# The origin of Evil



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 22, 2003)

What is the origin of evil? 
Was it created by God?
How did it come into being?


In Christ bladestunner316


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 22, 2003)

Pride.
No.
Pride.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Apr 23, 2003)

I think your question is very similar to some questions I asked on another thread a couple weeks ago (&quot;Calvinism . . . in the beginning&quot.

Anyway, it seems the consensus was generally this (though if others disagree that this was a consensus, they may correct me):

1. God is sovereign, and everything proceeds according to His decrees, which proceed from His perfect will.
2. Angels and humans were both given a sort of &quot;free agency&quot; (as 2nd causes) to choose what actions to take (though of course they are limited in the sense that they could never take any action if God in His sovereignty did not allow it; so it is not a completely free agency, in the sense they are reigned in and not free to do anything outside God's decree, but it is free in the sense that God does not directly &quot;cause&quot; them to do anything evil).
3. Lucifer, joined by many other rebellious angels, was the first to do evil, using his &quot;free&quot; agency to rebel against God. He then led Adam and Eve to do the same, and thus our entire human race was plunged into sin.
4. All this was in line with God's decrees; God of course knew how Lucifer, and Adam and Eve, would use their &quot;free&quot; agency before he created them with it, but all of it is in line with His ultimate plan.

These statements in the Baptist Confession are also relevant:

3:1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

5:4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin. 

6:1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. 

6:2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 


Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## Jie-Huli (Apr 23, 2003)

Wannabe's answer is very true, and wonderfully concise.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 23, 2003)

Ok thats a good start thought i would throw that out see what you said befor ei study it for myself, come up with my own answer.
I agree with wanabee on pride-which is selfishness and unbelief.

In Christ bladestunner316


----------



## terry72 (Apr 23, 2003)

Below are two statements I wrote concerning this issue, and as can be seen I draw heavily upon Augustine.

[quote:6b5754d737]1. Evil has no being within its self, evil is merely the corruption of that which is good, that which has absolute being, must by necessity, be perfectly, immutably, good. For evil to be, all that has to exist is that which can be corrupted, i.e. the finite creature. Everything that is created must be by necessity, uncorrupted or good in its original form, for it to become corrupt. The extent to which the creature is corrupted, is determined by its creator and sustainer, the creator, therefore has the power to restore the creature to its pristine condition, if he is so inclined, and to maintain it in this pristine condition indefinitely.
2. God is absolute being, he is therefore perfectly good, and that which is absolute is immutable and therefore incorruptible. All of God's actions and decrees are based on the absolute perfection of his wisdom and judgment; therefore God can have no corrupt, i.e. evil, purposes or ends. Seeing that God alone is absolute good, his on glory and pleasure must be the desired end; anything else would be of infinitely less value.[/quote:6b5754d737]

I believe the problem of evil and how God can degree all that comes to pass and remain uncharged with sin is answered ontologically.

Blessings,
Terry


----------



## The0 (Jun 9, 2004)

Remember that the forbidden tree was named by God "the Tree of the knowledge of good AND evil."

[b:a9193e1ff2]Genesis 2
9 And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil.[/b:a9193e1ff2]
[i:a9193e1ff2]Emphasis added[/i:a9193e1ff2]

Man was created in a state of innocence, not knowing good nor evil. If man was to know good he had to eat of the tree. When he did, he knew not only good but also evil, because it was in the same tree. Notice the Lord God did not create two separate trees: one for the knowledge of good only and the other for the knowledge of evil only.

And God's words confirmed this in

[b:a9193e1ff2]Genesis 3
22 And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as ONE OF US, [u:a9193e1ff2]to know good AND evil[/u:a9193e1ff2]; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever-[/b:a9193e1ff2]

I truly believe it was God's intention that man ate of this tree.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 9, 2004)

good point theo


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 9, 2004)

God did not create [i:8f253a13d3]evil[/i:8f253a13d3]. The tree's capacity was that it had [i:8f253a13d3]knowledge[/i:8f253a13d3] of........It was the catalyst for the fall. Knowledge was the fruit of the tree.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 9, 2004)

if God did not create evil than who created the tree which had evil?


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:6d632e2798][i:6d632e2798]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:6d632e2798]
if God did not create evil than who created the tree which had evil? [/quote:6d632e2798]

The tree didn't [i:6d632e2798]have[/i:6d632e2798] evil. It had knowledge of evil. Augustine really handles this quite well in his book Confessions. Evil isn't a substance to be created. Evil is a good thing corrupted. It is a good thing diminished! Any other train of thought logically goes in the direction of your question: Who created evil. Evil wasn't created.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 9, 2004)

Ian and Scott are right on. Evil is not a created thing. It is not a substance. It is the perversion of or absence of good.

The word evil in Hebrew means literally &quot;that which causes harm.&quot; So it is not a created thing, but anything that harms us.

Phillip


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 9, 2004)

things I have to think about thanks for the opinions fella's


----------



## The0 (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:e2e495edc3][i:e2e495edc3]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:e2e495edc3]
[quote:e2e495edc3][i:e2e495edc3]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:e2e495edc3]
if God did not create evil than who created the tree which had evil? [/quote:e2e495edc3]

The tree didn't [i:e2e495edc3]have[/i:e2e495edc3] evil. It had knowledge of evil. Augustine really handles this quite well in his book Confessions. Evil isn't a substance to be created. Evil is a good thing corrupted. It is a good thing diminished! Any other train of thought logically goes in the direction of your question: Who created evil. Evil wasn't created. [/quote:e2e495edc3]

Read Isaiah 45:7.

If evil is the corruption of a good thing, in our case Adam, we must conclude that God created man with the capacity to become corrupted; we can still say that God is &quot;responsible&quot; for creating man this way, and thus for his fall.

By just saying that evil is not a created substance, it still begs the question, where did it come from?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 10, 2004)

So if we say that evil is not created by God but a by product of general creation(ie man and nature) then are we assuming that evil in and of itself is outside the domain of God and hence forth can manifest and reproduce in and of itself outside the surpassing presence of God?

blade


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 10, 2004)

Evil is not created. It is a by product. It is the absence of good.........
For instance, darkness is the absence of light.

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## The0 (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:9bb268fa1a][i:9bb268fa1a]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:9bb268fa1a]
Evil is not created. It is a by product. It is the absence of good.........
For instance, darkness is the absence of light.

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:9bb268fa1a]

May the Lord bless you Scott,

Your statement &quot;Evil is not created&quot; contradicts Is. 45:7 where the Lord says &quot;I create evil&quot;. In your &quot;darkness and light analogy&quot;, light has substance-we can measure its speed, intensity, direction, wavelength, etc. But does darkness have substance? If we remove the source of light, we get darkness. Applying your analogy, I conclude that God by removing good, He created or introduced evil. Or was it Satan who removed the good?

Because someone previously posted that evil has no substance, then let me say that good has no substance either.

Probably the simplest definition of evil is this: [u:9bb268fa1a]evil is anything bad or adverse that happens from MY earthly point of view.[/u:9bb268fa1a] It includes all calamities that may occur, such as earthquakes, whirlwinds, famines, and pestilence. It also includes all judgment for moral sins. We are told in the Bible that God brings evils upon an individual, a city, a nation, or even the whole world in accordance to the Law. Often these "evils" take the form of wars, earthquakes, or famines. We normally think of these things as God's righteous judgments against the ungodly.

When these things happen to Christians who do not believe they have done anything wrong, they have a habit of blaming the devil for attacking the righteous. Other Christians, though, who suffer from inner guilt and fear, often assume that God is angry with them when such troubles occur. These are rather simplistic views that are more often incorrect than correct. While it is true that all evil is judgment for sin, we must understand that most evil that befalls men is either a result of Adam's sin in general or the result of the corporate sin of the nation. Individuals are, of course, affected by such judgments, because they are held liable for the sins of those in authority over them. When a "natural" disaster occurs, many people are left asking why this happened. We often hear comments like, "Why is God so angry with us?" The victims of such "evil" befalling a city or nation should realize that God's judgments are not usually directed at them for their sin, but for the corporate sin of the nation or its leadership. The people pay the price for the sins of their leadership. Only those who hear and obey God's voice are divinely protected--but even then, such people are often subjected to the liability of the nation when called as intercessors.

Evil itself is not sin, for Amos 3:6 says, "shall there be evil in a city; and the LORD hath not done it?" Evil is not sin, for God does evil, but does not sin. Likewise, as parents, we may bring "evil" upon our children (from their point of view) when we discipline them. Children seldom agree with their parents in matters of discipline. Evil becomes sin only when it is done apart from the perfect will of God.

[Edited on 6/11/2004 by The0]

[Edited on 6/11/2004 by The0]


----------



## The0 (Jun 11, 2004)

Notice the passage I cited previously, "shall [u:c0555098bc]there be[/u:c0555098bc] evil in a city; and the
LORD hath not [u:c0555098bc]done it[/u:c0555098bc]?" (Amos 3:6)

The words "there be" imply the existence or at least the expression of evil. Moreover, the Lord was able to "do it". The quote says "and the Lord hath not done it?" So evil has the characteristic that it CAN BE. If we don't like to say "create evil", then we can say that evil "comes into being".

And [b:c0555098bc]John 1:3[/b:c0555098bc] reads,
[b:c0555098bc]3 [u:c0555098bc]All things came into being by Him[/u:c0555098bc], and [u:c0555098bc]apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.[/u:c0555098bc][/b:c0555098bc]

Paul also testifies to this in [b:c0555098bc]1 Corinthians 8:6[/b:c0555098bc]:
[b:c0555098bc]
6 Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, [u:c0555098bc]from whom are all things,[/u:c0555098bc] and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, [u:c0555098bc]by whom are all things,[/u:c0555098bc] and we exist through Him.[/b:c0555098bc]

This passage tells me that ALL things come from God the Father, excepting NONE.

[Edited on 6/11/2004 by The0]

[Edited on 6/11/2004 by The0]


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 11, 2004)

Theo

Evil becomes sin when it is done apart from the [i:bfbca0b74d]revealed[/i:bfbca0b74d] will of God. We have to distinguish between calamity and immoral sin. God ordains all things but he is not the author of sin. He cannot be called responsible for sin, otherwise God is morally imperfect which means there is a standard of holiness out there that surpasses God. This is obviously a horrendous error to entertain. 

Again we have to distinguish from the usage of the word evil that was used in antiquity and the one that is used in modern english. When God says he creates evil that is to say that he has ordained all things good and evil. We must be careful in our language lest we give the Arminian an inch here. God is not the author of evil. 

