Did God create evil?

[Bandguy]

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

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

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

 

[Bandguy]

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]

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]

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]

What was Beza's view on this subject?

 

[Bandguy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Objection 2. Further, it is written (Wisdom 14:11): "The creatures of God are turned to an abomination; and a temptation to the souls of men." But a temptation usually denotes a provocation to sin. Since therefore creatures were made by God alone, as was established in the I, 44, 1, it seems that God is a cause of sin, by provoking man to sin.

Objection 3. Further, the cause of the cause is the cause of the effect. Now God is the cause of the free-will, which itself is the cause of sin. Therefore God is the cause of sin.

Objection 4. Further, every evil is opposed to good. But it is not contrary to God's goodness that He should cause the evil of punishment; since of this evil it is written (Isaiah 45:7) that God creates evil, and (Amos 3:6): "Shall there be evil in the city which God [Vulg.: 'the Lord'] hath not done?" Therefore it is not incompatible with God's goodness that He should cause the evil of fault.

On the contrary, It is written (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou . . . hatest none of the things which Thou hast made." Now God hates sin, according to Wis. 14:9: "To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful." Therefore God is not a cause of sin.

I answer that, Man is, in two ways, a cause either of his own or of another's sin. First, directly, namely by inclining his or another's will to sin; secondly, indirectly, namely by not preventing someone from sinning. Hence (Ezekiel 3:18) it is said to the watchman: "If thou say not to the wicked: 'Thou shalt surely die' [Vulg.: "If, when I say to the wicked, 'Thou shalt surely die,' thou declare it not to him."] . . . I will require his blood at thy hand." Now God cannot be directly the cause of sin, either in Himself or in another, since every sin is a departure from the order which is to God as the end: whereas God inclines and turns all things to Himself as to their last end, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. i): so that it is impossible that He should be either to Himself or to another the cause of departing from the order which is to Himself. Therefore He cannot be directly the cause of sin. In like manner neither can He cause sin indirectly. For it happens that God does not give some the assistance, whereby they may avoid sin, which assistance were He to give, they would not sin. But He does all this according to the order of His wisdom and justice, since He Himself is Wisdom and Justice: so that if someone sin it is not imputable to Him as though He were the cause of that sin; even as a pilot is not said to cause the wrecking of the ship, through not steering the ship, unless he cease to steer while able and bound to steer. It is therefore evident that God is nowise a cause of sin.

Reply to Objection 1. As to the words of the Apostle, the solution is clear from the text. For if God delivered some up to a reprobate sense, it follows that they already had a reprobate sense, so as to do what was not right. Accordingly He is said to deliver them up to a reprobate sense, in so far as He does not hinder them from following that reprobate sense, even as we are said to expose a person to danger if we do not protect him. The saying of Augustine (De Grat. et Lib. Arb. xxi, whence the gloss quoted is taken) to the effect that "God inclines men's wills to good and evil," is to be understood as meaning that He inclines the will directly to good; and to evil, in so far as He does not hinder it, as stated above. And yet even this is due as being deserved through a previous sin.

Reply to Objection 2. When it is said the "creatures of God are turned 'to' an abomination, and a temptation to the souls of men," the preposition "to" does not denote causality but sequel [This is made clear by the Douay Version: the Latin "factae sunt in abominationem" admits of the translation "were made to be an abomination," which might imply causality.]; for God did not make the creatures that they might be an evil to man; this was the result of man's folly, wherefore the text goes on to say, "and a snare to the feet of the unwise," who, to wit, in their folly, use creatures for a purpose other than that for which they were made.

Reply to Objection 3. The effect which proceeds from the middle cause, according as it is subordinate to the first cause, is reduced to that first cause; but if it proceed from the middle cause, according as it goes outside the order of the first cause, it is not reduced to that first cause: thus if a servant do anything contrary to his master's orders, it is not ascribed to the master as though he were the cause thereof. In like manner sin, which the free-will commits against the commandment of God, is not attributed to God as being its cause.

Reply to Objection 4. Punishment is opposed to the good of the person punished, who is thereby deprived of some good or other: but fault is opposed to the good of subordination to God; and so it is directly opposed to the Divine goodness; consequently there is no comparison between fault and punishment.

 

[larryjf]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

BIG

 

[raderag]

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 b
y 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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.



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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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??

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]

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.

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.

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!

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]

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]

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.

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??

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]

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.

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!

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.

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]

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!

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[VictorBravo]

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.

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.