# Did God create evil?



## Bandguy (Aug 21, 2007)

I was reading a posting about this here and was wondering what you greater theological minds than me thought about this explanation.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 21, 2007)

The short answer is "NO", but I can't comment further than that because I do not posess a "greater theological mind".


----------



## Bandguy (Aug 21, 2007)

So you reject the posts explanation for the existence of evil? Is that correct? How do you, then, explain its existence in opposition to what was posted on the link?


----------



## JM (Aug 21, 2007)

I'm a supra dupra man, try this one: Supralapsarianism and Its Practical Implications and *The Author of Sin*. {URL removed by Admin}

A quote: The Bible says: 

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Lying is sin which is transgression of the law: 

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The following verses show God's active sovereignty over this sin: 

2 Chronicles 18:19-22 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. {20} Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? {21} And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. {22} Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee. 
Ezekiel 14:9-10 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. {10} And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him;

When the Bible says that God put a lying spirit in the mouth of the prophets, this is not the same as saying God passively overlooked the sin. Or as one put it when replying to another's Infra & Supralapsarianism, "Seems to me that God is passive (passed over) toward [the] non-elect". Both of these men affirm the infralapsarian doctrine of a passive God. Though these men would never confess that their view is modified Deism (the belief that God created the world and then left it to itself to operate), yet in theology, if God is passive over evil, God is passive over the vast majority of human affairs; thus Deism would be correct in well over ninety percent of human history.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 21, 2007)

I'll go with this:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isa 45:7


----------



## JM (Aug 21, 2007)

What was Beza's view on this subject?


----------



## Bandguy (Aug 21, 2007)

JM said:


> I'm a supra dupra man, try this one: Supralapsarianism and Its Practical Implications and The Author of Sin.



Wasn't that some song in a Disney Movie once? Seriously, guys, can you dumb it down a bit so a non-latin speaker can understand it?


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 21, 2007)

I absolutely reject the premise of the article. In this article, God is made out to be a passive Jr. High girl sitting at a dance waiting to see whether the star quarterback will pick her or the other girl to ask to dance. God is no such thing.

We may not understand God's sovereignty in relation to the existence of evil, but we can't "get God off the hook" by understating His sovereign control over all things.



> The best answer I can come up with is this: God didn’t want a race of robots who did not have a free will. God had to allow the possibility of evil for us to have a true choice of whether to worship God or not. If we never had to suffer and experience evil, would we truly know how wonderful heaven is? God did not create evil, but He allowed it. If He hadn’t allowed evil, we would be worshipping Him out of obligation, not by a choice of our own free will.



This is modern semi-Pelagian tripe. God allowed evil so we could make a free choice? This person needs to read The Bondage of the Will by Luther. Or maybe try Romans 9.


----------



## CDM (Aug 21, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I'll go with this:
> 
> "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isa 45:7


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I'll go with this:
> 
> "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isa 45:7





In my humble opinion, not a good prooftext. Evil is better translated as "calamity" in modern English. In other words,, God creates and causes bad things to happen to people, but that isn't evil perse.


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

Here is a word study on "evil" used in IS 45:7:

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07451&Version=KJV

Note that almost all of the modern versions use calamity.


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

Calvin's commentary:



> 7. Forming light. As if he had said, that they who formerly were wont to ascribe everything either to fortune or to idols shall acknowledge the true God, so as to ascribe power and the government and glory of all things, to him alone. He does not speak of perfect knowledge, though this intelligence is requisite for the attainment of it. But since the Prophet says that it shall be manifest even to heathens, that everything is directed and governed by the will of God, they who bear the Christian name ought to be ashamed, when they strip him of his power, and bestow it on various governors, whom they have formed according to their fancy, as we see done in Popery; for God is not acknowledged when a bare and empty name is given to him, but when we ascribe to him full authority.
> 
> Making peace, and creating evil. By the words “light” and “darkness” he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts “peace” not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort. *Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.*
> 
> But the Sophists are wrong in their exposition; for, while they acknowledge that famine, barrenness, war, pestilence, and other scourges, come from God, they deny that God is the author of calamities, when they befall us through the agency of men. This is false and altogether contrary to the present doctrine; for the Lord raises up wicked men to chastise us by their hand, as is evident from various passages of Scripture. (1 Kings 11:14, 23.) The Lord does not indeed inspire them with malice, but he uses it for the purpose of chastising us, and exercises the office of a judge, in the same manner as he made use of the malice of Pharaoh and others, in order to punish his people. (Exodus 1:11 and 2:23.) We ought therefore to hold this doctrine, that God alone is the author of all events; that is, that adverse and prosperous events are sent by him, even though he makes use of the agency of men, that none may attribute it to fortune, or to any other cause.


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

Lastly, read Aquinas on the matter:

Summa Theologica; First Part of the Second Part, Question 79.



> Article 1. Whether God is a cause of sin?
> 
> Objection 1. It would seem that God is a cause of sin. For the Apostle says of certain ones (Romans 1:28): "God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not right [Douay: 'convenient']," and a gloss comments on this by saying that "God works in men's hearts, by inclining their wills to whatever He wills, whether to good or to evil." Now sin consists in doing what is not right, and in having a will inclined to evil. Therefore God is to man a cause of sin.
> 
> ...


----------



## larryjf (Aug 21, 2007)

Would it be correct to say that God decreed evil, but didn't create it? In the sense that evil is not an objectified part of creation?

Also, i was under the impression that "ra" from Isa 45:7 is translated elsewhere in modern versions as "evil." If that is true, are modern versions translating in a way that softens God's sovereignty in this area?


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Would it be correct to say that God decreed evil, but didn't create it? In the sense that evil is not an objectified part of creation?
> 
> Also, i was under the impression that "ra" from Isa 45:7 is translated elsewhere in modern versions as "evil." If that is true, are modern versions translating in a way that softens God's sovereignty in this area?



Only if you are a fatalist. Read what Calvin said about it in my earlier posts. The modern versions are correct; so is the KJV in that place and time.

WCF:


> 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 pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

Bandguy said:


> I was reading a posting about this here and was wondering what you greater theological minds than me thought about this explanation.



He was almost half right in his dissertation about free will, but should have interacted with historic Christianity on this. I notice he said nothing about original sin, imputation, etc. Yes, God did give us free will, but Adam lost the good part of free will for us.


----------



## A5pointer (Aug 21, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I absolutely reject the premise of the article. In this article, God is made out to be a passive Jr. High girl sitting at a dance waiting to see whether the star quarterback will pick her or the other girl to ask to dance. God is no such thing.
> 
> We may not understand God's sovereignty in relation to the existence of evil, but we can't "get God off the hook" by understating His sovereign control over all things.
> 
> ...



Agreed, don't you love how this author and all the Arminians say *"God is sovereign and ultimately in control of everything that happens." * What could they possibly mean by saying this while at the same time espousing as you say semi-palagian tripe? Amazes me everytime.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 21, 2007)

raderag said:


> WCF:
> 
> 
> > CHAPTER III.
> ...



BIG


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

A5pointer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > I absolutely reject the premise of the article. In this article, God is made out to be a passive Jr. High girl sitting at a dance waiting to see whether the star quarterback will pick her or the other girl to ask to dance. God is no such thing.
> ...



Ravi is probably a semi-Pelagian, but the question of evil is a very difficult one, and one that causes some Calvinist to fall off the cliff of fatalism. Let's cut the brother some slack here. Anyway, if you put what he is saying in context of original sin, I think it is orthodox. OTOH, if you are saying that God is the author of sin or that he did create us as automatons, you may have a worse problem than Brother Zacharias.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 21, 2007)

raderag said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Would it be correct to say that God decreed evil, but didn't create it? In the sense that evil is not an objectified part of creation?
> ...



Are you saying that believing God decreed evil is being a fatalist?
If so, you do realize that a fatalist believes in an impersonal force setting everything in motion, not an intelligent loving God, right?
Do you not believe that God decreed the fall?...or do you not believe that the fall was evil as it was sin against God??


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 21, 2007)

raderag said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> > Calvibaptist said:
> ...



I would have no problem if Ravi was discussing Adam in his pre-fall state. But he is discussing the eternal plan of God to "create evil" and the reason why evil exists. His reason is that God wanted to give man a free choice and "allowed" evil. God doesn't "allow" anything. He decrees whatsoever will come to pass.

I agree with you that Calvinists have to guard against fatalism. My personal struggle with sin keeps me from doing that!


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

larryjf said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > larryjf said:
> ...



No, sorry, that God decrees evil is correct. I only meant it would be fatalist to think the modern versions rendering of the word "calamity" was wrong since it was no longer evil.

