# Is God the cause of evil?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2005)

How would you answer this qustion, posed by a naturalist?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 11, 2005)

No, sin is. God is the redeemer of the sinner.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> No, sin is. God is the redeemer of the sinner.



God created the sinner, so God created sin. Therefore, God created evil.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 11, 2005)

This is why I do not have these kids of debates. I used to when I thought it was my duty to go and get people saved. Not any more.


----------



## Average Joey (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



To glorify His Goodness and Righteousness through Christ,correct?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Average Joey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Ah, so God created evil for a purpose other than the end of evil? Now you're on to something....


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

Evil is abstract. Like fear, hate, love. . .
It is not material. It was not created. The potential for it was intrinsic to the creature. When God creates contingent beings, like angels and men, there is the potential to disobey. All things contingent are subject to corruption. Only God is immutable and perfect.


So did God create it ? Did God create fear ?

No, but He created creatures in His image that were upright, and chose by pride to disobey the law and subject themselves to vanity.

He does use evil for His own glory though. (ie. the Cross)


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> How would you answer this qustion, posed by a naturalist?



Easy, read _God & Evil, The Problem Solved_ by Gordon Clark.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2005)

Clark? No thanks.


----------



## Average Joey (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Average Joey_
> ...



Would there be any other reason He would have allowed it?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Clark? No thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2005)

Evil is the result of sin. God decree's all things. Somethings are secondary to His decrees, hence God is not the _cause_.

(Post anesthesia post)


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

Amen Scott.

Jam 1:13 
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 

Classic Augustine stuff here.

1) All things that God created are good 
2) evil is not good
3) therefore, evil was not created by God. 

1) God created every thing
2) God did not create evil
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2005)

Platonic!


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

Gabriel,

How is it Platonic ? Can you hold evil in your hand ?
Evil is abstract, and always vested in the actions and thoughts of a personal being.



Also, God can use evil without being guilty of it.
The classic writing on this, in my opinion comes from Calvin's institutes Book 1:18




> Chapter 18. The instrumentality of the wicked employed by God, while He continues free from every taint.
> 
> This last chapter of the First Book consists of three parts:
> 
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...





Classically, God is described as being the first cause of all things, including sin. By first cause, they mean that God has predestined these things to come to pass.

However, the distinction has always been made between first causes and second causes. Second causes are the MEANS by which God accomplishes his purposes. Does God want sin to happen? In a sense, most definately, otherwise he would not have decreed it to be so.

I think this is the most helpful distinction. Even the Westminster Confession uses this termonology:



> Chapter III.
> Of God's Eternal Decree.
> 
> I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to passa) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,(b) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.(c)
> ...



Also Calvin (From Calvin's Calvinism (The Secret Providence of God), Sovereign Grace Union, 1927, p. 244) :



> From all that has been said, we can at once gather how vain and fluctuating is that flimsy defence of the Divine justice which desires to make it appear that the evil things that are done, are so done, not by the will of god, but by His permission only. As far, indeed, as those evil things which men perpetrate with an evil mind are, in themselves evil, I willingly confess (as I will immediately more fully explain) that they by no means please God. But for men to represent God as sitting unconcerned, and merely permitting those things to be done which the Scripture plainly declares to be done not only by His will, but by His authority, is a mere way of escape from the truth, utterly frivolous and vain.



And Gordon Clark (Gordon Clark, What do Presbyterians Believe?, p. 37.):



> Summarizing the Scriptures, the Confession says here that God is not the author of sin; that is, God does nothing sinful. Even those Christians who are not Calvinists must admit that God in some sense is the cause of sin, for he is the sole ultimate cause of everything. But God does not commit the sinful act, nor does he approve of it and reward it. Perhaps this illustration is faulty, as most illustrations are, but consider that God is the cause of my writing this book. Who could deny that God is the first or ultimate cause, since it was he who created mankind? But although God is the cause of this chapter, he is not its author. It would be much better, if he were.



Also, see this thread, this thread,and this thread.


----------



## JWJ (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Evil is the result of sin. God decree's all things. Somethings are secondary to His decrees, hence God is not the _cause_.
> 
> (Post anesthesia post)



Scott,

Are you implying that evil is an independent force, i.e., dualism? Please show me that there is a difference between cause and decree? 

To this day I am still puzzled why many today's Reformed people are afraid to say that God is the ultimate cause of evil. Not only is it biblical and logical, it is also what Luther and Calvin taught.

Jim


----------



## Richard King (Oct 11, 2005)

It is just hard to come to grips with even if it is so.

