Is God the Cause of sin and evil in the world ?

[Thinkingstuff]

The answer to the question is absolutely Yes ! All things are made or created for God's good pleasure Rev 4:11

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

If we believe in the True and Living God, then we ought know He is the First Cause of all causes.

He created the devil for His Pleasure and ordained his activities, He created Adam for His pleasure and ordained his activities and the subsequent consequences.

From the time God said this Gen 1:1-3

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

It put into effect this Eph 1:11


In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

If we do not believe this, rest in this, and we do debate it, reject it, we are no better off than an athiest ! We are as David wrote Ps 14:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

This is the problem with Supralapsarianism. God must be ultimately responsible for Satan, Sin, and the evils of the world. Man ultimatley cannot be personally held accountable for his own actions as it was God who made man commit those actions.

I believe it is the utmost disservice to God to hold this perspective. First of all evil must then not be construed as evil. God has lied to us saying he's all good when really he's self serving as evil supplies his pleasure. Men have no choice in their destination so why not live as evilly as possible since 1) evil isn't bad but serves God's pleasure 2) if your not in a select group no matter what you never will be and 3) Why not just enjoy being evil after God does. And God must enjoy you being evil for his pleasure of sticking you into hell.

Now really if this is your view of God then the scriptures contradict itself and lies. God cannot be all good if he caused evil. God holds his creation guilty (passing the buck) and not himself. God is demented and therefore cannot actually love us because it pleases him when people are sent to hell. He doesn't in fact desire all men come to repentance and be saved. God enjoys self inflicting pain. I find that is the ultimate problem with this view.

I believe man and satan to be accountable for their own actions and I honestly believe God really loves us. and I believe if all men would repent God would save all men because he would rather have them in heaven. I don't think Calvin would have taken his view to your extreme.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Define Supralapsarianism.

 

[savedbymercy]

ts

This is the problem with Supralapsarianism

Quit being evasive of the points made with scripture, deal with them !

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Define Supralapsarianism.

ok

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained. In other words, supralapsarianism suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall—so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.

or that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

ts



Quit being evasive of the points made with scripture, deal with them !

I don't find that I was evasive at all. Look at what I said regarding your view.

God must be ultimately responsible for Satan, Sin, and the evils of the world

also I said

Man ultimatley cannot be personally held accountable for his own actions

also I said

First of all evil must then not be construed as evil.

again I said

1) evil isn't bad but serves God's pleasure 2) if your not in a select group no matter what you never will be and 3) Why not just enjoy being evil after God does.

again I said

God has lied to us saying he's all good when really he's self serving as evil supplies his pleasure

None of these things are evasive but bring to light the falacy of your view. In fact they are quite explicit! I think what you want me to do is exegete the passages you ripped from the bible. Which I could do but then what would it matter? You are predestined to ignore anything I said. After all look at the passages and how you appropriate them

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

If we believe in the True and Living God, then we ought know He is the First Cause of all causes.

If you believe this includes evil then all my points equally criticize this particular understanding of that passage.

 

[savedbymercy]

ts

I don't find that I was evasive at all.

I do, you have not been able to show one of my posts in this thread inaccurate, you evade them !

 

[Thinkingstuff]

ts



I do, you have not been able to show one of my posts in this thread inaccurate, you evade them !

I haven't evaded anything. I took your first post and commented on your first point. Which I believe leads to an erronious view of God. Now that being said, in what way is that evading?