I believe that WCF is correct. My understanding is infralapsarian, but I don't think the order of decrees is worth speculation.


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > A5pointer said:
> ...



But Ravi said previously that God does is in control of everything. I think that God decrees sin through second causes (i.e. allowing evil). I think it is overly harsh to call this man a heretic considering this writing is meant to explain a very difficult concept to the laity, and since Ravi also affirms orthodox doctrine (i.e. "God is sovereign and ultimately in control of everything that happens.")

I think he more or less gets it, but I would like to hear his understanding of imputation and original sin.


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

JM said:


> I'm a supra dupra man, try this one: Supralapsarianism and Its Practical Implications and The Author of Sin.



Actually, if you subscribe to the latter article, you may be a hyper-Calvinist. This article actually implies that God is the author of sin. May it never be!


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

larryjf said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > larryjf said:
> ...



BTW, yes I believe that God decreed (not authored) the fall, and yes it was evil. The hyper-Calvinist answer is that God used it for good, so he could have "authored or caused" it.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 21, 2007)

raderag said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > raderag said:
> ...



I am sort of reacting against someone saying God is sovereign and then also saying that God sits there allowing stuff in order to give man a free choice. I have heard that type of talk before - from me! What I meant (as does just about anyone else who says that kind of thing) by God's sovereignty is that God COULD do something if He chose to, but rather lets us make the choice.

I don't think Ravi is a heretic, so I probably shouldn't have used "semi-Pelagian." But I do think he is somewhat wishy-washy in this answer.


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > Calvibaptist said:
> ...



I'll agree with you there. Mostly, I fault him for not interacting with historic Christianity here, but that is the spirit of our age. I think his apologetic is useful as it does have a basically orthodox viewpoint, I just wish he would talk about how Adam lost our ability, and how Adam's sin is imputed to us. Oh, and then he could preach the Gospel once delivered. OTOH, the article posted by JM is heretical.


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

KMK said:


> The word 'rah' seems to be the antonym of righteousness (Pro 11:19; Ecc 7:15) and/or goodness (Ps 52:3).
> 
> Did God create 'righteousness' and 'goodness'? These are thought of as not created things but emenations of God Himself. If 'rah' is also not a created thing, then where does it come from? If it was not created by God, and it does not emenate from him, where does it come from? I wouldn't think that attributing 'rah' to someone or something else is a more 'defensible' position.



Hi There, I'm not sure what you mean, but did you read what Calvin said? He said that in this case it is not an antonym of righteousness.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 21, 2007)

This is why the theological terms "1st cause" and "2nd cause" are probably more appropriate when discussing evil in relation to God.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 21, 2007)

raderag said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with this:
> ...



Seems odd to me to quibble over this. The Hebrew is pretty plain, "create evil", or "create calamity", or whatever. The word for "create" (Bara) and for "evil" (Ra) is fairly clear. I'll also note that the septuagint uses the Greek word "kaka", which means evil or bad (among other things )

The original question asked about evil, not sin. There are plenty of passages about sin (which uses a different word altogether,( חטּאת )(chattath). 

I'm quite comfortable that God creates evil, calamity, disaster, whatever you want to call it. I think one thing about the article is right, evil is not some sort of independent force that floats around. Rather it is bad things happening or bad people doing, or even ill-favored objects existing. The fact that they have that adjective before them is God's doing.


----------



## raderag (Aug 21, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > victorbravo said:
> ...



But the central question about "evil" here is sin, and if God is the Author of sin. Historic, orthodox Christianity answers Nay, but the article answers in the affirmative. This is hardly a quibble, and Calvin says as much.



> Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.


 -- Calvin's commentary on Isaiah 45:7


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Aug 21, 2007)

*You hit the "nail" on the head*



Calvibaptist said:


> I absolutely reject the premise of the article. In this article, God is made out to be a passive Jr. High girl sitting at a dance waiting to see whether the star quarterback will pick her or the other girl to ask to dance. God is no such thing.
> 
> We may not understand God's sovereignty in relation to the existence of evil, but we can't "get God off the hook" by understating His sovereign control over all things.
> 
> ...




Well stated, Doug.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 21, 2007)

JM said:


> I'm a supra dupra man, try this one: Supralapsarianism and Its Practical Implications and *The Author of Sin*.



Why not just link to an article called *God Lies*?