Once you aknowledge this you have to deal with somehow 

a child being molested

a child being aborted

a woman being raped

is all part of the plan.

I have trouble getting my mind wrapped around it.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JWJ_
> To this day I am still puzzled why many today's Reformed people are afraid to say that God is the ultimate cause of evil. Not only is it biblical and logical, it is also what Luther and Calvin taught.





That being said, I think that both answers are right _in a sense._ This deals heavily with the compound and divided senses of God's will. I would HIGHLY recommend Webmaster's book on the subject The Two Wills of God. 

So in a sense, Scott is right. The problem is, is that it is not that simple. To simply say that he is not the cause of sin is only half the answer. Matt goes into detail distinguishing this in his book.

1. God decrees sin. It cannot be denied that in a sense, this is a cause of that sin, for without that, sin could not happen. God predestines sin (cause), therfore sin happens (effect).

2. Man commits sin. It cannot be denied that in a sense, humans cause sin, for without these means, sin could not happen (God cannot sin). Humans act (cause), therfore sin happens (effect). 

In a real sense, #2 is important to stress, because God has decreed that this is where _responsibility_ lies. When people deny that God is in some sense the cause of sin, they are usually trying to free God from the _responsibility_ of sin. This is admirable, but we must not go overboard. God is not responsible for sin, becuase he defines responsibility! He is the judge, law, and jury. We are not.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2005)

*Then Job answered the Lord and said: "œI know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. (Job 42:1-2)

11 Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold. (Job 42:11)*


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

Jim, and Jeff,

God does decree it. But He does not cause(solicit or induce) it.

He simply withdraws His Spirit from those He chooses, and that results in hardening of the heart and sin and evil.

This way, evil is not something permissive, but active, yet God is not causing it directly, but allowing the deficiency in contingent beings to manifest itself in His neglect of them to His own glory.

Of course it is decreed. Because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> *Then Job answered the Lord and said: "œI know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. (Job 42:1-2)
> 
> 11 Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold. (Job 42:11)*



Amen to that! Also Amos 3:6 "If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid? If there is calamity [or evil] in a city, will not the LORD have done it?"


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> It is just hard to come to grips with even if it is so.
> 
> Once you aknowledge this you have to deal with somehow
> ...



I understand your frustration Richard, and we shouldn't accept such actions lightly. 

That being said, if a person were to make an argument out of the list you made (which I am not saying you are), it would be a fallacy (an appeal to pity). 

As hard as it is to accept, the scriptures tell us that God decreed the WORST sin on earth to happen, the death of his Son, who did not deserve to die.



> Luke 22:22
> And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"



All sin and it's relation to God's decree is summerized in Matthew 18:7:


> Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

Gabriel, 

Job 42:11 is not evil in the abstract sense but the providential sense of calamity, or tradgedy. Kakos is used this way in Isaiah as well.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 11, 2005)

These verses may have been mentioned before but they are worth much consideration:

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Gen. 50.20

From men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes. Ps. 17.14

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. Acts 4.27-28


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Jim, and Jeff,
> 
> God does decree it. But He does not cause(solicit or induce) it.



You are getting first and second causes mixed up.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> He simply withdraws His Spirit from those He chooses, and that results in hardening of the heart and sin and evil.



His Spirit is not in everyone, yet some are more wicked than others, and none are as wicked as they could possibly be.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> This way, evil is not something permissive, but active, yet God is not causing it directly, but allowing the deficiency in contingent beings to manifest itself in His neglect of them to His own glory.



This is the permissive decree no matter what you call it. The permissive decree has always been God stepping back (active) and allowing (passive) people's sin to take over. The problem with this is that God actively predestines even their wicked desires to happen (just as much as he predestines the good ones!). This is not equal ultimacy, but equal predistination.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Of course it is decreed. Because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

> You are getting first and second causes mixed up.



How ?



> His Spirit is not in everyone, yet some are more wicked than others, and none are as wicked as they could possibly be.



Yes I think He is. What is striving with men then ? He does not indwell everyone in a salvific sense, but He does restrain evil.
If God's Spirit did not dwell with men to restrain evil then the full measure of man's depravity would destroy mankind.




> This is the permissive decree no matter what you call it. The permissive decree has always been God stepping back (active) and allowing (passive) people's sin to take over. The problem with this is that God actively predestines even their wicked desires to happen (just as much as he predestines the good ones!). This is not equal ultimacy, but equal predistination.



