Did God create evil? | SermonIndex

I

iHilam Mar 27, 2005

Curious about the opinions on this scripture?Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 27, 2005

This passage of scripture is Hebrew poetry and is written in parrallelisms; therefore, the meaning of evil is found in its counterpart "peace". Evil here is not moral evil or sin, but the lack of peace. Here is what Barnes notes says about this part of the passage:I make peace - I hush the contending passions of mankind; I dispose to peace, and prevent wars when I choose - a passage which proves that the most violent passions are under his control. No passions are more uncontrollable than those which lead to wars; and nowhere is there a more striking display of the Omnipotence of God than in his power to repress the pride, ambition, and spirit of revenge of conquerors and kings:Which stilleth the noise of the seas,The noise of their waves,And the tumult of the people.Psa_65:7And create evil - The parallelism here shows that this is not to be understood in the sense of all evil, but of that which is the opposite of peace and prosperity. That is, God directs judgments, disappointments, trials, and calamities; he has power to suffer the mad passions of people to rage, and to afflict nations with war; he presides over adverse as well as prosperous events. The passage does not prove that God is the author of moral evil, or sin, and such a sentiment is abhorrent to the general strain of the Bible, and to all just views of the character of a holy God.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

I

iHilam Mar 27, 2005

I agree that this verse does not mean that God created moral evil. But is an interesting verse and can lead to growing pains if not well researched. If you know what I mean? The verse popped in my head when reading some of the post on the TNIV thread. So I decided to get some views from those who are familiar with this verse.In Christ,iHilam

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 27, 2005

As far as I can remember, this topic has not been discussed on SI which is kinda surprising. There is a group among Calvinists that do believe that God created evil and sin, but even most calvinists think this is repugnant.

D

dohzman Mar 27, 2005

I would also be interested in watching a thread on this subject. I've read alot of theories but have never really had a settling of the matter in my heart.

S

sermonindex Mar 27, 2005

Where did sin come from?Isaiah 14:12-15 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." KJVSin did not exist at all until Lucifer rebelled and turned against God. It is plain that Lucifer had knowledge and a free will that included the ability to make a moral choice. The only reason why sin exists is because Lucifer created it by freely making a wrong moral choice.Did God create sin?No!! God created an angel that had the ability to make a moral choice. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the way God created Lucifer. God was not responsible for what Lucifer freely chose to do. Lucifer was created with the ability to create his own moral character. To put it simply, Lucifer created his own sin out of his free will.God cannot be responsible for any being's free moral choice.Remember, sin or holiness cannot exist without knowledge and a free will that includes the ability to make a moral choice.

I

iHilam Mar 27, 2005

I guess the best way in my head to describe the existance of evil is this.Evil was not something that was create. Evil is simply a word used to describe the absence of God. As darkness is a word used to describe the absence of light. darkness was not created nor was evil. I hope you can grasp the depth of what I'm trying to convey. Lucifer decided to seperate himself from God. Thus the word used to describe this seperation is evil.In Christ,iHilam

D

dann Mar 27, 2005

The word translated as "evil" could be translated 'calamity' - without losing the sense of what is meant.If one cannot think outside the human perspective, one is more likely to profess that God did not create evil - because if a human (or angel) created evil, there would be a moral responsibility for that action.If on the other hand, one does not tether God with the same limitations of man, that is, if one's God is 'big enough' - then they can say that God is -truly- sovereign. They can say that God "pro-created" evil, in the sense that God had full knowledge of what would happen, yet, having given Satan free will, God would not be morally responsible for Satan's choices - even if God (dare I say it) predestined those same choices.A useful parallel is our own procreation. I know that my children will sin. I knew this even before my wife and I had children. Does this make me morally responsible for having children who sin? God says no. -Because- they are free to sin, their sin becomes their own responsibility and I am not morally at fault even though I had complete and utter knowledge before hand that they would sin.There are many Christians who (imagining they are championing God's character) will fight the notion of God 'creating evil' tooth and nail. Because they understand that God is not evil, nor does God fellowship with evil, etc, etc. But having an incomplete understanding of the relationship between free will and moral responsibility - they cannot fathom how God can create a sinner and be without blame for doing so. Whatever the case, topics such as these present great opportunities for zealously 'majoring in the minors.' I say that God -did- create evil. But I do not imply by that that God sinned, or that God could sin, or that God is evil, or that God could be evil, or that God could have anything to do with evil, or that God does not HATE sin. I am sure, however, that some who disagree with my understanding will charge me with some slur against God, but I can say with sincerity, I love God, and believe it would be a greater slur to imagine that God was a helpless and powerless spectator in seeing Satan Fall. My God is sovereign in practice and not just in name.Dan/\\/\\/\\

