how does God avoid culpability considering He knows the evil
someone will enact (though freely) if they are created and yet, in spite of this certainty, nevertheless creates them?

God has not avoided taking responsibility is one way I see it, although man is also held responsible
for his choices. I think the main objection people have with God supposedly "ordaining" everything
is that it certainly does give the impression that He is making people do things that go against His
moral will. This necessarily includes God punishing people for not choosing Him when that choice
was never given to or meant for them according to how election is often presented.

 

[stevezemlicka]

In one regard, God is the first cause of all things because in the beginning, God...
But being first cause doesn't make one responsible or culpable for the choices of others. The possibility of something doesn't cause it to come to pass.

I agree. But this undermines the objection. I'm more looking for the rationale behind those that support the objection than refutations of it.

 

[Cameron143]

I agree. But this undermines the objection. I'm more looking for the rationale behind those that support the objection than refutations of it.

Oh sorry. Carry on.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

I have some questions that I was hoping to get a non-reformed perspective on. It seems that a common objection to reformed soteriology is with regards to God being the author of evil under a reformed perspective. It seems that this contention stems from God making decisions or taking actions that necessarily bring about evil, particularly in people's specific actions or their choice (or lack thereof) with regards to salvation. Hopefully that is an accurate, albeit succinct, representation of the objection.

For those who have used and consider this objection to be reasonable, how do you avoid the inherent implications?

When I consider this objection, I run into aspects of it that I find difficult to reconcile. Let's, for a moment, presume that it is right to think that if a decision or action of God's necessarily brings about evil, that makes Him the author of that evil. Let's also presume that God knows the future decisions and actions of future people (evidenced by prophecy). Even if people are afforded libertarian free will, how does God avoid culpability considering He knows the evil someone will enact (though freely) if they are created and yet, in spite of this certainty, nevertheless creates them?

Disclaimer: In case it wasn't obvious, I'm sure most would consider me reformed or "Calvinist". I hope this does not dissuade participation or stifle dialog. I am not looking to spark an argument. I am, though, looking to understand other perspectives better. I also don't consider myself a particularly bright individual so I'm sure this question has been asked and answered before. I apologize if it has. I just couldn't find it anywhere else. Finally, I apologize if anyone doesn't like the term "non-reformed" but I know there are many positions that fall into this category (Arminianism, Provisionism, Traditionalist, etc.) and I don't know of a better term to encapsulate as many of them as possible.

Great News!

 

[Magenta]

Welcome!

 

[stevezemlicka]

God has not avoided taking responsibility is one way I see it, although man is also held responsible
for his choices. I think the main objection people have with God supposedly "ordaining" everything
is that it certainly does give the impression that He is making people do things that go against His
moral will. This necessarily includes God punishing people for not choosing Him when that choice
was never given to or meant for them according to how election is often presented.

Interesting. So bringing this back to the original objection. You would say that though God knows, with certainty, the evil someone will necessarily enact if/when He creates them that He's not "ordaining" the actions. As a result He bears no culpability in that evil. Is that correct?

 

[Magenta]

Interesting. So bringing this back to the original objection. You would say that though God knows, with certainty, the evil someone will necessarily enact if/when He creates them that He's not "ordaining" the actions. As a result He bears no culpability in that evil. Is that correct?

God allowing men to perpetuate evil does not mean God has made them do it. That is
my take on it, whereas those who say God ordains all things makes it sound like He makes
people do the things they do. I acknowledge God's will to be sovereign, but also permissive
alongside moral, meaning, we know right from wrong according to the commandments
(God's moral will) for starters, but choose to do wrong regardless, and God allows it.

Romans 11:32

 

[Magenta]

As a result He bears no culpability in that evil. Is that correct?

I believe God has taken responsibility for the evil that men do, even as He also holds men responsible for the evil that they do.

God has not avoided taking responsibility is one way I see it, although man is also held responsible for his choices.

