Is God the cause of evil?

[Larry Hughes]

Sorry, been in government work too long with the acronyms:

The Heidelberg Disputation. Gerhard Forde has an excellent commentary/exposition of it if your looking for that.

Ldh

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

It is probably in the Works of Martin Luther I have. I'll check it out.

 

[Larry Hughes]

If you go that route keep in mind the language Luther is using in his own time frame to show the points of tension & antithesis. If you can stay attuned to that it will be very helpful. The entire work is based upon the antithesis of the two & only two real religions in the world today - fallen Vs. the cross. A modern exposition can be very helpful there.

L

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Isa 45:7 forming light, and creating darkness; making peace, and creating evil. I, Jehovah, do all these things.

I put in a sermon request to Joel Osteen for this verse. He said he would deal with it in 2050.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by poimen]

 

[Arch2k]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by JWJ

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Jeff,
How about this: here's where I was intermingling to ideas.
1) God is NOT the author of sin (according to the WCF)
2) God IS the cause of evil (Utilizing the divided sense)

I think when the WCF uses the term "author", it means "second cause." He does not directly cause sin, but uses means to do so.

Gordon Clark uses an example like this:

God is the first cause of me writing this post, but I am the author of (and the one responsible to God for) it.

They key to solve this so called "God is not the author of sin" agrument is to define what one is getting at by saying "author". I don't think the WCF divines meant "second cause". As a matter of fact, though secondary causes are important to keep in mind they ultimately have no barring in a biblical theodicy. The reason is that ultimately sin and evil is tractable to God. This is why Clark's example (BTW, for those who read his work, he did not have to add this extra "theodicy" because his first theodicy was sufficient) or any who who try to add in a "second cause" theodicy is really irrelevant .

Rather like most people, "author of sin" means chargeable with sin or doing sin. Hence, the Bible is consistent that God is the cause of sin and evil, yet He is not the sinner, i.e., cannot be charged with doing sin because He alone is absolutely sovereign (i.e., not responsible or accountable) and that all that he does his good.

Jim

I agree Jim. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[larryjf]

Is it also a perspective issue?
When we read that God creates evil (Isa 45:7) and does evil (Amos 3:6) isn't this from our perspective and not God's?

What i mean is, the very fact that God does something makes it good.

God may have someone destroy a city so that God will end up being glorified in some way. But, the individual destroying the city may have different motivations - greed, murder, etc.

So God, by employing an individuals evil motivations will bring about His good and glory. So from God's perspective it is a good thing, but from the human perspective it is an evil thing, mostly because as humans we focus on the one performing the act to judge its goodness.

For our part we can only submit to God's revealed will, not to His secret will. We have no excuse to do anything against His revealed will to us. But as God's revelation of Himself to us is a condescension, He transcends it.

I seem to have rambled a bit here. Alot of this idea of evil and God has been swimming around in my head lately. I think i am just using this thread as a sounding board.

 

[Jon]

Originally posted by 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 if God wills it!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon