Is God the cause of evil?

[WrittenFromUtopia]

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

 

[ReformedWretch]

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by houseparent
No, sin is. God is the redeemer of the sinner.

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

 

[ReformedWretch]

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

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by houseparent
No, sin is. God is the redeemer of the sinner.

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

To glorify His Goodness and Righteousness through Christ,correct?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Average Joey

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by houseparent
No, sin is. God is the redeemer of the sinner.

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

To glorify His Goodness and Righteousness through Christ,correct?

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

 

[Saiph]

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


So did God create it ? Did God create fear ?

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

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

 

[ChristopherPaul]

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

Easy, read God & Evil, The Problem Solved by Gordon Clark.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Clark? No thanks.

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Average Joey

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by houseparent
No, sin is. God is the redeemer of the sinner.

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

To glorify His Goodness and Righteousness through Christ,correct?

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

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

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Clark? No thanks.

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

(Post anesthesia post)

 

[Saiph]

Amen Scott.

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

Classic Augustine stuff here.

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

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Platonic!

 

[Saiph]

Gabriel,

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



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

Chapter 18. The instrumentality of the wicked employed by God, while He continues free from every taint.

This last chapter of the First Book consists of three parts:

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, "œThe 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, "œThose 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, "œThou 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. "œThe Lord," says he, "œhas 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: "œI," saith the Lord, "œwill 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, "œHe turned their hearts to hate his people" (Psa_105:25). In like manner, in Isaiah, he says of the Assyrian, "œI 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, "œIf 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, "œI think otherwise," - "œI 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, "œThe 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 "œhearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them" (1Sa_2:25). Another prophet also exclaims, "œOur 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 "œto do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" (Act_4:28). And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God, where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing. 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: "œMan 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, "œGreat 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 "œwill" 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, "œthe 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 "œThere 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. "œYe 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, "œSince 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: "œWho 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.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

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

Easy, read God & Evil, The Problem Solved by Gordon Clark.

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

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

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

Chapter III.
Of God's Eternal Decree.

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

(a) Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18.
(b) Jam. 1:13, 17; I John 1:5.
(c) Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JWJ]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Evil is the result of sin. God decree's all things. Somethings are secondary to His decrees, hence God is not the cause.

(Post anesthesia post)

Scott,

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

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

Jim

 

[Richard King]

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

Once you aknowledge this you have to deal with somehow

a child being molested

a child being aborted

a woman being raped

is all part of the plan.

I have trouble getting my mind wrapped around it.

 

[Arch2k]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

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

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

 

[Saiph]

Jim, and Jeff,

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

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

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

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

 

[Poimen]

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

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Richard King
It is just hard to come to grips with even if it is so.

Once you aknowledge this you have to deal with somehow

a child being molested

a child being aborted

a woman being raped

is all part of the plan.

I have trouble getting my mind wrapped around it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

Gabriel,

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

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

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Saiph
Jim, and Jeff,

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

You are getting first and second causes mixed up.

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Saiph
Of course it is decreed. Because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

 

[Saiph]

You are getting first and second causes mixed up.

How ?

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

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

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Saiph

You are getting first and second causes mixed up.

How ?

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

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

Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English language:

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

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

Originally posted by Saiph

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

Yes I think He is.

Where is your evidence for such an assertion?

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

Exactly my point.

 

[Saiph]

We might be arguing semantics then.

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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