Z

ZekeO Mar 27, 2005

Nice way to look at it.

A

AgesofWar Mar 27, 2005

GOD did not create Evil in the sence that He Created the Satan, No he created a being with free will, namly Lucifer.That Being(Lucifer) made a choice as did Adam.Namly to Sin and birthed into exsitance Evil.John 8:42-4442 Jesus said to them“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me.43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot bear to hear my word.44 You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.Note Here that JESUS says that Satan is the Father of Lies Not GodIn Christ Michael

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 27, 2005

Hi dann,I say that God -did- create evil.... My God is sovereign in practice and not just in name.I kinda see where you're going and what you're saying in that paragraph. I agree with you in principle that God is absolutely soveriegn in all things including the fall of angels and men, and in the salvation of men. I really liked your comments on God being present in the WHOLE timeline--I believe that was you that made that comment.I think I would differ from you only in how I would define this. I would say that God did not create evil, but knowingly created beings capable of evil and knew that they would indeed become evil, and even that He had a purpose in this. I would further say that Salvation was not a contengincy plan in case man should fall, but the only plan, in other words God created this world to save it--ultimately anyway.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

D

dann Mar 27, 2005

Hulsey wrote:I think I would differ from you only in how I would define this. I would say that God did not create evil, but knowingly created beings capable of evil and knew that they would indeed become evil, and even that He had a purpose in this. I would further say that Salvation was not a contengincy plan in case man should fall, but the only plan, in other words God created this world to save it--ultimately anyway.Jeremy - I would agree with this entirely. When I say God created evil, I mean it only from the stand-point of His sovereignty and purpose.Dan/\\/\\/\\

