Does God Create Evil?

[Revmitchell]

You know what...this IS actually a good discussion (at least for now).

The problem with saying evil is a thing of negation is verses like Isaiah 45:7 or even Lamentations 3:38 that declare that evil comes from God and is the creation of God.

I will go ahead and respond directly to your post unlike any response by you. These verses are being taken out of context by you. I am sure it is not your intention but it is true none the less.

To address the claim that Isaiah 45:7 isn't talking about evil, to say so ignores the meaning of the Hebrew רַע which means 'evil' and is translated plenty of times as 'evil'.

The ESV translates that word evil in that verse as calamity. Just because a particular word is translated one way in one or more verses does not mean it must always be translated that way each and every time. I addressed the issue of context in the op. It seems you did not read it. I would suggest you go to your pastor and have him help you understand how words are placed in different contexts in scripture. He may be willing to give you a basic understanding of these things.

Then there's the claim that only evil can create evil...which there's no scriptural proof of. If only evil can create evil, how did creatures that God created as good do evil? If they got it from Satan, how did Satan do evil? For God created Satan too.

Scripture does not tell us where evil originates. Scripture does not tell us that God made Satan evil. To suggest that is to speculate and form a view from silence rather than a clear declaration.

Speaking of רַע, the mere fact that God created a Tree of Knowledge of Good AND Evil proves the statements that evil is just a negation false for if it were, the tree would have been the Tree of Knowledge of Good...and the creation of such a tree would make the statement that God didn't create evil false.

This statement is question begging. One does not lead to the other.

So if you prefer to refer to evil as the absence of good, then the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is in fact the Tree of Knowledge of Good and the Absence of Good and Isaiah 45:7 reads "God...creates the absence of good". How do you create an absence of something? Or even Lamentations 3:38 should read "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and the absence of good come?" Maybe you all would advocate an ATV bible (Augustinian Theology Version).

The ESV translates that as good and bad not good and moral evil.

Then verses such as James 1:13 would sound like nonsense. "God cannot be tempted with the absence of good nor does He tempt anyone with the absence of good." ?!?!?

James 1:13 is in fact talking about a moral evil as that is the context. Since God cannot tempt us we understand that He does not author it.

The importance of believing that evil is an actual substance like good is and that God had something to do with the creation of it is that you know He can control it. How do you control something that doesn't exist but is only a negation of something that does?

Darkness is nothing more than a lack of light. You control darkness by adding light. Same with moral evil. You control it by adding moral good. I described just how God controlled it in the op.

 

[Alcott]

It was not long ago this was discussed, but if evil does exist, then either God created it or something exists outside his sovereignty.

 

[Revmitchell]

It in fact is in context of the whole book of Isaiah. In fact, in 59:7 the word used for evil in 45:7 is translated evil...in the same book. And you haven't even addressed Lamentations 3:38.

Actually have addressed the lamentations verse twice now. It is the same context of the Isaiah passage. Both mean calamity not moral evil.

Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. (ESV)

Isa 45:7 I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause trouble. I, the LORD, do all these things. (ERV)

Isa 45:7 I am the giver of light and the maker of the dark; causing blessing, and sending troubles; I am the Lord, who does all these things. (BBE)

Lam 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? (ESV)

Lam 3:38 Good and bad each happen at the command of God Most High. (CEV)

 

[Iconoclast]

Why don't you just be kind enough to give your understanding of the two passages directly related to what your position is. Please.

Because you are dealing with RM......that is not how he rolls

 

[Iconoclast]

The word used for evil in Isaiah 45:7 is the same word used to refer to the Tree of Knowledge of Good Evil....and the evil of men in Genesis 6:5.

From The Problem of Evil;

The existence of evil in the universe of a righteous and holy God is a great mystery, yet the Scriptures reveal that God has determined all things and this must include sin. To deny or seek to circumvent this would bring God down to the level of the finite and leave evil as an inexplicable mystery existing in opposition to God in a dualistic sense. This is certainly unsatisfactory.

I. Howard Marshall, a New Testament scholar, seeks to do this because of his Arminian assumptions concerning God and the nature of evil:

The Bible is clear that God is not the author of evil. Its origin is and perhaps must be a mystery. Its evilness lies in its lack of good purpose, and thus in its irrationality and opposition to the purpose of God. How it can have come to exist in a universe created by God is unknowable. We must be content to leave the question unresolved.