Now in discussion of the evil that is [b:bfbca0b74d]sin[/b:bfbca0b74d] we see there is extra care that must be described. Moral uprightness was a prominent feature in Adam, and in Lucifer. They were created innocent, both of them fell from grace by there own free agency or free will (If you use it in the Augustinian sense). God ordained these actions positively:

[quote:bfbca0b74d]IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men;[14] and that not by a bare permission,[15] but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,[16] and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends;[17] yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.[18]

14. Isa. 45:7; Rom. 11:32-34; II Sam. 16:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; see II Sam. 24:1 and I Chr. 21:1; I Kings 22:22-23; I Chr. 10:4, 13-14
15. John 12:40; II Thess. 2:11
16. Psa. 76:10; II Kings 19:28
17. Gen. 50:20; Isa. 10:6-7,12-15 (particularly v.12)
18. James 1:13-14, 17; I John 2:16; Psa. 50:21[/quote:bfbca0b74d]

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Ianterrell]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 11, 2004)

So it sems that w have to be clar on what type of definition we apply to words as one word can have multiple meanings in differing contexts.

blade


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:caac0fd19c][i:caac0fd19c]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:caac0fd19c]
So it sems that w have to be clar on what type of definition we apply to words as one word can have multiple meanings in differing contexts.

blade [/quote:caac0fd19c]

Certainly.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 11, 2004)




----------



## The0 (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:5edc987d7d][i:5edc987d7d]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:5edc987d7d]
Theo

Evil becomes sin when it is done apart from the [i:5edc987d7d]revealed[/i:5edc987d7d] will of God. We have to distinguish between calamity and immoral sin. God ordains all things but he is not the author of sin. He cannot be called responsible for sin, otherwise God is morally imperfect which means there is a standard of holiness out there that surpasses God. This is obviously a horrendous error to entertain. 

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Ianterrell] [/quote:5edc987d7d]

The0's response:
If you say that God ordains all things but he is not the author of sin, can we not say the same thing of salvation? That is, God ordained salvation but He is not the author of it. Do you agree that God is not the author of salvation?

[quote:5edc987d7d][i:5edc987d7d]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:5edc987d7d]
Again we have to distinguish from the usage of the word evil that was used in antiquity and the one that is used in modern english. When God says he creates evil that is to say that he has ordained all things good and evil. We must be careful in our language lest we give the Arminian an inch here. God is not the author of evil. 

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Ianterrell] [/quote:5edc987d7d]

The0's response:
I think the valid meaning of the word evil is what people of that time understood it to be. I think it's pretty much the same. Is. 45:7 says,

The One forming light and [u:5edc987d7d]creating darkness[/u:5edc987d7d], [u:5edc987d7d]causing[/u:5edc987d7d] well-being and [u:5edc987d7d]creating[/u:5edc987d7d] calamity [ra, "evil"]; I am the LORD who [u:5edc987d7d]does all these.[/u:5edc987d7d]

And Amos 3:6 says, "shall there be EVIL in a city; and the LORD [u:5edc987d7d]hath not done it? [/u:5edc987d7d]"

[quote:5edc987d7d][i:5edc987d7d]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:5edc987d7d]
Now in discussion of the evil that is [b:5edc987d7d]sin[/b:5edc987d7d] we see there is extra care that must be described. Moral uprightness was a prominent feature in Adam, and in Lucifer. They were created innocent, both of them fell from grace by there own free agency or free will (If you use it in the Augustinian sense). God ordained these actions positively:

[quote:5edc987d7d]IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men;[14] and that not by a bare permission,[15] but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,[16] and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends;[17] yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.[18]

14. Isa. 45:7; Rom. 11:32-34; II Sam. 16:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; see II Sam. 24:1 and I Chr. 21:1; I Kings 22:22-23; I Chr. 10:4, 13-14
15. John 12:40; II Thess. 2:11
16. Psa. 76:10; II Kings 19:28
17. Gen. 50:20; Isa. 10:6-7,12-15 (particularly v.12)
18. James 1:13-14, 17; I John 2:16; Psa. 50:21[/quote:5edc987d7d]

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Ianterrell] [/quote:5edc987d7d]

The0's response:
Moral uprightness in Adam and Lucifer? Moral uprightness presupposes knowledge of good and evil, therefore it could not have been a "prominent feature" of Adam and Lucifer. I prefer to say that Adam was created in a state of innocence, not knowing good or evil.

Job understood that God was ultimately the Author of both good and evil. It was revealed to him that Satan needed God's permission to tempt men (Job 1:6-12). So he said in 2:10:
10 But he said to her, &quot;You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept [u:5edc987d7d]adversity[/u:5edc987d7d]?&quot; In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

The word translated "adversity" is RA, the word normally translated "evil." Many evil things had happened to Job. The biblical account tells us that Satan had to get permission from God to afflict Job (1:6-12). God gave Satan permission, and that is when the disasters, or "evils" began to happen to him. First, Job's servants were killed by Sabeans, then Chaldeans killed more servants and stole his camels, and then a tornado destroyed the house, killing all his children. Finally, Satan got permission from God to afflict Job with boils (2:7).