S

sermonindex Mar 27, 2005

WHERE SIN OCCURS GOD CANNOT WISELY PREVENT ITAugust 2, 1854By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY "It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh."--Matthew 18:7 "It is impossible but that offences come; but woe unto him through whom they come!"-Luke 17:1. An "Offence" as used in this passage, is an occasion of falling into sin. It is anything which causes another to sin and fall. It is plain that the author of the offence is in this passage conceived of as voluntary and as sinful in his act; else the woe of God would not be denounced upon him. Consequently the passage assumes that this sin is in some sense necessary and unavoidable. What is true of this sin in this respect is true of all other sin. Indeed any sin may become an offence in the sense of a temptation to others to sin, and therefore its necessity and unavoidableness would then be affirmed by this text. The doctrine of these texts, therefore, is that sin, under the government of God, cannot be prevented. I purpose to examine this doctrine; to show that, nevertheless, sin is utterly inexcusable as to the sinner; then answer some objections, and conclude with remarks. 1. When we say it is impossible to prevent sin under the government of God, the statement still calls for another inquiry, viz.: Where does this impossibility lie? Is it on the part of the sinner, or on the part of God? Which is true; that the sinner cannot possibly forbear to sin, or that God cannot prevent his sinning? The first supposition answers itself, for it could not be sin if it were utterly unavoidable. It might be his misfortune; but nothing could be more unjust than to impute it to him as his crime. But we shall better understand where this impossibility does and must lie, if we first recall to mind some of the elementary principles of God's government. Let us then, consider that God's government over men is moral, and known to be such by every intelligent being. By the term moral, I mean that it governs by motives, and does not move by physical force. It adapts itself to mind, not to matter. It contemplates mind as having intellect to understand truth, sensibility to appreciate its bearing upon happiness, conscience to judge of the right, and a will to determine a course of voluntary action in view of God's claims. So God governs mind. Not so does He govern matter. The planetary worlds are controlled by quite a different sort of agency. God does not move them in their orbits by motives but by a physical agency. I said, all men know this government to be moral by their own consciousness. When its precepts and its penalties come before their minds, they are conscious that an appeal is made to their voluntary powers. They are never conscious of any physical agency coercing obedience. God's government implies in man the power to will, or not to will;--to will right, or to will wrong;--to choose or to refuse the great good which Jehovah promises. It also implies intelligence. The beings to whom law is addressed are capable of understanding it. They have also, as I have said, a conscience, by which they can appreciate and must affirm its obligations. You need to distinguish broadly between the influence of motive on mind and of mechanical force upon matter. The former implies voluntariness; the latter does not. The former is adapted to mind and has no adaptation to matter; the latter equally is adapted to matter but has no possible application to mind. In God's government over the human mind, all is voluntary; nothing is coerced as by physical force. Indeed it is impossible that physical force should directly influence mind. Compulsion is precluded by the very nature of moral agency. Where compulsion begins, moral agency ends. If it were possible for God to force the will as he forces the moon along in her orbit, to do so would subvert the very idea of a moral government. Neither praise nor blame could attach to any actions of beings, so moved. Persuasion, brought to bear upon mind, is always such in its nature that it can be resisted. By the very nature of the case, God's creatures must have power to resist any amount of even his persuasion. There can be no power in heaven or earth to coerce the will, as matter is coerced. The nature of mind forbids its possibility. And if it were possible, it would still be true that in just so far as God should coerce the human will, He would cease to govern morally. God is infinitely wise. Men can no more doubt this than they can doubt their own existence. He has infinite knowledge. He knows everything--i.e., all objects of knowledge; and knows them all perfectly. He is also infinitely good, his will being always conformed to his perfect knowledge and always controlled by infinite benevolence. His infinite goodness implies that He does the best He can, always, and every where. In no instance does He ever fail to do the very best He can do, so that He can appeal to every creature and say--What more can I do to prevent sin than I am doing! Indeed, He does so appeal to every intelligent mind. He made this appeal through Isaiah to the ancient Jews--"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" Every moral agent in the universe knows that God has done the best he could do in regard to sin. Do not you know this, each one of you? Certainly you do. He himself, in all his infinite wisdom could not suggest a better course than that which He has taken. Men know this truth so well, they never can know it better. You may at some future day realize it more fully when you shall come to see its millions of illustrations drawn out before your eyes; but no demonstration can make its proof more perfect than it is to your own minds today. Now sin does in fact exist under God's government. For this sin, God either is or is not