So when you say I do are you asking me to exegete that passage? Yes or no? Because what you do its pull one verse out of a larger passage and suppose that when its says "all things" it must include the creation of evil which the same verse attestest that that evil gives him pleasure if what you believe is correct. I submit to you that it is not correct. Conversely I can take a passage out of its larger context create a perspective that is not the same as the original intent of the writer and challenge you to say that the bible doesn't say that and when you explain it I can always fall back even as you do on well its clear that the bible teaches and ignore all opposition to that view. Let me give you an example. John 11:35 " Jesus wept" I can hypothesize that God wants us to weep all the time after all Romans 9:29 says we should be conformed to the Image of Christ "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" which we see in John is weeping. And because our natural state is not to go around crying (weeping) all the time we just need to review Romans 12:2 which says "Do not be conformed to this world,[a] but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." which by transforming our mind we can easily see that "Jesus wept" which is the perfect will of God. Your argument follows this pattern.
Now The book of Revelation is a special kind of Book it falls into the catagory of Apocalyptic Literature which was widely popular at that time. Kind of the Ancient equivelant of Modern Science Fiction, I'm not saying its untrue or its points are untrue but the genre is under the fantastical. Apocalyptic literature is a specific Genre of writing that is biblical and extra biblical. The word Apocalypse is Greek meaning an "unveiling or an unfolding of things previously unknown" which btw couldn't be known apart from its revelation. This genre of literature is represented by 1 Enoch, the Ascention of Moses, the Revelation of Rabbi Joshua Ben Levi, the book of Jubilees, and in Greek literature we see Sybil. Knowing what genre of literature we are talking about relating to a particular book in the bible (as it is a library of books) is the first step in understanding what is being said...

An appropriate exegesis of apocalyptic literature can be attained if the student understands the form and function of the apocalyptic style, the background and purpose for its writing, and the meaning of the imagery understood by ancient readers. - Biblical Theology.com An Introduction to the Interpretation of Apocalyptic Literature.
Paper, Page 1John W. Carter

is a very true statement. That same source also says

Apocalyptic literature “is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldy being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.8 - page 3

So laying down that foundation let me move on to Revelation 4. This Chapter begins the 3rd "phase" of the book. It shows a dual focus of worship (rather liturgical in structure) worshiping God as Creator and chapter 5 follows up with worship of God in redemption. The imagry in the Chapter alludes to the Figures and fixtures of the Temple in Jerusalem ie seven torches (menorah), Cheribum (winged Angels), 24 Elders (Tribes and apostles or 24 preistly divisions, and so on and so forth... Thus the heavenly seen is set. Now we go specifically to the praise that is sung “Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.” which is the praise of the first part or the worship of God who created the universe praising him for his creation, which when we go back to the book of genesis we find

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Good is the original state of things. Man wasn't made evil he was made good. It is the natural state of things at the begining as all creation is good. In all cases we see evil is absent from the creation at the very begining. All is not inclusive of evil as evil is not a creation but a twisting a corruption of that which is already good. God did not therefore make evil and "all" in this praise is not inclusive of "evil". God redeems us back to that original state of incorruption. God did not cause that corruption.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Here is my one-word answer to the OP: NO.

 

[Yeshua1]

Define Supralapsarianism.

refers to how one sees God in regards to the fall of man and salvation...

One position is that God decreed that the fall would happen, and yet did not cause them to do the sin, but already had decreed ordained that the fall would happen, and the cross would happen, in order to give God the glory and have all things work out for the "best"

Other position is that God foreknew that Adam would sin and fall, and had the Cross already ordained as the means to solve the Sin problem...

Deepends if God determined the fall and ordained it to happen, or if God ordained the cure based upon him knowing the fall would indeed happen!

 

[savedbymercy]

ts

I haven't evaded anything

Oh yes you have !

 

[savedbymercy]

Here is my one-word answer to the OP: NO.

You have evaded the points also !

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You have evaded the points also !

No, I have simply chosen not to elaborate where no elaboration is needed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

ts



Oh yes you have !

It seems quite clear to me that you don't know what the word evaded means. Evaded is clearly defined when one is debating as

To avoid giving a direct answer to.