In the story, all these things were obviously brought about by Satan, and yet nothing happened without God's express permission. God could have prevented this, but chose not to do so. God did not sin in this, but Job knew that Go was responsible for all this evil that had befallen him. Job attributed evil to God-NOT to Satan-and did NOT sin in doing so. Satan was merely God's agent of judgment or testing, not an independent
god outside of God's control. It is much like the way God uses human agencies to judge or test people. For example, God used Assyria to judge Israel, and He used Babylon to judge Judah and Jerusalem.

Many other passages in the Bible attribute evil to God. Most of them are where God attributes evil to Himself. Such verses take on a whole new meaning when we contrast it to Persian Dualism, which made an extreme attempt to separate all evil from God and make God and Satan equal in power. The Bible was certainly NOT influenced by such man-made ideas that elevate Satan's power to that of God Himself. There are no other gods beside Him. No one even comes close! BLESSED BE HIS GLORIOUS NAME!!!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2004)

Theo,
The Administrators of the Puritan Board have recently asked all members to update their signature line to include the following information: 

Your Name 
Title or Ministry Position 
Name of Your Home Church with Affiliation, City, State 

An example of this would be: 

Dr. Joe Paedo 
Teaching Elder, Redeemer PCA 
Los Angeles, CA 

Or 

John Credo 
Member, Emmanuel Baptist Church - Reformed Baptist 
Coconut Creek, FL 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3273 

We would ask that you comply with this request as soon as possible. Failure to do so will result in suspension of posting privileges until the updates have been made. 

Thanks! 
The Management


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 11, 2004)

I think we must all realize is that both good and evil are below the most high God. That no matter how good is good and evil is evil. God is much more powerful and uncomprehendable than these immaterial things.

In the end if God created evil,so what he is God and worthy of Praise!! 

Ive had so much crap going on this past year and feel as though im destined for hell but I cant deny that Jesus Christ is risen and Lord of all. And worthy of Praise!!

blade


----------



## The0 (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:1f05ec1037][i:1f05ec1037]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:1f05ec1037]
Theo,
The Administrators of the Puritan Board have recently asked all members to update their signature line to include the following information: 

Your Name 
Title or Ministry Position 
Name of Your Home Church with Affiliation, City, State 

An example of this would be: 

Dr. Joe Paedo 
Teaching Elder, Redeemer PCA 
Los Angeles, CA 

Or 

John Credo 
Member, Emmanuel Baptist Church - Reformed Baptist 
Coconut Creek, FL 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3273 

We would ask that you comply with this request as soon as possible. Failure to do so will result in suspension of posting privileges until the updates have been made. 

Thanks! 
The Management [/quote:1f05ec1037]

Commander Bushey, I have complied! :bs2:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2004)

Thank you sir........

As soon as time allows, I will address your citations.

Scott


----------



## Areopagus (Jun 12, 2004)

*The one question unanswered...*

I must say, I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion. Theos has brought up some pertinent points that have been, in my opinion, avoided. Although in all fairness I must say that this could very possibly be a lack of clarification. In other words, in many discussions the terms, or definitions of things, must be clearly delineated or there will be cross talk and much miscommunication. For instance, what might happen in this dialogue were we to define evil before trying to discuss what it is? Just a thought. 

The subject line of this post though, &quot;The one question unanswered,&quot; is what is on my mind. Through the course of this thread there has been a question that was touched on very briefly, and since that time has been ignored. There has been much talk of the tree, Adam and Eve, and whether God is indeed the author of sin (calamity) or not, but what of Lucifer and the angels who followed? 

1. Did God know and/or ordain their fall (the angels)?
2. When did this happen?

I would be interested in any thoughts on this subject. 

In Him,

Dustin...
Associate Pastor Bridgeway Bible Church
San Antonio, Texas
Favorite cereal - Fruity Pebbles.

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by Areopagus]


----------



## Areopagus (Jun 12, 2004)

It's a bit long, but here is something John Piper wrote concerning this subject. Per the norm for Piper, it's amazing.

He says:

1. All Things Are From, Through, and To God

First, because God's riches and wisdom and knowledge are unfathomably deep, verse 36 is true: "From him and through him . . . are all things." I take this to mean that the ultimate origin or the ultimate cause or the ultimately decisive reason for everything is God. Everything is dependent for its existence on God-at its beginning and all the way along (from him and through him).

Ephesians 1:11 puts it like this: "[God] works all things according to the counsel of his will." Romans 9:16 puts it like this: "So then it depends not on human will or exertion,but on God, who has mercy." Proverbs 16:33 puts it like this, "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." "All things are from him and through him" means that there is no explanation for what is or what happens that is deeper or more decisive than God. This is what we mean when we say that God is absolutely sovereign.

The devil is not co-eternal with God, and he is not ultimately
independent of God. His existence and all that comes from it-so much of the evil in the world-depends on God's willing him to exist and allowing him moment by moment to do what he does. God sees it coming and he permits it to happen. And since he does nothing aimlessly or capriciously, there is always a purpose for what he causes to happen directly and what he permits to happen indirectly . So in that sense we can say that even the evil and the calamity of the world (e.g. Romans 11:7-10) are included in verse 36, "All things are from him and through him."

But let's not say more than we should here. There is another sense in which we must not say that all things are from God. For example, think of 1 John 2:15-16,

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world-the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions-is not from the Father but is from the world.

Here John says that "the desires of the flesh" and "the desires of the eyes" and the "pride in possessions" is "not from God ." So in one sense "all things" are "from God." But in another sense these evil things are not from God.