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 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 unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,2nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.3


Cheung can sell crazy somewhere else but not on this board.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 21, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> This is why the theological terms "1st cause" and "2nd cause" are probably more appropriate when discussing evil in relation to God.



I agree...


----------



## Davidius (Aug 21, 2007)

What does "author of sin" mean?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 21, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What does "author of sin" mean?



It means that God created or made sin. That He is the originator of sin.


----------



## JM (Aug 21, 2007)

Here's another link to consider Determinism and Responsability by Clark.


----------



## JM (Aug 22, 2007)

"Gods decree, in as much as it concerneth man, is called Predestination: which is the decree of God, by the which he hath ordained all men to a certaine and everlasting estate: that is, either to salvation or condemnation, for his own glory."—William Perkins, A Golden Chaine: or, The Description of Theologie. (1608).

Try this one as well.


----------



## raderag (Aug 22, 2007)

JM said:


> "Gods decree, in as much as it concerneth man, is called Predestination: which is the decree of God, by the which he hath ordained all men to a certaine and everlasting estate: that is, either to salvation or condemnation, for his own glory."—William Perkins, A Golden Chaine: or, The Description of Theologie. (1608).
> 
> Try this one as well.



You have posted alot of articles; some are orthodox, and some are not, but what do you believe? Is God the author of sin in your view?


----------



## raderag (Aug 22, 2007)

JM said:


> I don't know the answer to your question, but have done some reading on the subject and wanted to share a few links. When it's all said an done I'd have to submit to the teaching of the church.



So then, you agree with the WCF?



> 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 pass; yet so as thereby neither is *God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures*, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.


----------



## JM (Aug 22, 2007)

raderag said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know the answer to your question, but have done some reading on the subject and wanted to share a few links. When it's all said an done I'd have to submit to the teaching of the church.
> ...



I removed the last line from my post seeing how it may cause confussion. The question of authorship is answered here. That's about the best I can do.

Another link:
God's Hatred of the Reprobate


----------



## raderag (Aug 22, 2007)

JM said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > JM said:
> ...



I really think you should consider not posting some of the things you have; if indeed you want to submit to the teachings of the Church, then you need to do so, and at least not advocate for this heretical position. A URL to a post by some guy named Steve hardly answers the question, nor does it explain some of the things you have posted and linked to.


----------



## JM (Aug 22, 2007)

It’s clear you are very passionate about this subject and maybe to the point that you haven't considered the links posted, but I think you should read the article posted by Steve Hays who sits in the good company of good folks like Paul Manata on Triablogue. 

Grace and peace in Christ brother Brett.


----------



## puritan lad (Aug 22, 2007)

Wythe County Calvinist said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > What does "author of sin" mean?
> ...



I would disagree with this definition. James 1:13-15 clarifies:

_"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. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."_ (James 1:13-15)

God himself does not tempt with sin. However, he does send evil and lying spirits to tempt. He is said to send "strong delusion", stumbling blocks, etc. Plus the Bible is clear that GOd is sovereignly and actively (not passively) working in the sinful acts of wicked men.

Read Genesis 45:7. Did God send Joseph to Egypt? How did God do that?
Read 2 Samuel 12:11-12. Did God "do" Absalom's incest openly before all Israel and before the sun?

There are many other examples, like God raising up evil armies to punish other nations, God performing with his own hand the evils that beset Job, and most off all, the crucifixion of His own Son, which it pleased Him to do.

There is no such thing as a passive God, even concerning evil. In the end, all things are for His glory.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 22, 2007)

puritan lad said:


> Wythe County Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> > CarolinaCalvinist said:
> ...



I agree with all you have said. I was simply responding to what I thought was a simple question, "What does 'author of sin' mean?" And the standard understanding is that an author is one who creates or is responsible for something. I did not say that God is the author of sin, for He is not. However He does take credit for evil or calamity. The two things, sin and evil, are not, in my mind at least, synonyms.


----------



## JM (Aug 22, 2007)

Wythe County Calvinist said:


> puritan lad said:
> 
> 
> > Wythe County Calvinist said:
> ...



Agreed and well done.


----------



## shackleton (Aug 23, 2007)

Gordon Clark has written a great article on the subject called "God and Evil" I have read it and written a brief summary of it, it is on my blogg if anyone is interested, that is if you don't want to read the book. 
The link is in my signature.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 23, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Seems odd to me to quibble over this. The Hebrew is pretty plain, "create evil", or "create calamity", or whatever. The word for "create" (Bara) and for "evil" (Ra) is fairly clear. I'll also note that the septuagint uses the Greek word "kaka", which means evil or bad (among other things )



Dear VB, language functions with much more subtlety than this. 