There is nothing passive in God. I do not care what any theologian says. God is immutable. By permissive I mean what you are calling passive.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > You are getting first and second causes mixed up.
> ...



Because you would readily admit that God predestines sin (which in theology is called a first cause) but deny that it is a cause _in any sense._

Here is how the term "cause" is used in the english language:

Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English language:



> 2. That which produces an effect; that which impels into existence, or by its agency or operation produces what did not before exist; that by virtue of which any thing is done; that from which any thing proceeds, and without which it would not exist.



How is God predestining sin *NOT* a cause according to this definition?



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > His Spirit is not in everyone, yet some are more wicked than others, and none are as wicked as they could possibly be.
> ...



Where is your evidence for such an assertion?



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > This is the permissive decree no matter what you call it. The permissive decree has always been God stepping back (active) and allowing (passive) people's sin to take over. The problem with this is that God actively predestines even their wicked desires to happen (just as much as he predestines the good ones!). This is not equal ultimacy, but equal predistination.
> ...



Exactly my point.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

We might be arguing semantics then.

In my view, if God is not evil, He cannot cause evil.
Like a magnet and a piece of iron, when the magnet is withdrawn, the iron loses magnetism and returns to its natural state.

Men are by nature totally corrupt. 
So is God causing good or evil if He witdraws His grace from them ?
I guess if the cause of evil is indirect, then that is what ? 
The formal, final or efficient cause ?
Man would be the material cause.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2005)

God did not cause the fall, He allowed for it. 

I don't think that compound or divided senses play a part here.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

Are you saying this ?

The material cause is man.
The formal cause being a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy.
The efficient cause (bringing the material and formal together) is God.
The final cause is God's glory.

Because the final cause is good, the efiicient cause, being possible evil, issecondary to the final cause and therefore God, in that way, causes evil ?


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> God did not cause the fall, He allowed for it.



So, you would say you disagree with Calvin then?



> Institutes, Book I, Chapter 18, Section 3
> 
> I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isa_45:7); that no evil happens which he has not done (Amo_3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises his judgements willingly or unwillingly. As Moses teaches that he who is accidentally killed by the blow of an axe, is delivered by God into the hand of him who smites him (Deu_19:5), so the Gospel, by the mouth of Luke, declares, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired "œto do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" (Act_4:28). And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God, where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.





> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I don't think that compound or divided senses play a part here.



I almost positive that Matt goes into the relation of sin to the decree of God in his book. I'll find the relevent quotes when I get home from work (if indeed there are any).


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Are you saying this ?
> 
> The material cause is man.
> ...



You're catching on!


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

> He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.
> 
> (Calvin quoted from above.)



That is the crux.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.
> ...





Exactly what I've been trying to say. This is where Calvin himself distinguishes between the compound sense of God's will and the divided sense of God's will (to use Turretin's termonology).


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

Yeah, I have never liked the two wills idea, because it seems to deny the unity, aseity, and immutability of God by basic logic. But when we put things into human perspective, I suppose God can even be said to repent.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Yeah, I have never liked the two wills idea, because it seems to deny the unity, aseity, and immutability of God by basic logic. But when we put things into human perspective, I suppose God can even be said to repent.



I agree. I REALLY think you would enjoy Matt's book (link above) on the Will of God (one will; compound and divided senses).


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

Matthew MacMahon, The Two Wills of God, p. 363 (emphasis mine).



> Where does unbelief come from? How do men die in their sins? Calv answers Pighius by saying, "The secret and eternal purpose and counsel of God *must be viewed as the original cause of their blindness and unbelief*" 38 Calvin was quite orthodox when it came to the eternal council of God. He says, "The unbelief of the world, therefore ought not to astonish us, if even the wisest and most acute of men fait to believe. Hence, unless we would elude the plain and confessed meaning of the Evangelist, that few receive the Gospel, *we must fully conclude that the cause is the will of God*; and that the outward sound of that Gospel strikes the ear in vain until God is pleased to touch by it the heart within." 39
> 
> 38 Calvin, _Calvin's Calvinism_, 22
> 39 Ibid, 82.



Matthew MacMahon, The Two Wills of God, p. 366 (emphasis mine).