I take this to mean that sin does not come from God's nature. That is, it's not an extension or aspect of God's nature or character. God is holy, and there is no unholiness in him. God is light, and in him is no darkness. The darkness and unholiness of sin do not arise as part of God's nature or character. They don't come from him in that sense. Sin can be from God and through God in the sense of ultimate and decisive cause, but not in the sense that sin comes from his nature or character. God wills that sin be, without himself sinning. It is not a sin when God, with infinite wisdom and holiness, ordains that sin exist. Sin is "from him" as the one who ordained it, but "not from him" as an expression of his nature.

Here's an imperfect illustration of the difference. You can get a black eye in two ways. You can be hit in your eye with a white snowball, and your eye will turn black. Or you can be injected above your eye with a hypodermic needle full of black dye, and your eye will turn black. In the second case the darkness comes from the nature of the dye. In the first case the darkness does not come from any darkness in the snowball.

All I want you to see from that illustration is that there are two different ways to think about something being "from God." All things are from God in the sense that he ordains all that comes to pass. But all sinful acts are not from God as an expression of his nature.

The practical upshot of this is that we are utterly dependent on God for all things and that we are utterly responsible and guilty for the evil in our hearts. The effect this should have is deep humility. 1 Corinthians 4:7, "What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" The fact that all things are from God and through God, excludes boasting.
_____

His,

Dustin...


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 13, 2004)

I would love to have a book recording the historiy of the angels.

blade


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:467e0167b8][i:467e0167b8]Originally posted by Areopagus[/i:467e0167b8]
I must say, I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion. Theos has brought up some pertinent points that have been, in my opinion, avoided. Although in all fairness I must say that this could very possibly be a lack of clarification. In other words, in many discussions the terms, or definitions of things, must be clearly delineated or there will be cross talk and much miscommunication. For instance, what might happen in this dialogue were we to define evil before trying to discuss what it is? Just a thought. 

The subject line of this post though, &quot;The one question unanswered,&quot; is what is on my mind. Through the course of this thread there has been a question that was touched on very briefly, and since that time has been ignored. There has been much talk of the tree, Adam and Eve, and whether God is indeed the author of sin (calamity) or not, but what of Lucifer and the angels who followed? 

1. Did God know and/or ordain their fall (the angels)?
2. When did this happen?

I would be interested in any thoughts on this subject. 

In Him,

Dustin...
Associate Pastor Bridgeway Bible Church
San Antonio, Texas
Favorite cereal - Fruity Pebbles.

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by Areopagus] [/quote:467e0167b8]

Ordaining something is not the same as creating or being personally responsible for.....


----------



## Areopagus (Jun 13, 2004)

Scott,

Thank you for your, um, reply?! :thumbdown:

:bs2:

Would anyone, including Scott, care to address my questions in any more depth? I can rephrase the questions if that would help?

1. Lucifer fell after creation. Was this fall foreknown by God in the predestined sense vs. the libertarian sense?

2. Did God ordain/purpose/appoint this fall to occur?

3. Would this be why Lucifer is considered responsible for the fall due to his tempting Eve in the garden in their state of innocence?

I ask in sincerity as I am trying to work through some of these things cogently. A sincere answer is appreciated.

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

Dustin,
Forgive me if my answer is not sufficient. You see, this topic has been exhausted here already on PB. Forgive me if my zeal lacks, but at this point, this question is perpetually cyclic.

Have you checked our archives through the search function???


Here's a little something from Calvin:

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: 
I. It having been said above that God bends all the reprobate, and even Satan himself, at his will, three objections are started. First, that this happens by the permission, not by the will of God. To this objection there is a twofold reply, the one, that angels and men, good and bad, do nothing but what is appointed by God; the second, that all movements are secretly directed to their end by the hidden inspiration of God, sec. 1, 2. 

II. A second objection is, that there are two contrary wills in God, if by a secret counsel he decrees what he openly prohibits by his law. This objection refuted, sec. 3. 

III. The third objection is, that God is made the author of all wickedness, when he is said not only to use the agency of the wicked, but also to govern their counsels and affections, and that therefore the wicked are unjustly punished. This objection refuted in the last section. 
Sections 

1. The carnal mind the source of the objections which are raised against the Providence of God. A primary objection, making a distinction between the permission and the will of God, refuted. Angels and men, good and bad, do nought but what has been decreed by God. This proved by examples. 

2. All hidden movements directed to their end by the unseen but righteous instigation of God. Examples, with answers to objections. 

3. These objections originate in a spirit of pride and blasphemy. Objection, that there must be two contrary wills in God, refuted. Why the one simple will of God seems to us as if it were manifold. 