1 Tim. 4:4 says that "*Everything *God created is *good*". So if God created evil, then evil is good? No, not at all.

Most words have _many _meanings. Evil (_ra_) has many meanings, one of which is natural disasters (earthquakes etc.), another being moral evil (sin). Hence, we must determine what meaning the word has from its context. (Moreover, create [_br'_] can have many meanings too).

We can solve the classic objection when we think of it this way:

[1] Moral evil is not created, because moral evil *doesn't have being* (or substance). God creates being (or substance), and hence everything he creates is good (1 Tim. 4:4).

[2] Moral evil is when God's creation (being / substance) *functions *contrary to his will and character. That is, moral evil is about the _function _of creation not the substance / being of creation.

Hence, to say that if God created everything, and evil exists, then God must have created evil is a _non sequitur_.

God may will / decree evil, but he doesn't create it, nor does he commit it. That is for the creature (as secondary cause) to do. Hence, he is not responsible for it.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 23, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > Seems odd to me to quibble over this. The Hebrew is pretty plain, "create evil", or "create calamity", or whatever. The word for "create" (Bara) and for "evil" (Ra) is fairly clear. I'll also note that the septuagint uses the Greek word "kaka", which means evil or bad (among other things )
> ...



I think this is a side issue, which is why I dropped out of the discussion. I agree with what you are saying here, as long as one chooses to define "evil" as "moral evil." I think I even adopted your point number 1. 

My point was merely that whatever it was that God created in Is. 45, it was not sin. I think much of the confusion stems from conflating "evil" with "sin" while the Bible distinguishes them.


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > Seems odd to me to quibble over this. The Hebrew is pretty plain, "create evil", or "create calamity", or whatever. The word for "create" (Bara) and for "evil" (Ra) is fairly clear. I'll also note that the septuagint uses the Greek word "kaka", which means evil or bad (among other things )
> ...



Thank you, very well done.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Sep 2, 2007)

Hello Everyone,

I read through this thread, and would like to explore further the realtionship between God and sin. Too often, terms are thrown about that are not adequately defined - terms such as 'authors,' 'ordains,' 'causes,' etc...As such, I will try and define two key terms. But first, here is the WCF...



> 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 pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.



Here are four propositions concerning the above: 

*1.* This statement affirms that God ordains all acts of men including sinful acts.
*2.* The statement denies that God is the author of sin.
*3.* This statement denies that violence is done to the will of the creature.
*4.* This statement denies that liberty in the sense of second causation is taken away.

I would like to look at the realtionship between (1) and (2). What does it mean for God to ordain a sinful act? Being that the divines felt it important to speak of secondary causation, I think the following definitions are consistent with the above quote...

*Definition*: God _ordains_ action 'X' if and only if God is the primary cause of action 'X'. 

*Definition:* Action 'X' is a _sinful action_ if and only if action 'X' is a violation of God's laws - both written and unwritten. 

Using these defintions, then based on (1) one would be forced to say that God is the primary cause of all sinful actions. This means (2) cannot be speaking of the primary causation of sinful actions or we have an explicit contradiction. In other words, when the WCF says "God is not the author of sin" it must mean something other than "God is not the primary cause of sinful actions." So, if it does mean something else, then what does it mean? 

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. Just so that you know where I am coming from, I am a hard determinist.  I believe this to be the only coherent position if one is to affirm (1) above.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 2, 2007)

Brian,

I agree. Gordon Clark in his commentary on the confession put the relationship this way:

God ordained that Clark write the commentary on the confession, but Clark is the author of the book itself. 

This is the classical distinction of first and second causes, which I think is better suited to the discussion at hand (as I have already noted) because words such as "created" are not clearly defined. 

God is clearly the first cause of sin (i.e. he ordains it) yet is never the second cause (i.e. commits the act itself). This also leads one to the inevitable conclusion that it is not sinful to ordain sinful acts. Think about that for awhile!


----------



## MW (Sep 2, 2007)

> This also leads one to the inevitable conclusion that it is not sinful to ordain sinful acts.



