Author of Evil?

[Komentaja]

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.

Good thread, good question and trust me you are much brighter than me, you used a lot of big words I was guessing most of them hahaha.

So you bring out a valid point in my opinion. There is a third option that many have not considered and call it a heresy called "Open theism" I dont know much about it, I dont know how prophecy could ever work with this view, however the view basically says: God knows everything that can be known, God is infinitely wise, but there are certain things He did not expect to happen. They give certain examples of the Bible which we consider anthropomorfisms (or whatever it was) and take it literally like God telling Abraham: "NOW I know" meaning God wasn't sure if Abraham was 100% faithful before.

Another example they use is Israel when God says I was expecting this, but got that instead, what more could I have done? And when they are sacrificing to moloch God says "neither did it enter into my mind" which again seems God was surprised by the wickedness. The fact that God repents when the flood of Noah is brought about, He regrets creating man.

We obviously look at these texts as ways of God talking to us in a way we can relate to and understand, but the open theist view takes these for what it says. I do appreciate that kind of response and it "gets God off the hook" so to speak when it comes to your question of God being the author of evil, HOWEVER, my biggest issue with this view is that it seems like God just isn't Mighty enough, it seems like God is sitting there in heaven calculating the odds of how likely is this thing going to fail and so on.

IF there are any open theists out here, jump in and let us know more. How does prophecy work in this view?

 

[Nehemiah6]

...but there are certain things He did not expect to happen

Another absurd notion. Since God is omniscient that is just nonsense. While God knows the end from the beginning, He allows many things even though they are contrary to His nature and character. But "God is LIGHT, and in Him is no darkness at all".

 

[soberxp]

上帝已经展现了他的能力，他有能力毁灭任何邪恶的人.但这不是上帝的目标，你要知道方法和目标需要一致性.上帝的目标是救赎邪恶的人类.
即使邪恶存在，但上帝选择的目标是拯救和救赎的道路.
You can use ChatGTP to Translate it.

God has shown his power, he has the power to destroy any evil person.This is not God's goal. You need to know that methods and goals need to be consistent.God's goal is to redeem the evil human race.Even though evil exists, God's chosen goal is the path of salvation and redemption.


God knows deeply what he is really doing.

 

[stevezemlicka]

For clarity, I recognize that there are many different arguments for and against the reformed perspective. But I often find, and this isn't isolated to a specific side, that people talk past one another and these conversations get tangled in a web of differing, sometimes incompatible rationales. My intention here is to follow this specific thread of rationale as closely as possible so that I better understand how other thought processes align with or differ from my own. If I don't respond to you specifically, please don't take that as a comment on the quality of your response but rather my feeble attempt to maintain focus on better understanding the position and line of reasoning behind this specific objection.

 

[soberxp]

For clarity, I recognize that there are many different arguments for and against the reformed perspective. But I often find, and this isn't isolated to a specific side, that people talk past one another and these conversations get tangled in a web of differing, sometimes incompatible rationales. My intention here is to follow this specific thread of rationale as closely as possible so that I better understand how other thought processes align with or differ from my own. If I don't respond to you specifically, please don't take that as a comment on the quality of your response but rather my feeble attempt to maintain focus on better understanding the position and line of reasoning behind this specific objection.

Ok, I understand you.
God reveals all of himself to us. He destroys Sodom and Gomorrah,This is only part of showing us the full range of his own abilities,
God wants to show us all about Him so that we can know and understand Him.
God is not focused on destroying evil people, God is focused on destroying evil itself.
Perhaps all God has shown to us will confuse us some students.

It is a process of unity of contradiction, which is us whom is feeling contradiction and not God Himself.

In other words,it is us who wish evil people had never existed but not God.

Philippians
2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

 

[stevezemlicka]

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.

This is an excellent clarification. I had some thoughts along these lines that give me pause. Please bear with me on this thought exercise.