4. Objection, that God is the author of sin, refuted by examples. Augustine's answer and admonition. 

1. From other passages, in which God is said to draw or bend Satan himself, and all the reprobate, to his will, a more difficult question arises. For the carnal mind can scarcely comprehend how, when acting by their means, he contracts no taint from their impurity, nay, how, in a common operation, he is exempt from all guilt, and can justly condemn his own ministers. Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute his judgements. The modesty of those who are thus alarmed at the appearance of absurdity might perhaps be excused, did they not endeavour to vindicate the justice of God from every semblance of stigma by defending an untruth. It seems absurd that man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and yet be forthwith punished for his blindness. Hence, recourse is had to the evasion that this is done only by the permission, and not also by the will of God. He himself, however, openly declaring that he does this, repudiates the evasion. That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture. What we formerly quoted from the Psalms, to the effect that he does whatever pleases him, certainly extends to all the actions of men. If God is the arbiter of peace and war, as is there said, and that without any exception, who will venture to say that men are borne along at random with a blind impulse, while He is unconscious or quiescent? But the matter will be made clearer by special examples. From the first chapter of Job we learn that Satan appears in the presence of God to receive his orders, just as do the angels who obey spontaneously. The manner and the end are different, but still the fact is, that he cannot attempt anything without the will of God. But though afterwards his power to afflict the saint seems to be only a bare permission, yet as the sentiment is true, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so it has been done," we infer that God was the author of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments. Satan's aim is to drive the saint to madness by despair. The Sabeans cruelly and wickedly make a sudden incursion to rob another of his goods. Job acknowledges that he was deprived of all his property, and brought to poverty, because such was the pleasure of God. Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself devise, God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts contribute to the execution of his judgements. God wills that the perfidious Ahab should be deceived; the devil offers his agency for that purpose, and is sent with a definite command to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets (1Ki_22:20-22). If the blinding and infatuation of Ahab is a judgment from God, the fiction of bare permission is at an end; for it would be ridiculous for a judge only to permit, and not also to decree, what he wishes to be done at the very time that he commits the execution of it to his ministers. The Jews purposed to destroy Christ. Pilate and the soldiers indulged them in their fury; yet the disciples confess in solemn prayer that all the wicked did nothing but what the hand and counsel of God had decreed (Act_4:28), just as Peter had previously said in his discourse, that Christ was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Act_2:23); in other words, that God, to whom all things are known from the beginning, had determined what the Jews had executed. He repeats the same thing elsewhere, "Those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he has so fulfilled" (Act_3:18). Absalom incestuously defiling his father's bed, perpetrates a detestable crime. God, however, declares that it was his work; for the words are, "Thou midst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun." The cruelties of the Chaldeans in Judea are declared by Jeremiah to be the work of God. For which reason, Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God. God frequently exclaims, that by his hiss, by the clang of his trumpet, by his authority and command, the wicked are excited to war. He calls the Assyrian the rod of his anger, and the axe which he wields in his hand. The overthrow of the city and downfall of the temple, he calls his own work. David, not murmuring against God, but acknowledging him to be a just judge, confesses that the curses of Shimei are uttered by his orders. "The Lord," says he, "has bidden him curse." Often in sacred history whatever happens is said to proceed from the Lord, as the revolt of the ten tribes, the death of Eli's sons, and very many others of a similar description. Those who have a tolerable acquaintance with the Scriptures see that, with a view to brevity, I am only producing a few out of many passages, from which it is perfectly clear that it is the merest trifling to substitute a bare permission for the providence of God, as if he sat in a watch-tower waiting for fortuitous events, his judgements meanwhile depending on the will of man. 

2. With regard to secret movements, what Solomon says of the heart of a king, that it is turned hither and thither, as God sees meet, certainly applies to the whole human race, and has the same force as if he had said, that whatever we conceive in our minds is directed to its end by the secret inspiration of God. And certainly, did he not work internally in the minds of men, it could not have been properly said, that he takes away the lip from the true, and prudence from the aged - takes away the heart from the princes of the earth, that they wander through devious paths. To the same effect, we often read that men are intimidated when He fills their hearts with terror. Thus David left the camp of Saul while none knew of its because a sleep from God had fallen upon all. But nothing can be clearer than the many passages which declare, that he blinds the minds of men, and smites them with giddiness, intoxicates them with a spirit of stupor, renders them infatuated, and hardens their hearts. Even these expressions many would confine to permissions as if, by deserting the reprobate, he allowed them to be blinded by Satan. But since the Holy Spirit distinctly says, that the blindness and infatuation are inflicted by the just judgment of God, the solution is altogether inadmissible. He is said to have hardened the heart of Pharaoh, to have hardened it yet more, and confirmed it. Some evade these forms of expression by a silly cavil, because Pharaoh is elsewhere said to have hardened his own heart, thus making his will the cause of hardening it; as if the two things did not perfectly agree with each other, though in different senses viz., that man, though acted upon by God, at the same time also acts. But I retort the objection on those who make it. If to harden means only bare permission, the contumacy will not properly belong to Pharaoh. Now, could any thing be more feeble and insipid than to interpret as if Pharaoh had only allowed himself to be hardened? We may add, that Scripture cuts off all handle for such cavils: "I," saith the Lord, "will harden his heart" (Exo_4:21). So also, Moses says of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, that they went forth to battle because the Lord had hardened their hearts (Jos_11:20). The same thing is repeated by another prophet, "He turned their hearts to hate his people" (Psa_105:25). In like manner, in Isaiah, he says of the Assyrian, "I will send him against a hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge to take the spoil, and to take the prey" (Isa_10:6); not that he intends to teach wicked and obstinate man to obey spontaneously, but because he bends them to execute his judgements, just as if they carried their orders engraven on their minds. And hence it appears that they are impelled by the sure appointment of God. I admit, indeed, that God often acts in the reprobate by interposing the agency of Satan; but in such a manner, that Satan himself performs his part, just as he is impelled, and succeeds only in so far as he is permitted. The evil spirit that troubled Saul is said to be from the Lord (1Sa_16:14), to intimate that Saul's madness was a just punishment from God. Satan is also said to blind the minds of those who believe not (2Co_4:4). But how so, unless that a spirit of error is sent from God himself, making those who refuse to obey the truth to believe a lie? According to the former view, it is said, "If the prophet be deceived when he has spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet" (Eze_14:9). According to the latter view, he is said to have given men over to a reprobate mind (Rom_1:28), because he is the special author of his own just vengeance; whereas Satan is only his minister (see Calv. in Ps. 141:4). But as in the Second Book (Chap. 4: sec. 3, 4), in discussing the question of man's freedom, this subject will again be considered, the little that has now been said seems to be all that the occasion requires. The sum of the whole is this: since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence; so that he not only exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, but also forces the reprobate to do him service. 