The Calvinist falls into error when he ascribes the reason why some people are not saved to the decretive will of God; in effect, he is trying to explain evil. It is wiser to locate the reason why some people are not saved in the sheer mystery of evil.4

DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY That God is absolutely sovereign over all things, even evil, and uses such for his purpose and glory, is a scriptural fact: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” (Isa. 45:7).5
God sent an evil spirit between the men of Shechem and Abimelech (Judg. 9:23–24).

He sent an evil spirit to obsess King Saul (1 Sam. 16:14; 18:10; 19:9).

He brought evil upon Israel for her sins (1 Kgs. 9:9).

A lying spirit was sent by God to lead Ahab to his defeat and death (1 Kgs. 22:20–23).

The Lord appointed the defeat of Ahithophel’s counsel that he might bring evil upon Absolom (2 Sam. 17:14).
God turned the hearts of the Egyptians to hate the Israelites (Ps. 105:25).

The greatest crime in history—the illegality of the trial, the abuse, shame, suffering, and death of the Son of God with all its attendant sin on the part of men—was predetermined by God (Lk. 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28).

How can God do these things and yet remain holy, righteous and free from sin? The issues are two: the origin of sin and the problem of evil. THE ORIGIN OF SIN How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of
4 I. Howard Marshall, “Predestination in the New Testament,” Grace Unlimited, p. 138. 5 Note the statement made by the Scofield Reference Bible: “Heb. ra, translated ‘sorrow,’ ‘wretchedness,’ ‘adversity,’ ‘afflictions,’ ‘calamities,’ but never translated sin. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.” p. 754. [r; (ra'), however, is the common word for moral evil and, although never translated “sin,” it is translated hundreds of times as “evil,” and eighty–one times as “wicked,” “wickedly” and “wickedness,” referring to all types of sins. In this context neither peace nor evil can be used in such a restricted sense as the Scofield Reference Bible has attempted to give these parallel terms, as the Scriptures in their use of these reveal.

http://www.sgbcsv.org/literature/ProblemOfEvil.pdf

 

[Iconoclast]

From The Problem of Evil;



http://www.sgbcsv.org/literature/ProblemOfEvil.pdf

and again;

THE ESSENTIAL ISSUE AND POSSIBLE ANSWERS The “problem of evil” can now be re–stated: How can evil exist in a universe created and governed by an all–powerful, benevolent [inherently and completely good] God? The possible answers, according to human reasoning, are:
• If evil exists (and it does as a sad and awful reality), then there is no omnipotent [all–powerful], benevolent God—the argument of the atheist.

• Evil exists, and therefore, if God exists, he must be either limited in his power or arbitrary in his moral character. The former is the argument of the Pelagian or Arminian; the latter, the argument of those who espouse a non–biblical [pagan] concept of God.

• Evil exists, therefore there is more than one God, or there are equal forces [good and evil] in conflict. This is the non–biblical [pagan] argument of those who would posit a dualism (a “good god” and “bad god” or opposing equal forces or principles of both good and evil), or a polytheism in conflict for control of the universe.9

• Evil does not exist, except as an illusion in our human thinking—the view of some western cults and Eastern religions (e.g., Christian Science, Buddhism). This would make any ultimate distinction between good and evil arbitrary, and thus deny the moral self–consistency of the Divine character.

• Evil exists as a mystery, independent of God, who remains to a limited degree powerful and benevolent. This is the inconsistent argument of some (including
9 This is the thinking of some professing Christians when they reduce their concept of God to the level of the devil, making them equals—a pagan, dualistic concept. Such [non–] thinking is present in such statements as, “God casts his vote, the devil casts his vote, and now it’s up to you to cast your vote,” when referring to the election of sinners to salvation. Such talk is utterly irrational. It is to hold a concept of God that is simply not scriptural, for the Word reveals that God is absolutely sovereign, even over the evil acts of men—and Scripture is the ultimate authority.
Dr. W. R. Downing • Pacific Institute for Religious Studies Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley
9

Pelagians and Arminians), who attempt to deliver God from the charge of being the “author of sin” and yet seek to retain his goodness.10