There's a movie series called Saw wherein someone (John) abducts people and puts them in elaborate contraptions or scenarios. They are then forced to make a choice of life or death. The choice of life requires some sort of sacrifice but they have the freedom to choose. Suppose at least one of his victims chooses death (ie. they would rather die than do what is necessary to choose life). Now imagine the police catch this John fellow and you are on the jury in his trial.

There are two charges on the table, kidnapping and murder. The defense concedes to the kidnapping charge so there is no debate on that. However they state that John is not guilty of murder because the victims were the ones that chose death instead of life. John wanted them to choose life and provided a way out. John didn't "pull the trigger" or make the choice that directly resulted in their death, they did. Because of this, they contest, John should not be held to account for the decision that the victim freely chose. Do you consider John guilty of murder?

 

[stevezemlicka]

This is an excellent clarification. I had some thoughts along these lines that give me pause. Please bear with me on this thought exercise.

There's a movie series called Saw wherein someone (John) abducts people and puts them in elaborate contraptions or scenarios. They are then forced to make a choice of life or death. The choice of life requires some sort of sacrifice but they have the freedom to choose. Suppose at least one of his victims chooses death (ie. they would rather die than do what is necessary to choose life). Now imagine the police catch this John fellow and you are on the jury in his trial.

There are two charges on the table, kidnapping and murder. The defense concedes to the kidnapping charge so there is no debate on that. However they state that John is not guilty of murder because the victims were the ones that chose death instead of life. John wanted them to choose life and provided a way out. John didn't "pull the trigger" or make the choice that directly resulted in their death, they did. Because of this, they contest, John should not be held to account for the decision that the victim freely chose. Do you consider John guilty of murder?

I don't want it to seem like I am trying to "trap" anyone into a "gotcha" situation so let me introduce a bit of my own rationale here. Would it be fair to say that there is a distinction between the intentionality of John as compared to God? That is to say that when John orchestrates his plan, he is seeking to hurt. Whereas when God creates someone, His motives are righteous. Is that fair?

 

[soberxp]

Whereas when God creates someone, His motives are righteous.

Yes you get the point.
The justice we need does not have to come from this transient life in the world.
You need to believe that no matter how hard things get for you, God will give you perfect justice in the end.
All we need is God.

 

[stevezemlicka]

I don't want it to seem like I am trying to "trap" anyone into a "gotcha" situation so let me introduce a bit of my own rationale here. Would it be fair to say that there is a distinction between the intentionality of John as compared to God? That is to say that when John orchestrates his plan, he is seeking to hurt. Whereas when God creates someone, His motives are righteous. Is that fair?

If this is the case, then this is where I get lost in the line of reasoning. In the original objection against the reformed perspective, when God causes someone to do something which results in evil, there seems to be no consideration for the fact that God may have a righteous purpose or intention. Take for example the murder of Jesus. If God unavoidably causes the people to condemn and murder Jesus with the bigger picture of salvation in mind, were not His intentions and motives still righteous?

Now, stepping into a reformed perspective, we don't always know or see the righteous motives and intentions (thinking of horrific cases like rape and murder). This also leaves the questions of whether or not it is moral for God to punish someone for something they couldn't necessarily have avoided doing unanswered. But, again, sticking with the original objection, why is it ok to absolve God of culpability because of His righteous motives and intentions in non-reformed perspectives but not OK to do the same from a reformed perspective? If a parent "ordains" the stabbing of a child, the child may be unable to see what, if any, good can be in such an action. But to the parent injecting their diabetic child with insulin, it is a good thing.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

If this is the case, then this is where I get lost in the line of reasoning. In the original objection against the reformed perspective, when God causes someone to do something which results in evil, there seems to be no consideration for the fact that God may have a righteous purpose or intention. Take for example the murder of Jesus. If God unavoidably causes the people to condemn and murder Jesus with the bigger picture of salvation in mind, were not His intentions and motives still righteous?

I don't think God causes anyone to do evil but looks into the heart of people and see what He can work with.