3. As I have hitherto stated only what is plainly and unambiguously taught in Scripture, those who hesitate not to stigmatise what is thus taught by the sacred oracles, had better beware what kind of censure they employ. If, under a pretence of ignorance, they seek the praise of modesty, what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God - to say, for instance, "I think otherwise," - "I would not have this subject touched?" But if they openly blaspheme, what will they gain by assaulting heaven? Such petulance, indeed, is not new. In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine. But what the Spirit declared of old by the mouth of David (Psa_51:4), they will feel by experience to be true - God will overcome when he is judged. David indirectly rebukes the infatuation of those whose license is so unbridled, that from their grovelling spot of earth they not only plead against God, but arrogate to themselves the right of censuring him. At the same time, he briefly intimates that the blasphemies which they belch forth against heaven, instead of reaching God, only illustrate his justice, when the mists of their calumnies are dispersed. Even our faith, because founded on the sacred word of God, is superior to the whole world, and is able from its height to look down upon such mists. 
Their first objection - that if nothing happens without the will of God, he must have two contrary wills, decreeing by a secret counsel what he has openly forbidden in his law - is easily disposed of. But before I reply to it, I would again remind my readers, that this cavil is directed not against me, but against the Holy Spirit, who certainly dictated this confession to that holy man Job, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away," when, after being plundered by robbers, he acknowledges that their injustice and mischief was a just chastisement from God. And what says the Scripture elsewhere? The sons of Eli "hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them" (1Sa_2:25). Another prophet also exclaims, "Our God is in the heavens: he has done whatsoever he has pleased" (Psa_115:3). 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 "to 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. Paul terms the calling of the Gentiles a hidden mystery, and shortly after adds, that therein was manifested the manifold wisdom of God (Eph_3:10). Since, on account of the dullness of our sense, the wisdom of God seems manifold (or, as an old interpreter rendered it, multiform), are we, therefore, to dream of some variation in God, as if he either changed his counsel, or disagreed with himself? Nay, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility, and remember that the light in which he dwells is not without cause termed inaccessible (1Ti_6:16), because shrouded in darkness. Hence, all pious and modest men will readily acquiesce in the sentiment of Augustine: "Man sometimes with a good will wishes something which God does not will, as when a good son wishes his father to live, while God wills him to die. Again, it may happen that man with a bad will wishes what God wills righteously, as when a bad son wishes his father to die, and God also wills it. The former wishes what God wills not, the latter wishes what God also wills. And yet the filial affection of the former is more consonant to the good will of God, though willing differently, than the unnatural affection of the latter, though willing the same thing; so much does approbation or condemnation depend on what it is befitting in man, and what in God to will, and to what end the will of each has respect. For the things which God rightly wills, he accomplishes by the evil wills of bad men" (August. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 101). He had said a little before (cap. 100) that the apostate angels, by their revolt, and all the reprobate, as far as they themselves were concerned, did what God willed not; but, in regard to his omnipotence, it was impossible for them to do so: for, while they act against the will of God, his will is accomplished in them. Hence he exclaims, "Great is the work of God, exquisite in all he wills! so that, in a manner wondrous and ineffable, that is not done without his will which is done contrary to it, because it could not be done if he did not permit; nor does he permit it unwillingly, but willingly; nor would He who is good permit evil to be done, were he not omnipotent to bring good out of evil" (Augustin. in Ps. 111:2). 