• Evil exists in the universe of an omnipotent, benevolent God, who is completely sovereign over it and uses it for his own glory and the highest good—the argument of the consistent Calvinist.
GOD IS SOVEREIGN OVER EVIL The last view—that God is absolutely sovereign over both natural and moral evil,11 and uses evil for his own glory and the highest good—is the only view that can be consistently aligned to the teaching of Scripture. Every other view, deriving from sinful [incapacitated by the noetic effects of sin and willful rebellion against God and his truth] humanistic reasoning, and so calling God and his actions into question, seeks to point out an incoherence in the Christian system. These views either deny God and evil, or limit God and seek to bring him down to the finite level and destroy his moral self–consistency—and thus any sufficient or consistent basis for morality.12 The truth of the sovereignty of God over evil may be clarified by the following considerations and implications:

• The existence of evil in a universe created and governed by a benevolent God is not incoherent if God has a morally sufficient reason for this evil to exist. This “problem” is more psychological than logical or philosophical.13 Man would rather call God and his actions into question than submit himself in complete trust (Rom. 9:11–24), even to a God who is benevolent in the context of his righteousness.

 

[robustheologian]

I will go ahead and respond directly to your post unlike any response by you. These verses are being taken out of context by you. I am sure it is not your intention but it is true none the less.

As I said before these verses aren't out of context...they are actually in the context of the entire book of Isaiah, the OT, and the entire Bible. I sighted as an example Isaiah 59:7 (from the same book) and Genesis 6:5 (from the OT). What were people running to in Isaiah 59:7? Were they running to calamity? No, they were running to evil.

The ESV translates that word evil in that verse as calamity. Just because a particular word is translated one way in one or more verses does not mean it must always be translated that way each and every time.

I guess we have the perfect translation in the ESV huh? I guess we should just ignore the Greek. A good translation has what's called "consistency of terms". The KJV and the ASV got it right.

I addressed the issue of context in the op. It seems you did not read it. I would suggest you go to your pastor and have him help you understand how words are placed in different contexts in scripture. He may be willing to give you a basic understanding of these things.

My religion and philosophy and biblical studies degrees show I have a bit more than a basic understanding of these things.

Scripture does not tell us where evil originates.

Scripture does tell us...like I said in Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38 and ALSO John 1:3, Romans 11:36, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and a score of other places:
"All things were made through Him"
"From Him are all things"
"From God, the Father are all things"
Is evil a thing? Yes. What things are from God? ALL things.

The ESV translates that as good and bad not good and moral evil.

If you would take the time to consider what the actual biblical languages says (and not put all your eggs in the ESV basket) you would see that רַע is moral evil...and it is in over 500 places in the OT.

James 1:13 is in fact talking about a moral evil as that is the context. Since God cannot tempt us we understand that He does not author it.

That's the point I was making...but you say evil is a lack of good. So you read James 1:13 as "God cannot be tempted with the absence of good nor does He tempt anyone with the absence of good." Does that make sense to you?

Darkness is nothing more than a lack of light. You control darkness by adding light. Same with moral evil. You control it by adding moral good. I described just how God controlled it in the op.

So it sounds like you're saying evil is not a thing. Are you? Because the Scriptures speak of evil as a thing and not merely the negation of good. But if it's better for you to call evil the deprivation of good then God created that deprivation of good.

Let's go back to basics. Deprivation is a noun. Is deprivation a person, or a place? No...it's a thing. And God is the creator of all things. If God didn't create that thing which is a deprivation of good called evil, then God didn't create all things. But we both know that Scriptures say He did.

 

[Revmitchell]

As I said before these verses aren't out of context...they are actually in the context of the entire book of Isaiah, the OT, and the entire Bible. I sighted as an example Isaiah 59:7 (from the same book) and Genesis 6:5 (from the OT). What were people running to in Isaiah 59:7? Were they running to calamity? No, they were running to evil.


.

The context in other passages does not indicate nor dictate the context in Isaiah 45:7. If in fact you have the education you claim you should know this.

 

[robustheologian]

...other passages does not indicate nor dictate the context in Isaiah 45:7.

Really? Wow...you really don't know what you're talking about. The definition of context is "with text". Context is king...every single time!! Whether it is pericopal, by chapters, by books, by genre, or by whole testaments or Scripture as a whole. Context is king!!

 

[Revmitchell]

Really? Wow...you really don't know what you're talking about. The definition of context is "with text". Context is king...every single time!! Whether it is pericopal, by chapters, by books, by genre, or by whole testaments or Scripture as a whole. Context is king!!

That is right context is King and I have not said anything contrary to that. How a particular word is used elsewhere in scripture does not determine context in this verse. I have started another thread on this verse. This discussion is better taking place there.