Which btw I have given a direct answer to your first post on this thread specifically to your first point of your supposition. When I asked if you wanted me to exegete the passage in question I did so. You still answer "You evaded!" Since clearly I did not do so, I can only assume that since you haven't responded to my exegete of the passage in question, or of my criticism of your faulted premise of belief, that you are working with a faulty definition of the word evade. So I gladly provided the definition for you.
If however, to say "you evaded!" is actually an attempt to avoid answering a challenge to your position because you lack knowledge enough to defend your belief, I must refer you to the natural phenominon of accusation; specifically as you point one finger at someone quite naturally that entails three fingers pointed directly at yourself.

 

[savedbymercy]

No, I have simply chosen not to elaborate where no elaboration is needed.

Thats evasion !

 

[savedbymercy]

ts

It seems quite clear to me that you don't know what the word evaded means

Its what you have done in not being able to give a reasonable response to all the posts I have made in this thread showing why, by scripture, God is the First Cause of sin entering into this world for a Redemptive Purpose whereby He would be Glorified by His Son the Lord Jesus Christ !

 

[Thinkingstuff]

ts



Its what you have done in not being able to give a reasonable response to all the posts I have made in this thread showing why, by scripture, God is the First Cause of sin entering into this world for a Redemptive Purpose whereby He would be Glorified by His Son the Lord Jesus Christ !

Just because someone doesn't give you the answer you want doesn't mean someone evaded the question. Let me break it down for you step by step so I am clear. You titled the thread

Is God the Cause of sin and evil in the world ?

This is the question you pose. You then provide your answer in your first post

Yes ! All things are made or created for God's good pleasure

to which you provide as a supporting scripture verse for this answer of yours. That verse you provided is Revelation 4:11 to which you bolded the particular word you wanted to bring attention to

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

This being your premise I first find fault with your premise by using reason, which is the human ability to think and make infferences in an orderly rational way. In doing this I identified the school of thought to which you appeal to have this view and faulted the premise of it

This is the problem with Supralapsarianism.

Which by nature of this view you hold one must therefore make the logical assumption based on this view that

God must be ultimately responsible for Satan, Sin, and the evils of the world. Man ultimatley cannot be personally held accountable for his own actions as it was God who made man commit those actions.

It is a reasonable criticism of your view that God created evil and done so from orderly method of reason. A logical conclusion. So, it is a direct answer to your question and answer. It doesn't require scripture as its pure logic. However you replied

Quit being evasive of the points made with scripture, deal with them

First of all this sentence by you is faulted in two ways 1) You imply by this statement scripture made the points, and 2) I avoided answering the question. Niether is true or accurate as in the case of the primary assertion that scripture made the points you are entirely wrong. Scripture did not ask the question or make the conclusion. You made the question and you made the conclusion and then you used scripture as the reason for why you came to that conclusion. As for the latter assertion that I did not directly answer your points it is also wrong as I clearly stated that I found fault with your premise and conclusion and I used reason to do so. However, there is a third aspect to your response

deal with them

meaning of course the scripture passage you used. So you supplied the way in which you expect one to answer. The question is not evasion but rather to use the authoritative source against your position. This can be handled in two ways. The first way is to point out verses that contradict your conclusion ie

You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong,
why do you idly look at traitors
and remain silent when the wicked swallows up
the man more righteous than he?
Habakkuk 1:13

where scriptures are evidently clear God is too pure than to look on evil much less create it. The problem with this method is we can go back and forth quoting scripture giving the impression that scripture contradicts itself or refutes itself. This is a pointless process as also scripture will be abused taking verses out of context to support a pretext. The other way this can be approached is by decontructing your view of that passage. thus when you hold that by "all" the text includes evil in Revelation Chp 4. I therefore approached the very passage you quoted to show you that what you believe it to mean is wrong. That passage isn't to be understood to included evil as I pointed out in post 207. First I placed the text in its proper context

Now The book of Revelation is a special kind of Book it falls into the catagory of Apocalyptic Literature which was widely popular at that time...Knowing what genre of literature we are talking about relating to a particular book in the bible (as it is a library of books) is the first step in understanding what is being said... So laying down that foundation let me move on to Revelation 4. This Chapter begins the 3rd "phase" of the book. It shows a dual focus of worship (rather liturgical in structure) worshiping God as Creator and chapter 5 follows up with worship of God in redemption. The imagry in the Chapter alludes to the Figures and fixtures of the Temple in Jerusalem ie seven torches (menorah), Cheribum (winged Angels), 24 Elders (Tribes and apostles or 24 preistly divisions, and so on and so forth... Thus the heavenly seen is set.