4. In the same way is solved, or rather spontaneously vanishes, another objection, viz., If God not only uses the agency of the wicked, but also governs their counsels and affections, he is the author of all their sins; and, therefore, men, in executing what God has decreed, are unjustly condemned, because they are obeying his will. Here "will" is improperly confounded with precept, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them. When Absalom defiled his father's bed, though God was pleased thus to avenge the adultery of David, he did not therefore enjoin an abandoned son to commit incest, unless, perhaps, in respect of David, as David himself says of Shimei's curses. For, while he confesses that Shimei acts by the order of God, he by no means commends the obedience, as if that petulant dog had been yielding obedience to a divine command; but, recognising in his tongue the scourge of God, he submits patiently to be chastised. Thus we must hold, that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to their lust. 
How these things, which men do perversely, are of God, and are ruled by his secret providence, is strikingly shown in the election of King Jeroboam (1Ki_12:20), in which the rashness and infatuation of the people are severely condemned for perverting the order sanctioned by God, and perfidiously revolting from the family of David. And yet we know it was God's will that Jeroboam should be anointed. Hence the apparent contradiction in the words of Hosea (Hos_8:4; Hos_13:11), because, while God complained that that kingdom was erected without his knowledge, and against his will, he elsewhere declares, that he had given King Jeroboam in his anger. How shall we reconcile the two things - that Jeroboam's reign was not of God, and yet God appointed him king? In this way: The people could not revolt from the family of David without shaking off a yoke divinely imposed on them, and yet God himself was not deprived of the power of thus punishing the ingratitude of Solomon. We, therefore, see how God, while not willing treachery, with another view justly wills the revolt; and hence Jeroboam, by unexpectedly receiving the sacred unction, is urged to aspire to the kingdom. For this reason, the sacred history says, that God stirred up an enemy to deprive the son of Solomon of part of the kingdom (1Ki_11:23). Let the reader diligently ponder both points: how, as it was the will of God that the people should be ruled by the hand of one king, their being rent into two parties was contrary to his will; and yet how this same will originated the revolt. For certainly, when Jeroboam, who had no such thought, is urged by the prophet verbally, and by the oil of unction, to hope for the kingdom, the thing was not done without the knowledge or against the will of God, who had expressly commanded it; and yet the rebellion of the people is justly condemned, because it was against the will of God that they revolted from the posterity of David. For this reason, it is afterwards added, that when Rehoboam haughtily spurned the prayers of the people, "the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah" (1Ki_12:15). See how sacred unity was violated against the will of God, while, at the same time, with his will the ten tribes were alienated from the son of Solomon. To this might be added another similar example, viz., the murder of the sons of Ahab, and the extermination of his whole progeny by the consent, or rather the active agency, of the people. Jehu says truly "There shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word of the Lord, which the Lord spake concerning the house of Ahab: for the Lord has done that which he spake by his servant Elijah" (2Ki_10:10). And yet, with good reason, he upbraids the citizens of Samaria for having lent their assistance. "Ye be righteous: behold, I conspired against my master, and slew him, but who slew all these?" 
If I mistake not, I have already shown clearly how the same act at once betrays the guilt of man, and manifests the righteousness of God. Modest minds will always be satisfied with Augustine's answer, "Since the Father delivered up the Son, Christ his own body, and Judas his Master, how in such a case is God just, and man guilty, but just because in the one act which they did, the reasons for which they did it are different?" (August. Ep. 48, ad Vincentium). If any are not perfectly satisfied with this explanation, viz., that there is no concurrence between God and man, when by His righteous impulse man does what he ought not to do, let them give heed to what Augustine elsewhere observes: "Who can refrain from trembling at those judgements when God does according to his pleasure even in the hearts of the wicked, at the same time rendering to them according to their deeds?" (De Grat. et lib. Orbit. ad Valent. c. 20). And certainly, in regard to the treachery of Judas, there is just as little ground to throw the blame of the crime upon God, because He was both pleased that his Son should be delivered up to death, and did deliver him, as to ascribe to Judas the praise of our redemption. Hence Augustine, in another place, truly observes, that when God makes his scrutiny, he looks not to what men could do, or to what they did, but to what they wished to do, thus taking account of their will and purpose. Those to whom this seems harsh had better consider how far their captiousness is entitled to any toleration, while, on the ground of its exceeding their capacity, they reject a matter which is clearly taught by Scripture, and complain of the enunciation of truths, which, if they were not useful to be known, God never would have ordered his prophets and apostles to teach. Our true wisdom is to embrace with meek docility, and without reservation, whatever the Holy Scriptures, have delivered. Those who indulge their petulance, a petulance manifestly directed against God, are undeserving of a longer refutation. 


[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Areopagus (Jun 13, 2004)

Scott,

In all seriousness, both thank you for that effort, and I apologize for my lack of knowledge concerning what has or has not been exhausted. You are right, I should have searched the topic. I'm new to the board (pretty much brand new), and thus, I blurted before searching.

I will read what you posted in length. I'll give it great consideration. I appreciate the time you gave.

Have a super Sunday evening.

Go Detroit (only because I cannot stand the Lakers and my Spurs didn't show up the night they played).

Dustin...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

No problem Dustin,
Did I tell you I used to live in S.A.? Excellent Mexican at the Blanco Cafe! I believe it's off loop 410 and Blanco road.

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Areopagus (Jun 14, 2004)

Yes, Blanco Cafe is off of 410 and Blanco. However, if one truly wants to experience true Mexican cuisine then one must stop by Guajillo's or Jacalas. I can post addresses and phone numbers if you'd like. 

I'm reading and digging into the thoughts you posted from Calvin. Good stuff. Again, thank you.

Dustin...


----------



## The0 (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:6d339a9333][i:6d339a9333]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:6d339a9333]
Thank you sir........

As soon as time allows, I will address your citations.

Scott [/quote:6d339a9333]

 :book:

[Edited on 6/14/2004 by The0]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 14, 2004)

Theo,
See my post above w/ the Calvin commentary as my response.


----------



## The0 (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:9fdbc30875][i:9fdbc30875]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:9fdbc30875]
Theo,
See my post above w/ the Calvin commentary as my response. [/quote:9fdbc30875]

Certainly! I was gonna comment to Areopagus that he got more than he bargained for with that &quot;brief&quot; reply.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 14, 2004)

Evil Articles

This is from monergism-enjoy!!

blade


----------