This could lead to something mind-boggling, but is it really a decree of *sinful* acts? I would think it needful to clarify that sin is determined by a relation to law, not decree.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Sep 3, 2007)

Hello Gentlemen,



Jeff said:


> This also leads one to the inevitable conclusion that it is not sinful to ordain sinful acts.





armourbearer said:


> I would think it needful to clarify that sin is determined by a relation to law, not decree.



Very good! In order for the first cause act of ordaining sinful acts to be considered sinful it must be a violation of some law. I am unaware of any such law, and think it is consistent with Scripture to posit that there is no such law. Great observations gentlemen!

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Sep 3, 2007)

Brian Bosse said:


> P.S. Just so that you know where I am coming from, I am a hard determinist.  I believe this to be the only coherent position if one is to affirm (1) above.


Eh, well you would agree that we are "free" to the extent that we are morally responsible, correct?


----------



## Brian Bosse (Sep 3, 2007)

Hello Gentlemen,

We still have not answered the question of what the divines meant by saying that God is not the author of sin. Already, we have determined that it cannot mean that God is not the primary (first) cause of sin. It must mean soimething else. What does it mean?



Caleb said:


> Eh, well you would agree that we are "free" to the extent that we are morally responsible, correct?



Caleb, I have two thoughts: *(1)* I do not believe that morally responsibility necessarily presupposes ability; *(2)* I do not believe any created being has first cause ability. So, what do you mean when you say that we are free?

Sincerely,

Brian

*Edited to Add:* Jeff did give Gordon Clark's answer to the question. Essentially, Clark says that the meaning of "God is not the author of sin" is "God is not the secondary cause of sin". However, one still may say that God is the primary cause of sin. Even though this works I can't help but feel like this is nothing more than a big "so what?" Is this really all the divines meant by "God is not the author of sin?" The bottom line is that God is the cause of sin in that He ordains sin, but the act of God ordaining sin is not itself sinful, i.e., there is no law that He violates when ordaining sin.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Sep 3, 2007)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Plus, there is a morally sufficient reason for God ordaining the sinful acts in the first place. He brings good out of evil, and it is to His glory.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Sep 3, 2007)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> We still have not answered the question of what the divines meant by saying that God is not the author of sin. Already, we have determined that it cannot mean that God is not the primary (first) cause of sin. It must mean soimething else. What does it mean?



Perhaps that He is not the “practitioner” (or whatever word fits better) of sin. By this I mean He doesn’t directly carry it out. Hence the distinction between first and second causes. I have no idea if this is what they meant by “author”. I don’t really like that term. If this is what they were thinking, I think they could have used a better term than ‘author’. 



Brian Bosse said:


> Caleb said:
> 
> 
> > Eh, well you would agree that we are "free" to the extent that we are morally responsible, correct?
> ...


I do not think that moral responsibility presupposes the ‘principle of alternative possibilities’, or the “ability to do contrary” in any given situation. So if that is what you mean by ability, then I agree. I also agree that no created being has first cause ability. 

If we are free in the way I am speaking in, it is not libertarian type of freedom. It would be a different definition of freedom. So we are free to the extent that we are morally responsible. And if someone really pushes me on it and doesn’t like to think we are free even if we are morally responsible, then I would just say we don’t have free will but are still morally responsible. It depends on how one defines free will, but I think we are in agreement. I’m not sure if you should label yourself a hard determinist though.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Sep 3, 2007)

Here is a thought experiment. There are three characters in this thought experiment. Supreme Bill –Supreme Bill has foreknowledge and control over Evil Jack and Frodo. 
Evil Jack- Evil Jack is the ‘bad guy’, the sinner, who wishes to kill Frodo. 
Frodo- Frodo is just an average person. 

Supreme Bill knows that at a moment in time Evil Jack will try to kill Frodo. In fact Supreme Bill brought it about that this necessarily would occur. Although Evil Jack’s intent is to kill Frodo, Evil Jack ends up saving the life of Frodo. (At this point various examples could be given. Perhaps Evil Jack meant to push Frodo into traffic, but ended up saving Frodo’s life because Frodo was going to be hit by a car if he had not been pushed by Evil Jack at that moment in time., etc.)

Now Supreme Bill brings it about that this occurs in reality. But good is brought out of evil-there is a morally sufficient reason for this event to take place. Plus it is to “Supreme Bill’s” glory. Evil Jack still sins (because his intent was evil), but Supreme Bill is the first cause in that Supreme Bill ordained that such an event take place. Yet, Supreme Bill is not morally responsible in any negative way for the event taking place. 