to blame. Every man knows that God is not to blame for this sin, for man's own nature affirms that He would prevent it if He wisely could. Certainly if He was able wisely to prevent sin in any case where it actually occurs, then not to do so nullifies all our conceptions of his goodness and wisdom. He would be the greatest sinner in the universe if, with power and wisdom adequate to the prevention of sin, He had failed to prevent it. Let me here note, also, that what God can not do wisely, he cannot, (speaking morally,) do at all. For He cannot act unwisely. He cannot do things which wisdom forbids. To do so would be to undeify himself. The supposition would make him cease to be perfect, and this were equivalent to ceasing to be God. Or thus; if He were to interpose unwisely to prevent a sinner from sinning, He would sin himself. I speak now of each instance in which God does not, in fact, interpose to prevent sin. In any of these cases, if He were to interpose unwisely to prevent sin, He would prevent a man from sinning at the expense of sinning himself. Here then is the case. A sinner is about to fall before temptation, or in more correct language, is about to rush into some new sin. God cannot wisely prevent his doing so. Now what shall be done? Shall He let that sinner rush on to his chosen sin and self-wrought ruin; or shall He step forward, unwisely, sin himself, and incur all the frightful consequences of such a step? He lets the sinner bear his own responsibility. Why should not He? Who would wish to have God sin? This is a full explanation of every case in which man does in fact sin and God does not prevent it. And this is not conjecture, but is logical certainly. No truth can be more irresistibly and necessarily certain than this. I once heard a minister say in a sermon--"It is not irrational to suppose that in each case of sin, it occurs as it does because God cannot prevent it." After he retired from the pulpit, I said to him--Why did you leave the matter so? You left your hearers to infer that perhaps it might be in some other way; that this was only a possible theory, yet that some other theory was perhaps even more probable. Why did you not say, This theory is certain and must necessarily be true? Thus the impossibility of preventing sin lies not in the sinner, but wholly with God. Sin, it should be remembered, is nothing else than an act of free will, always committed against one's conviction of right. Indeed if a man did not know that selfishness is sin, it would not be sin in his case. Once more, sin is always committed against and in despite of motives of infinitely greater weight than those which induce to sin. The very fact that his conscience condemns the sin is his own judgment on the question, proving that in his own view the motives to sin are infinitely contemptible when put in the scale to measure those against the sin in question. Every sinner knows that sin is a willful abuse of his own powers as a moral agent--of those noblest powers of his being in view of which he is especially said to be made in the image of God. Made like God with these exalted attributes, capable of determining his own voluntary activities intelligently if he will;--in accordance with his reason and his conscience if he will;--he yet in every act of sin abuses and degrades these powers, tramples down in the very dust the image of God enstamped on his being, and with the capacities of becoming an angel, makes himself a fool. Clothed with a dignity of nature akin to that of his Maker, he chooses to debase himself to the level of brutes and of devils. With a face naturally looking upwards--with an intelligence that grasps the great truths of God;--with a reason that postulates and affirms the great necessary principles involved in his moral duties and relations;--with capacities which fit him to sit on a nation's throne; he yet says--Let me take this glorious image of God and debase it in the dust! Let me cast myself down, till there shall be no lower depth of degradation to which I can sink! Sin is in every instance a dishonoring of God. This every sinner must know. It casts off his authority, spurns his advice, maltreats his love. Truly does God himself say--"A son honoreth his father and a servant his master; if then I be a father, where is mine honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear?" What sinner ever supposed that God neglects to do anything He wisely can do to prevent sin? If this be not true, what is conscience but a lie and a delusion? Conscience always affirms that God is clear of all guilt in reference to sin. In every instance in which conscience condemns the sinner, it necessarily must and actually does fully acquit God. These remarks will suffice to show that sin in every instance of its commission, is utterly inexcusable. We are next to notice some objections. 1. "If God is infinitely wise and good, why need we pray at all? If He will surely do the best possible thing always and all the good He can do, why need we pray?" I answer. Because his infinite goodness and wisdom enjoin it upon us. Who could ask a better reason than this? If you believe in his infinite wisdom and goodness, and make this belief the basis of your objection, you will certainly, if honest, be satisfied with this answer. But again I answer. It might be wise and good for him to do many things if sought unto in prayer, which he could not wisely do, unasked. You cannot therefore infer that prayer never changes the course which God voluntarily pursues. 