Did God create evil?

[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.

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, calamaty, 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. Rahter 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.

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]

You hit the "nail" on the head

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.

Well stated, Doug.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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]

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]

What does "author of sin" mean?

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

What does "author of sin" mean?

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

 

[JM]

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

 

[JM]

"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]

"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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

What does "author of sin" mean?

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

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]

What does "author of sin" mean?

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

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

Agreed and well done.

 

[shackleton]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Thank you, very well done.

 

[Brian Bosse]

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]

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]

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]

Hello Gentlemen,

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

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]

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]

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?

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]

Hello Gentlemen,

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

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

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]

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’.

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?

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]

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]

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