 

[robustheologian]

How a particular word is used elsewhere in scripture does not determine context in this verse.

That is an exegetical fallacy.

 

[Revmitchell]

That is an exegetical fallacy.

No its not. In fact in his book on exegetical fallacies D.A.Carson said "To pursue proper word studies, the student must emphasize current usage in a given context (usus loquendi)". pg.21

In fact it is an absurd claim that because it is used elsewhere in scripture means has to to be the same as the others. Anyway I deal with this verse in greater detail in my thread titled by this verse. I make it clear about the usage of this verse and context.

 

[Calypsis4]

That is right context is King a....

I saw a reply to my earlier request but every post from #24 to #26 has been erased. Yet I saw one of those posts before you managed to erase it. In my reply that you just be kind enough to answer the scripture in Prov. 16:4 ¶ The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil...and also Job 21:30 That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath... you said, in part;

"But that's not the way RM operates."

My goodness, what a arrogant statement. Actually, RM, I happen to agree with you on this subject but I wanted to see how a like-minded brother answers things point blank without human interpretation being involved. I was prepared to take up your cause and stand with you but I'm not going to do that now.

Two things I've learned about you since I joined this board last spring; (1) you are not a nice person, and (2) you assume things ....horribly.

Oh, well. Best wishes anyway. I think I'll check out of B.B. for awhile.

 

[robustheologian]

No its not. In fact in his book on exegetical fallacies D.A.Carson said "To pursue proper word studies, the student must emphasize current usage in a given context (usus loquendi)". pg.21

In fact it is an absurd claim that because it is used elsewhere in scripture means has to to be the same as the others. Anyway I deal with this verse in greater detail in my thread titled by this verse. I make it clear about the usage of this verse and context.

That makes no sense...especially if you read the original languages. If I read a book in English and I came upon the word "wicked" on page 2 and then I jumped to page 50 and saw "wicked" again it would be absurd for me to think "Oh the definition of wicked has changed here".

And you still haven't addressed post #27.

 

[Revmitchell]

That makes no sense...especially if you read the original languages. If I read a book in English and I came upon the word "wicked" on page 2 and then I jumped to page 50 and saw "wicked" again it would be absurd for me to think "Oh the definition of wicked has changed here".

It is not absurd. Words can carry different meaning based on the context. Who is it that does not know this? Anyway we have wore this out. I have nothing further to add. If you want to discuss more you can pop over to the other thread and address what I have posted there. I will not respond to posts like "those so called theologians".

 

[robustheologian]

It is not absurd. Words can carry different meaning based on the context. Who is it that does not know this? Anyway we have wore this out. I have nothing further to add. If you want to discuss more you can pop over to the other thread and address what I have posted there. I will not respond to posts like "those so called theologians".

You've made this all about Isaiah 45 when I've said more than that in post #27...which you still haven't responded to.

 

[Revmitchell]

You've made this all about Isaiah 45 when I've said more than that in post #27...which you still haven't responded to.

Not sure what your hold up is with going to that thread but I don't care about post # 27. I know you believe with all your heart it is important. I do not. I do not know how to describe it in a nice way so I will just leave it at that. I do not care to go back and forth endlessly. If you do not care to take a look at the other thread then we can just end it here.

 

[robustheologian]

Not sure what your hold up is with going to that thread but I don't care about post # 27. I know you believe with all your heart it is important. I do not. I do not know how to describe it in a nice way so I will just leave it at that. I do not care to go back and forth endlessly. If you do not care to take a look at the other thread then we can just end it here.

So you post a thread, but when you're given a response that you can't refute you just leave it alone? So this makes your other thread an ignoratio elenchi. And this proves the point I made in another thread...

No one can refute this theology. But that's the thing with irrefutable theology, since it's irrefutable, those who don't agree just ignore it.

Thanks for proving this correct. Thumbsup

 

[Revmitchell]

So you post a thread, but when you're given a response that you can't refute you just leave it alone? And this proves the point I made in another thread...

Thanks for proving this correct. Thumbsup

This is why no one likes talking with you guys. You do not know my motivation other than what I said. This post was childish, self serving, etc. Thanks for proving my point..

 

[robustheologian]

This is why no one likes talking with you guys. You do not know my motivation other than what I said. This post was childish, self serving, etc. Thanks for proving my point..

You guys don't like talking with us because you hate being wrong...that's what's childish and self serving. And once again the fruit of your motive is found in running away from the issue.