2. Objecting again, you ask why we should pray to God to prevent sin, if He can not prevent it? If under the circumstances in which sin exists, God cannot, as you hold, prevent sin, why go to him and pray him to prevent it? I answer--We pray for the very purpose of changing the circumstances. This is our object. And prayer does change the circumstances. If we step forward and offer fervent effectual prayer, this quite changes the state of the case. Look at Moses pleading with God to spare the nation after their great sin in the matter of the golden calf. God said to him--"Let me alone that I may destroy them, and I will make of thee a great nation." Nay, said Moses, for what will the Egyptians say? And what will all the nations say? They have long time said, The God of that people will not be able to get them through that vast wilderness; now therefore, what will thou do for thy great name? "Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin;--and if not, blot me, I pray thee out of thy book which Thou hast written." This prayer, coming up before God, greatly changed the circumstances of the case. For this prayer, God could honorably spare the nation--it was so honorable for him to answer this prayer. 3. Yet further objecting, you ask--"Why did God create moral agents at all if He foresaw that He could not prevent their sinning?" I answer. Because He saw that on the whole it was better to do so. He could prevent some sin in this race of moral agents; could over-rule what He could not wisely prevent, to as to bring out from it a great deal of good, and so that in the long run, he saw it better, with all the results before him, to create than to forbear; therefore wisdom and love made it necessary that He should create. Having the power to create a race of moral beings--having also power to convert and save a vast multitude of them, and power also to over-rule the sin he should not prevent so that it should evolve immense good, how could He forbear to create as He did? 4. But if God can not prevent sin, will He not be unhappy? No; He is entirely satisfied to do the best He can, and accept the results. 5. But some will say--Is not this "limiting the Holy One of Israel?" No. It is no proper limitation of God's power to say that He cannot do anything that is unwise. Nor do we limit His power when we say--He cannot move mind just as He moves a planet. That is no proper subject of power which is in its own nature absurd and impossible. Yet these are the only directions in which we have spoken of any limitations to his power. But you say, could not God prevent sin by annihilating each moral agent the instant before he would sin? Doubtless He could; but we say if this were wise He would have done it. He has not done it, certainly not in all cases, and therefore it is not always wise. But you say, Let him give more of his Holy Spirit. I answer, He does give all He can wisely, under existing circumstances. To suppose He might give more than He does, circumstances being the same, is to impeach his wisdom or his goodness. Some people seem greatly horrified at the idea of setting limits to God's power. Yet they make assumptions which inevitably impeach his wisdom and his goodness. Such persons need to consider that if we must choose between limiting his power on the one hand, or his wisdom and his love on the other, it is infinitely more honorable to him to adopt the former alternative than the latter. To strike a blow at his moral attributes is to annihilate his throne. And further, let it be also considered, as we have already suggested, that you do not in any offensive sense limit his power when you assume that he cannot do things naturally impossible, and cannot act unwisely. Let these remarks suffice in the line of answer to objections. I know that you who are students will say that this must be true. You are accustomed to notice the action of your own moral powers. You have a moral sense, and it has been in some good degree developed. You know it is utterly impossible that God should act unwisely. You know He must act benevolently, always doing the best thing he can do. He has given you a nature which affirms, postulates, intuits these truths. Else there could be no conscience. The presence and action of a conscience implies that these great truths respecting the moral nature of God are indisputably affirmed in your soul by your own moral nature. I address you therefore as those who have a conscience. Suppose it were otherwise. Suppose all that we call conscience--the entire moral side of your nature, should suddenly drop out, and I should find myself speaking to a shoal of moral idiots--beings utterly void of a conscience! How desolate the scene? But I am not speaking to such an audience. Therefore I am sure that you will understand and appreciate what I say. REMARKS. 1. We may see the only sense in which God could have purposed the existence of sin. It is simply negative. He purposed not to prevent it in any case where it does actually occur. He does not purpose to make moral agents sin; not for example, Adam and Eve in the garden, or Judas in the matter of betraying Christ. All He purposed to do Himself was to leave them with only a certain amount of restraint--as much as He could wisely impose; and then if they would sin, let them bear the responsibility. He left them to act freely and did not positively prevent their sinning. He never uses means to make men sin. He only forbears to use unwise means to prevent their sinning. Thus his agency in the existence of sin is only negative. 