> He [Calvin] believed that God was so powerful and so in control of all things that there are statements which he makes that could cause some "reformed" men to shudder. He says "Those things which are vainly or unrighteously done by man are, rightly and righteously, the works of God!" 49 .....
> 
> Calvin also blieved the works of Satan were the works of God in a certain sense, "But what worketh Satan? In a certain sense, the work of God! That is, God by holding Satan fast bound in abedience to His Providence, turns him whithersoever He will, and thus applies the great enemy's devices and attempts to the accomplishment of His own eternal purposes! 53 He believes this to be true because of his maxim, "that God, in wondrous ways and in ways unknown to us, directs all things to the end that He wills, that His eternal WILL might be the FIRST CAUSE of all things." 54 (emphasis his)
> 
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism, p. 243, 244. (emphasis mine)


> Hence you see that Satan is not only " a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets," at the express command of God, but also that his impostures so ensnare the reprobate, that, being utterly deprived of their reason, they are, of necessity, dragged headlong into error. In this same manner also must we understand the apostle, when he says that those who were ungrateful to God were " delivered over to a reprobate mind," and " given up to vile and foul affections," that they should work " that which is unseemly, and defile their own natural bodies one among another." Upon which Scripture Augustine remarks that these reprobate characters were not given up to the corrupt affections of their hearts by the mere permission of God as an unconcerned spectator, but by His righteous decree, because they had basely profaned His glory. In what manner this was done that same passage of the Scripture (2 Thess. ii. 11) plainly declares: God " sent upon them strong delusion." Whence that which I have just stated is perfectly plain: that the internal affections of men are not less ruled by the hand of God than their external actions are preceded by His eternal decree; and, moreover, that God performs not by the hands of men the things which He has decreed, without first working in their hearts the very will which precedes the acts they are to perform. Wherefore, the sentiments of Augustine on these momentous points are to be fully received and maintained. " *When God (says he) willeth that to be done which cannot be effected, in the course of the things of this world, without the wills of men, He at the same time inclines their hearts to will to do it, and also Himself does it, not only by aiding their hearts to desire to do it, but also by decreeing it, that they cannot but do it. * Whereas these same persons had in their own minds no such purpose as ' to do that which the hand and the counsel of God had afore decreed to be done.'" Augustine, moreover, most wisely proposes that to be considered concerning the very seeds and principles of nature, upon the consideration of which so many are unwilling to enter; that that great diversity which is seen in the dispositions of men, and which is evidently implanted in them of God, affords a manifest evidence of that His secret operation, by which He moves and rules the hearts of all mankind.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2005)

Jeff,
After thinking about this more, I guess God is the cause of sin. 

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeff,
> The C & D senses remove the responsibility of sin from God. In the divided sense God controls and ordains everything; if a man sins, they are held responsible, not God. In the compound, there is no darkness in Him, he is all light.



Yes, but I don't think you are getting it yet (with all due respect).

In the divided sense, people cause sin, and mean it for evil In the compound sense, God causes sin, and he means it for good.



> Amo 3:6 If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid? If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?





> Isa 45:7 forming light, and creating darkness; making peace, and creating evil. I, Jehovah, do all these things.



How do you reconcile these verses if not to say that _in a sense_, God causes evil.

I've now quoted the WCF, Calvin, and the bible showing how _in a sense_ God causes evil to happen. You haven't dealt with any of the evidence, but have just replied with "God doesn't cause evil." 

I mean no disrespect in my words, but I think that I've done all I can do without some real interaction on your part.

I think I'll call it a day.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2005)

See above Jeff.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)




----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2005)

Jeff,
How about this: here's where I was intermingling to ideas.
1) God is NOT the author of sin (according to the WCF)
2) God IS the cause of evil (Utilizing the divided sense)


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeff,
> How about this: here's where I was intermingling to ideas.
> 1) God is NOT the author of sin (according to the WCF)
> 2) God IS the cause of evil (Utilizing the divided sense)





I think when the WCF uses the term "author", it means "second cause." He does not _directly_ cause sin, but uses means to do so.

Gordon Clark uses an example like this: 

God is the first cause of me writing this post, but I am the author of (and the one responsible to God for) it.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 11, 2005)

I think therefore I post


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Amen.

Today I should not have posted. The anesthesia is still in my blood stream. The directives that were given me post operatively were: "You should not make any important decisions for the remainder of the day". 


yuk yuk yuk..............

Anyway, thanks for the dialog. See ya tomorrow!

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 11, 2005)

It ok we still love you scott


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> It ok we still love you scott


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 11, 2005)




----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> > It ok we still love you scott



Scott...I love you too, so don't operate any heavy machinery until you're off the drugs!


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

> God is the first cause of me writing this post, but I am the author of (and the one responsible to God for) it.




So God is the final cause (telos) and formal cause, but man is the material and efficiant cause then ?