We don't know how He works it out when He's creating people, but it might be that before they were ever born God saw who would be willing to get Jesus killed and then put them together as Judas, the Sanhedrin, the Roman politicians and the crowd that called for his execution, and then sent them down to be born and put in place for the event of Jesus' first arrival.

I just can't see God "unavoidably" causing people to do evil. What I do see is that God is creative and powerful to use whatever is in the heart and mind and actions of people for good.

Also, shouldn't you be asking God yourself instead of mere people? You'll get the best understanding of His heart and mind directly from God Himself. Plus you will avoid possibly maligning His character and accusing Him of things that He is not just to have an "intellectual" discussion going.

 

[Cameron143]

If this is the case, then this is where I get lost in the line of reasoning. In the original objection against the reformed perspective, when God causes someone to do something which results in evil, there seems to be no consideration for the fact that God may have a righteous purpose or intention. Take for example the murder of Jesus. If God unavoidably causes the people to condemn and murder Jesus with the bigger picture of salvation in mind, were not His intentions and motives still righteous?

Now, stepping into a reformed perspective, we don't always know or see the righteous motives and intentions (thinking of horrific cases like rape and murder). This also leaves the questions of whether or not it is moral for God to punish someone for something they couldn't necessarily have avoided doing unanswered. But, again, sticking with the original objection, why is it ok to absolve God of culpability because of His righteous motives and intentions in non-reformed perspectives but not OK to do the same from a reformed perspective? If a parent "ordains" the stabbing of a child, the child may be unable to see what, if any, good can be in such an action. But to the parent injecting their diabetic child with insulin, it is a good thing.

Perhaps one is beginning with too small an understanding of God. What is it like to be infinite? We have a working definition of infinity but we have never done anything infinitely.
So we begin with what God has revealed. We know He is righteous. We also know that God never acts outside of who He is. So I don't think God can do something unrighteous to accomplish greater righteousness. The ends don't justify the means with God.
It is not inconsistent that God can purpose something that finds its fruition in the free choices of men. That only requires omniscience on the part of God.
In the example you use, Peter , in fact, says both are involved in the death of Jesus in Acts 2.

 

[stevezemlicka]

Perhaps one is beginning with too small an understanding of God. What is it like to be infinite? We have a working definition of infinity but we have never done anything infinitely.
So we begin with what God has revealed. We know He is righteous. We also know that God never acts outside of who He is. So I don't think God can do something unrighteous to accomplish greater righteousness. The ends don't justify the means with God.
It is not inconsistent that God can purpose something that finds its fruition in the free choices of men. That only requires omniscience on the part of God.
In the example you use, Peter , in fact, says both are involved in the death of Jesus in Acts 2.

That is an excellent point and I absolutely agree that our limited understanding certainly affects our abilities to reconcile some of these perspectives. I'm also not saying that if someone cannot come up with an answer to this that they're wrong. Again, my intention here is to understand the line of reasoning upon which objections to my position are built. Much ink has been spilt talking past one another. But if I'm going to be spiritually and intellectually honest to God, myself, and others, I think I need to be respectful enough explore even the opposing perspectives rather than putting myself in an echo chamber of like-minded people.

"So I don't think God can do something unrighteous to accomplish greater righteousness."
This is not necessarily what I'm advocating for. Just as in the example of the parent and child. From one perspective, the stab is wrong. But from another perspective it is good. In other words, we might say the murder of Christ was an evil action. But from God's perspective, the exact same thing is righteous. And it's not righteous just because He's bringing about salvation from it. It's righteous for so many other reasons. It demonstrates and reveals God's character. It shows us not only that God is loving and merciful but also that He is righteous in judgement for He did not waive the wages of sin being death, even when Jesus was suffering on the cross.