2. The existence of sin does not prove that it is the necessary means of the greatest good. Some of you are aware that this point has been often mooted in theological discussions. I do not purpose now to go into it at length, but will only say that in all cases wherein men sin, they might obey God instead of sinning. Now the question here is--If they were to obey rather than sin, would not a greater good accrue? We have these two reasons for the affirmative: (1.) that by natural tendency, obedience promotes good and disobedience evil: and (2.) that in all those cases, God earnestly and positively enjoins obedience. It is fair to presume that He would enjoin that which would secure the greatest good. 3. The human conscience always justifies God. This is an undeniable fact--a fact of universal consciousness. The proof of it can never be made stronger, for it stands recorded in each man's bosom. Yet a very remarkable book has recently appeared--"The Conflict of Ages"--which is obviously built upon the opposite assumption--viz., that the human conscience does not unqualifiedly condemn man; but except under the light of this peculiar theory, does in fact condemn God. This theory, adopted professedly to vindicate God as against the human conscience, holds that there was a pre-existent state in which we all lived and sinned, and there forfeited our title to a moral nature, unbiased toward sinning. There we had a fair probation. Here, if we suppose this to be the commencement of our moral agency, we do not have a fair probation, and conscience therefore does not, and in truth cannot, justify God except on the supposition of a pre-existent state. The entire book, therefore is built on the assumption of a conflict between the human conscience and God. A shocking assumption! A brother remarked to me of this that it seemed to him to be the most outrageous and blasphemous indictment against God that could be drawn. Yet the author intended no such thing. He is undoubtedly a good man, but in this particular, egregiously mistaken. The fact is, conscience does always condemn the sinner and justify God. It could not affirm obligation without justifying God. The real controversy therefore, is not between God and the conscience, but between God and the heart. In every instance in which sin exists, conscience condemns the sinner and justifies God.--This of itself is a perfect and sufficient answer to the whole doctrine of that book. It knocks out the only and whole foundation on which it is built. If that book be true, men never should have had a conscience until that book was published, read, understood, and believed. No man should ever have been convicted of sin until he came to see that he had existed in a previous state and began his sinning there. Yet the facts are right over against this. Everywhere in all ages, with no deference to this book, and no disposition to wait for its tardy developments,--everywhere and though [sic.] all time the human conscience has stood up to condemn each sinner and compel him to sign his own death-warrant; and acquit his Maker of all blame. These are the facts of human nature and life. 4. Conversion consists precisely in this: the heart's consent to these decisions of the conscience. It is for the heart to come over to the ground occupied by the conscience, and thoroughly acquiesce in it as right and true. Conscience has a long time been speaking; it has always held one doctrine; and has long been resisted by the heart: now, in conversion, the heart comes over, and gives in its full assent to the decisions of conscience; that God is right, and that sin and himself a sinner, are utterly wrong. And now do any of you want to know how you may become a Christian? This is it. Let your heart justify God and condemn sin, even as your conscience does. Let your voluntary powers yield to the necessary affirmations of your reason and conscience. Then all will be peaceful within because all will be right. But you say--I am trying to do this! Ah, I know it to be the case with some of you that you are trying to resist to your utmost. You settle down as it were with your whole weight while God would fain draw you by his truth and Spirit. Yet you fancy you are really trying to yield your heart to God. A most unaccountable delusion! 5. In the light of this subject we can see the reason for a general judgment. God intends to clear Himself from all imputation of wrong in the matter of sin, before the entire moral universe. Strange facts have transpired in his universe, and strange insinuations have been made against his course. These matters must all be set right. For this He will take time enough. He will wait till all things are ready. Obviously He could not bring out his great trial-day till the deeds of earth have all been wrought--till all the events of this wondrous drama have had their full development. Until then He will not be ready to make a full exposé of all His doings. Then He can and will do it most triumphantly and gloriously. The revelations of that day will doubtless show why God did not interpose to prevent every sin in the universe. Then He will satisfy us as to the reasons He had for suffering Adam and Eve to sin and for leaving Judas to betray his Master. We know now that He is wise and good, although we do not know all the particular reasons for his conduct in the permission of sin. Then, He will reveal those particular reasons, as far as it may be best and possible. No doubt He will then show that his reasons were so wise and good that He could not have done better. 6. Sin will then appear infinitely inexcusable and odious. It will then be seen in its true relations toward God and his intelligent creatures, inexpressibly blameworthy and guilty. Take a case. Suppose a son has gone far away from the paths of obedience and virtue. He has had one of the best of fathers, but be would not hear his counsels. He had a wise and affectionate mother, but he sternly resisted all the appeals of her tenderness and tears.