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > God is the first cause of me writing this post, but I am the author of (and the one responsible to God for) it.
> ...



Yes.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

Also, you asked for where I support the idea of the Holy Spirit dwelling even among unbelievers ? ?



> Theologians differentiate between two types of God's grace. There is efficacious or special grace, resulting in salvation, and there is common grace or what we may call the general influence of the Holy Spirit, which to a greater or lesser degree is shared by all men. God causes the sun to shine on the good and evil; he sends rain upon the just and unjust alike (Matt. 5:43-38, Acts 14:17); He gives many things that result in the happiness and well being of society (Rom. 13:4, 1 Tim. 2:1-2), despite that society's unbelief. Lorraine Boettner's classic definition is extremely helpful:
> 
> Common grace is the source of all the order, refinement, culture, common virtue, etc., which we find in the world, and through it the moral power of truth upon the heart and conscience, is increased and the evil passions of men are restrained.
> 
> Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination , (Philadelphia: P&R Publishing, 1974), p. 179.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

Mark, I don't hold to common grace. Matt deals extensively with that subject in the Two Wills of God. I believe it can be backed up biblically, and historically that God only grants grace to the elect.

I would be happy to discuss the subject, but a new thread should probably be started for that one.


----------



## JWJ (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



They key to solve this so called "God is not the author of sin" agrument is to define what one is getting at by saying "author". I don't think the WCF divines meant "second cause". As a matter of fact, though secondary causes are important to keep in mind they ultimately have no barring in a biblical theodicy. The reason is that ultimately sin and evil is tractable to God. This is why Clark's example (BTW, for those who read his work, he did not have to add this extra "theodicy" because his first theodicy was sufficient) or any who who try to add in a "second cause" theodicy is really irrelevant . 

Rather like most people, "author of sin" means chargeable with sin or doing sin. Hence, the Bible is consistent that God is the cause of sin and evil, yet He is not the sinner, i.e., cannot be charged with doing sin because He alone is absolutely sovereign (i.e., not responsible or accountable) and that all that he does his good.

Jim


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

Jim. This is where the confusion lies.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JWJ_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 13, 2005)

Gabriel,

I recommend thoroughly reading & studying Luther's HD cocerning this very issue & suffering. His 95 T gets alot of air play mainly due to the politics cosequent to it, but his HD IS the heart of the reformation.

Luther had the diagnosis right on the money.

Later,

Ldh


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 13, 2005)

HD?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 13, 2005)

Sorry, been in government work too long with the acronyms:

The Heidelberg Disputation. Gerhard Forde has an excellent commentary/exposition of it if your looking for that.

Ldh


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 13, 2005)

It is probably in the _Works_ of Martin Luther I have. I'll check it out.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 13, 2005)

If you go that route keep in mind the language Luther is using in his own time frame to show the points of tension & antithesis. If you can stay attuned to that it will be very helpful. The entire work is based upon the antithesis of the two & only two real religions in the world today - fallen Vs. the cross. A modern exposition can be very helpful there.

L


----------



## Poimen (Oct 13, 2005)

_Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_



> Isa 45:7 forming light, and creating darkness; making peace, and creating evil. I, Jehovah, do all these things.



I put in a sermon request to Joel Osteen for this verse. He said he would deal with it in 2050.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 13, 2005)




----------



## Arch2k (Oct 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JWJ_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I agree Jim. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## larryjf (Feb 13, 2006)

Is it also a perspective issue?
When we read that God creates evil (Isa 45:7) and does evil (Amos 3:6) isn't this from our perspective and not God's?

What i mean is, the very fact that God does something makes it good. 

God may have someone destroy a city so that God will end up being glorified in some way. But, the individual destroying the city may have different motivations - greed, murder, etc.

So God, by employing an individuals evil motivations will bring about His good and glory. So from God's perspective it is a good thing, but from the human perspective it is an evil thing, mostly because as humans we focus on the one performing the act to judge its goodness.

For our part we can only submit to God's revealed will, not to His secret will. We have no excuse to do anything against His revealed will to us. But as God's revelation of Himself to us is a condescension, He transcends it.

I seem to have rambled a bit here. Alot of this idea of evil and God has been swimming around in my head lately. I think i am just using this thread as a sounding board.


----------



## Jon (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Evil is abstract. Like fear, hate, love. . .
> It is not material. It was not created. The potential for it was intrinsic to the creature. When God creates contingent beings, like angels and men, there is the potential to disobey. All things contingent are subject to corruption.


Only if God wills it! 

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------