 

[soberxp]

That is an excellent point and I absolutely agree that our limited understanding certainly affects our abilities to reconcile some of these perspectives. I'm also not saying that if someone cannot come up with an answer to this that they're wrong. Again, my intention here is to understand the line of reasoning upon which objections to my position are built. Much ink has been spilt talking past one another. But if I'm going to be spiritually and intellectually honest to God, myself, and others, I think I need to be respectful enough explore even the opposing perspectives rather than putting myself in an echo chamber of like-minded people.

"So I don't think God can do something unrighteous to accomplish greater righteousness."
This is not necessarily what I'm advocating for. Just as in the example of the parent and child. From one perspective, the stab is wrong. But from another perspective it is good. In other words, we might say the murder of Christ was an evil action. But from God's perspective, the exact same thing is righteous. And it's not righteous just because He's bringing about salvation from it. It's righteous for so many other reasons. It demonstrates and reveals God's character. It shows us not only that God is loving and merciful but also that He is righteous in judgement for He did not waive the wages of sin being death, even when Jesus was suffering on the cross.

You can think of it as God doing righteous things at the right time and place in the face of terrible human mistakes.

 

[Cameron143]

That is an excellent point and I absolutely agree that our limited understanding certainly affects our abilities to reconcile some of these perspectives. I'm also not saying that if someone cannot come up with an answer to this that they're wrong. Again, my intention here is to understand the line of reasoning upon which objections to my position are built. Much ink has been spilt talking past one another. But if I'm going to be spiritually and intellectually honest to God, myself, and others, I think I need to be respectful enough explore even the opposing perspectives rather than putting myself in an echo chamber of like-minded people.

"So I don't think God can do something unrighteous to accomplish greater righteousness."
This is not necessarily what I'm advocating for. Just as in the example of the parent and child. From one perspective, the stab is wrong. But from another perspective it is good. In other words, we might say the murder of Christ was an evil action. But from God's perspective, the exact same thing is righteous. And it's not righteous just because He's bringing about salvation from it. It's righteous for so many other reasons. It demonstrates and reveals God's character. It shows us not only that God is loving and merciful but also that He is righteous in judgement for He did not waive the wages of sin being death, even when Jesus was suffering on the cross.

I applaud your effort at understanding the reasoning from other perspectives.

I agree with your assertion that God can use unrighteousness to work righteousness. That's the idea behind Romans 8:28. It's also linked to Romans 8:37 and a means God uses to make us more than conquerors.

Where I have missed your purpose, my sincerest apologies.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

That is an excellent point and I absolutely agree that our limited understanding certainly affects our abilities to reconcile some of these perspectives.

Precious friend, A Very Warm Welcome To Chat.

Please Be Very RICHLY Encouraged And Edified In
The LORD JESUS CHRIST, And His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided (+ I and II).

Grace, Peace, And JOY!… + RICH Blessings

 

[stevezemlicka]

You can think of it as God doing righteous things at the right time and place in the face of terrible human mistakes.

Well stated. I think at the most fundamental level the question becomes, "was it totally and unequivocally a mistake?"

On one side some would say that it is unequivocally a mistake. But God knew about it (ahead of time) and has a plan to bring about something good from it.

On the other side some would say that it is only a mistake on the part of the person. But, at the same time, God intentionally ordained it because it was a necessary part of His plan to bring about a specific good.

Maybe that's as far as we can take it. Perhaps that's a distinction without a practical difference in life. I suppose that's a whole other discussion as to whether or not that makes a difference. And, if so, what? Perhaps I'll start a different thread to delve deeper into that topic.

 

[stevezemlicka]

I applaud your effort at understanding the reasoning from other perspectives.

I agree with your assertion that God can use unrighteousness to work righteousness. That's the idea behind Romans 8:28. It's also linked to Romans 8:37 and a means God uses to make us more than conquerors.

Where I have missed your purpose, my sincerest apologies.

No apologies necessary. I've found everyone here heartwarmingly (is that even a word?) welcoming, respectful, and insightful...especially considering I came in with such a controversial topic.