--Despite of the most watchful care of parents and friends, he would go astray. As one madly bent on self-ruin, he pushed on, reckless of the sorrow and grief he brought upon those he should have honored and loved. At last the issues of such a course stand revealed. The guilty youth finds himself ruined in constitution, in fortune, and in good name. He has sunk far too low to retain even self-respect. Nothing remains for him but agonizing reflections on past folly and guilt. Hear him bewail his own infatuation. "Alas," he cries, "I have almost killed my venerable father, and long ago I had quite broken my mother's heart. All that folly and crime in a son could do, I have done to bring down their gray hairs with sorrow to the grave. No wonder that having done so much to ruin my best friends, I have plucked down a double ruin on my own head. No sinner ever more richly deserved to be doubly damned than myself." Thus truth flashes upon his soul and thus his heart quails and his conscience thunders condemnation.--So it must be with every sinner when all his sins against God shall stand revealed before his eyes and there shall be nothing left for him but intense and unqualified self-condemnation. 7. God's omnipotence is no guaranty to any man that either himself or any other sinner will be saved. I know the Universalist affirms it to be. He will ask--Does not the fact of God's omnipotence, taken in connection with His infinite love, prove that all men will be saved? I answer, No! It does not prove that God will save one soul. With ever so much proof of God's perfect wisdom, love, and power we could not infer that He would save even one sinner. We might just as reasonably infer that He would send the whole race to hell. How could we know what His wisdom would determine? How could we infer what the exigencies of His government might demand? In fact the only ground we have for the belief that He will save any sinner is not at all our inference from His wisdom, love, and power; but is wholly and only His own declarations as to this matter. Our knowledge is wholly from revelation. God has said so; and this is all we know about it. Yet further I reply to the Universalist, that God's omnipotence saves nobody. Salvation is not wrought by physical omnipotence. It is only by moral power that God saves, and this can save no man unless he consents to be saved. 8. How bitter the reflections which sinners must have on their death-beds, and how fearfully agonizing when they pass behind the veil and see things in their true light. Did you ever think when you have seen a sinner dying in his sins what an awful thing it is for a sinner to die? You mark the lines of anguish on his countenance; you see the look of despair; you observe he can not bear to hear the word of the awful future. There he lies and death pushes on his stern assault. The poor victim struggles in vain against his dreaded foe. He sinks, and sinks, his pulse runs lower, and yet lower; look in his glassy eye; mark that haggard brow; there, he breathes not; but all suddenly, he stares as one affrighted; throws up his hands wildly, screams frightfully; sinks down and is gone to return no more! And where is he now? Not beyond the scope of thought and reflection. He can see back into the world he has left. Still he can think. Alas, his misery is that he can do nothing but think! As said the prisoner in his solitary cell: I could bear torture or I could endure toil; but O, to have nothing to do but to think! To hear the voice of friend no more--to say not a word--to do nothing from day to day and from year to year but to think! that is awful. So of the lost sinner. Who can measure the misery of incessant self-agonizing thought? Now, when at any time your reflections press uncomfortably and you feel that you shall almost go deranged, you can find some drop of comfort for your fevered lips; you can for a few moments, at least, fall asleep, and so forget your sorrows and find a transient rest; but oh! when you shall reach the world where the wicked find no rest--where there can be no sleep--where not one drop of water can reach you to cool your tongue: Alas, how can your heart endure or your hands be strong in that dread hour! God tried in vain to bless and save you. You fought Him back and plucked down on your guilty head a fearful damnation! 9. What infinite consolation will remain to God after He shall have closed up the entire scenes of earth! He has banished the wicked and taken home the righteous to his bosom of love and peace. I have done, says He, all I wisely could to save the race of man. I made sacrifices cheerfully; sent my well-beloved Son gladly; waited as long as it seemed wise to wait, and now it only remains to over-rule all this pain and woe for the utmost good, and rejoice in the bliss of the redeemed forevermore. There are the guilty lost. Their groans swell out and echo up the walls of their pit of woe:--it is to the holy only so much evidence that God is good and wise and will surely sustain his throne in equity and righteousness forever. It teaches most impressive lessons upon the awful doom of sin. There let it stand and bear its testimony, to warn other beings against a course so guilty and a doom so dreadful! There, in that world of woe, may be some of our pupils, possibly some of our own children. But God is just and his throne stainless of their blood. It shall not mar the eternal joy of his kingdom, that they would pull down such damnation on their heads. They insisted they would take the responsibility and now they have it. Sinner, do you not care for this to-day? Will you come to the inquiry meeting this evening to trifle about your salvation? I can tell you where you will not trifle. When the great bell of time shall toll the death-knell of earth and call her millions of sons and daughters to the final judgment, you will not be in a mood to trifle! You will surely be there! It will be a time for serious thought--an awful time of dread. Are you ready to face its revelations and decisions? Or do you say, Enough, ENOUGH! I have long enough withstood his grace and spurned his love; I will now give my heart to God, to be his only, forevermore?