Then having supplied the context of the text I then approach your specific scripture passage as to how it is to actually be understood

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.” which is the praise of the first part or the worship of God who created the universe praising him for his creation, which when we go back to the book of genesis we find Good is the original state of things.

Whereby the word you wanted focused on isn't inclusive of evil but Creation which

In all cases we see evil is absent from the creation at the very begining.

Then I make a comment about an inherant supposition your view supplies which is that evil itself is created. Evil isn't created but generated from a corruption of good. Thus evil cannot exist in a vacuum but is a cancer. Just as in the case of cancer cells a skin cell is good (and created good) however it can out grow its design and eventually kill the host. Evil is like that it wasn't created its a misuse of emotions, reason, and creation promulgated by the person who desires to do misuse the good God gave us.

as evil is not a creation but a twisting a corruption of that which is already good. God did not therefore make evil and "all" in this praise is not inclusive of "evil". God redeems us back to that original state of incorruption. God did not cause that corruption

So, I took the scripture verse you used and deconstructed your interpretation of it and supplied the actual meaning of the text showing that your quote of that verse is seriously misapplied to hold to your Manichean view of evil. Further I show you the conclusion you must draw from your persepctive. In order to hold your belief you must come to the following logical conclusions

God has lied to us saying he's all good when really he's self serving as evil supplies his pleasure. Men have no choice in their destination so why not live as evilly as possible since 1) evil isn't bad but serves God's pleasure 2) if your not in a select group no matter what you never will be and 3) Why not just enjoy being evil after God does. And God must enjoy you being evil for his pleasure of sticking you into hell.

So no I didn't evade your question or conclusion. Yes I have dealt with a scripture verse you used to support your view and now I have provided a scripture verse which contest your scripture verse. Its clear the accusation of evasion is unmerited.

 

[savedbymercy]

ts

Just because someone doesn't give you the answer you want doesn't mean someone evaded the question

Thats what it means to me, since I am the one who took the time to make the points !

 

[Thinkingstuff]

ts



Thats what it means to me, since I am the one who took the time to make the points !

Well, sir you have the wrong definition of reasoned response to your question. In my previous post I take a step by step process presenting your question, your conclusion, and your scripture versed used to support your hypothesis. I made a step by step reasoned response to your assertion and why your assertion is wrong even supplying a verse counter to yours and still you stubbornly say I haven't responded to your question. You are showing yourself to be unreasonable. You haven't responded in a rational or reasoned way to my counter to your points. Which basically shows your true intent. Your true intent isn't to really ask the question and review the propositions to come to an understanding of what the truth is, rather your intent is to voice your belief is despite the fallacy of your position no matter what the facts are. In fact, with regard to facts and what the scriptures actually say, one could almost believe you to be saying "to gehenna with all facts and original intent of scripture, I believe something therefore it is!" which is the argument of the mad man. The mad man cares nothing for the fact that no one other himself hears voices in their head. The fact that he believes they exist means they are real and not a creation of a delusion.

 

[savedbymercy]

ts

Well, sir you have the wrong definition of reasoned response to your question.

I am sure you would look at it like that since you are the one being evasive of the points I made !

 

[Thinkingstuff]

ts



I am sure you would look at it like that since you are the one being evasive of the points I made !

Not only are you making a poor argument it is clear you haven't read anything after the first sentence or you would know your statement to be false. Again you don't want to come to an understanding of truth you want to assert your opinion no matter how fallacious it is.