We can amplify the situation so that perhaps Frodo is killed, but somehow a greater good is brought out in the future than if the event had not taken place. This is of course analogous to God’s foreordination of creatures sinful actions.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Sep 3, 2007)

Hello Caleb,



> Perhaps that He is not the “practitioner” (or whatever word fits better) of sin. By this I mean He doesn’t directly carry it out.



I like what you said about God not being the practitioner of sin; however, I do not agree with the sense you used it. I would say God is not the practitioner of sin in the sense that God's actions are never sinful.



> And if someone really pushes me on it and doesn’t like to think we are free even if we are morally responsible, then I would just say we don’t have free will but are still morally responsible. It depends on how one defines free will, but I think we are in agreement.



It does seem you and I are in agreement.



> I’m not sure if you should label yourself a hard determinist though.



It may be that the term is rather provocative, but it is unambiguous. I am critical of many in the Calvinist camp for being inconsistent on this front. I interact with many Arminians, atheists, etc... Ground is given to them when a Calvinist fails to step right up and make God the cause of sinful actions. Too often I have seen Calvinists back peddle on this. One recent example was J.I. Packer’s lectures on Puritanism that were linked to on this board. In one of his lectures he is speaking on the issue of Infra- and Supralapsarianism. He states that supra- is wrong and makes it clear that he does not like it at all. However, in the discussion he states that He affirms God's complete sovereignty, but denies that God caused Adam to sin in the garden. He calls it a mystery. I call it a contradiction and incoherent. J.I. Packer also speaks of God "allowing" sin, as if this solves the problem. Packer's position just confuses things. It would be better for him to come out and say that God is the first cause agent for sin! If he is not willing to do this, then he ought to deny that God ordains everything that comes to pass. Don't get me wrong. I love Packer. This is just one area where I think he is wrong. 

In the end, there is not one thing that happens in this world outside of God's first cause ordination. Everything in our second cause existence is determined. In this sense, I am a hard determinist. Now, let me clarify something that might make things more palatable. God ordains the means as well as the ends. In ordaining the means, our wills are such that they are not violated. That is to say, when God ordains that I commit adultery He ordains my will as such that I choose to commit adultery. In other words, there is no situation where God ordains something that I do not want to happen. God has ordained both the "want to" and the "doing". 



> Now Supreme Bill brings it about that this occurs in reality. But good is brought out of evil-there is a morally sufficient reason for this event to take place. Plus it is to “Supreme Bill’s” glory. Evil Jack still sins (because his intent was evil), but Supreme Bill is the first cause in that Supreme Bill ordained that such an event take place. Yet, Supreme Bill is not morally responsible in any negative way for the event taking place.



Here is the problem with your senario: you do not deal with the origination of evil Jack's intentions. Evil Jack's intention is ordained by Supreme Bill (SB). SB is the first cause of evil Jack's sinful intentions. Yet, there is no law that is violated by SB in his ordaining the evil intention. Therefore, SB has not sinned when he caused evil Jack to have a sinful intention. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Sep 3, 2007)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Caleb,
> 
> I like what you said about God not being the practitioner of sin; however, I do not agree with the sense you used it. I would say God is not the practitioner of sin in the sense that God's actions are never sinful.



Yeah, I guess He doesn't indirectly carry it out *Himself* either. 



Brian Bosse said:


> > I’m not sure if you should label yourself a hard determinist though.
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, there is not one thing that happens in this world outside of God's first cause ordination. Everything in our second cause existence is determined. In this sense, I am a hard determinist.


If this is what you mean by hard determinist, then I am in agreement with you.



Brian Bosse said:


> > Now Supreme Bill brings it about that this occurs in reality. But good is brought out of evil-there is a morally sufficient reason for this event to take place. Plus it is to “Supreme Bill’s” glory. Evil Jack still sins (because his intent was evil), but Supreme Bill is the first cause in that Supreme Bill ordained that such an event take place. Yet, Supreme Bill is not morally responsible in any negative way for the event taking place.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem with your senario: you do not deal with the origination of evil Jack's intentions. Evil Jack's intention is ordained by Supreme Bill (SB). SB is the first cause of evil Jack's sinful intentions. Yet, there is no law that is violated by SB in his ordaining the evil intention. Therefore, SB has not sinned when he caused evil Jack to have a sinful intention.



Good point. Agreed.


----------