 

[wattie]

I have some questions that I was hoping to get a non-reformed perspective on. It seems that a common objection to reformed soteriology is with regards to God being the author of evil under a reformed perspective. It seems that this contention stems from God making decisions or taking actions that necessarily bring about evil, particularly in people's specific actions or their choice (or lack thereof) with regards to salvation. Hopefully that is an accurate, albeit succinct, representation of the objection.

For those who have used and consider this objection to be reasonable, how do you avoid the inherent implications?

When I consider this objection, I run into aspects of it that I find difficult to reconcile. Let's, for a moment, presume that it is right to think that if a decision or action of God's necessarily brings about evil, that makes Him the author of that evil. Let's also presume that God knows the future decisions and actions of future people (evidenced by prophecy). Even if people are afforded libertarian free will, how does God avoid culpability considering He knows the evil someone will enact (though freely) if they are created and yet, in spite of this certainty, nevertheless creates them?

Disclaimer: In case it wasn't obvious, I'm sure most would consider me reformed or "Calvinist". I hope this does not dissuade participation or stifle dialog. I am not looking to spark an argument. I am, though, looking to understand other perspectives better. I also don't consider myself a particularly bright individual so I'm sure this question has been asked and answered before. I apologize if it has. I just couldn't find it anywhere else. Finally, I apologize if anyone doesn't like the term "non-reformed" but I know there are many positions that fall into this category (Arminianism, Provisionism, Traditionalist, etc.) and I don't know of a better term to encapsulate as many of them as possible.

The thing I see is calvinists see believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.. and call that something coming from or initiated by man... when it's not.


It's all the work if the Holy Spirit to convict and save.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I'm not sure that addresses my question. Can you help me correlate this response a bit more directly to the questions I posted?

I'm not sure how to do that. All I know is that God is able to see into the future and knows what everyone will do, even the evil that people do and somehow He is able to work with all that for His glory.

Consider that He also has to the power to stop evil from happening. How many times has God prevented an evil to happen and we didn't even know about it? And yet we're wondering why He permits the ones we see and ask how can He allow that?

So I think knowing the evil that people do, God considers what He will allow that He can work with and prevent those that will not benefit anyone.

I don't put any blame on God for the evil He allows. It's not like any of those who commit the evil will get away with it. God allows them for a variety of good reasons.

For example, lot of terrible things happened to me that surprised me that God allowed, but they all happened for a good reason. For me they may have happened because I sinned and needed chastising or the evil that had occurred taught me to run to God for safety, thus causing me to draw close to God.

If the evil occurred to someone else, we rally to them by helping and praying for them, thus becoming a caring corporate body.

The Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews was one of the catalysts that God used to birth Israel in a day and re-established His people there.

So.... Bottom line no one enjoys experiencing the brunt of evil, but God does use it for good.

If anything, we should focus on how we deal with ourselves when it happens to us. Are we going to run to God for help and comfort? Or are we going to turn away from Him because He let it happen to us?

 

[Magenta]

Romans 8:28

 

[Magenta]

Romans 8:28
Thank you for the inspiration to update this verse panel -

 

[Nehemiah6]

I have some questions that I was hoping to get a non-reformed perspective on. It seems that a common objection to reformed soteriology is with regards to God being the author of evil under a reformed perspective. It seems that this contention stems from God making decisions or taking actions that necessarily bring about evil, particularly in people's specific actions or their choice (or lack thereof) with regards to salvation. Hopefully that is an accurate, albeit succinct, representation of the objection.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a summation of Reformed Theology. There are many things which are true, and there are also many things which are false in that Confession. And the first false teaching is this:

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; 65 yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,66nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.67"

The Scripture references given do not actually support this teaching. As a matter of fact it would be absurd and blasphemous to claim that all the sin, evil, perversion, and wickedness on this earth was "unchangeably ordained" by God. The truth of the matter is that God has ALLOWED iniquity on earth after the disobedience of Adam. But it is limited for a season, and for God a thousand years are as one day. So for about six "days" God has allowed all this on earth. But in the near future He will cleanse the earth and establish everlasting righteousness.