S

sermonindex Mar 27, 2005

I really don't know what Calvin believed, but after reviewing many posts on this website and seeing the negative side of Calvin according to each ones belief, I guess I would call myself a Calvinist. I did not wish to be one, but it turns out that I am.But regarding God and the creation of evil. God must be the originator of evil, or He would not be God. Sin is a product of heeding to the evil. God did not create sin, sin is a result of disobedience, clinging to the evil.The evil that God created was placed there for those who wish to obey or rebel. If He hadn't of placed it there, then all He would have around Him would be robots who are programmed to be obedient.When God created evil, He considered it good, even though it was going to produce alot of heartache and sorry, yet by placing it there amongst His creation He was able to utilize it as a means of doing good. After all, how can God's nature be revealed without evil?You may ask, where does it say that God created evil and looked upon it and said it was good?When God moved upon the face of the waters and darkness was upon the face of the deep, the water, the darkness the deep were already existing when He came in to renovate the earth. Theologians agree that there is a tremendous amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. God created the heaven and earth [stop]. God didn't say let there be water or darkness, the water and the darkness was existing at that time when He said, Let there be light. He seperated the light from the darkness calling the light Day and the darkness He called Night.kho-shek'From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.Genesis 1:31, "And God saw everything that He had made, and , behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." God is merciful, if there was no sin or evil, how can that part of His nature be shown?In another passage of scripture Duet 32:39, God is seen as one who wounds and then He turns that around and heals as we can clearly see this in John 9:3, that the works of God might be revealed in him.In the same OT verse it is said that He kills and makes alive, as we can clearly see again in John 11:11, Lazarus died that God thru Christ would be glorified.We ourselves believe that when someone is killed it is evil when someone gets wounded or punched out, we consider that to be bad. Most call it bad luck or an omen.Did God create a satan? no He did not, lucifer utilized the evil that was created and thus disobeyed God and became satan, one who opposes God. Was it God's will for Lucifer to fall? I dare not tell you mine opinion.God must be above all things in order for Him to be God, otherwise there is another creative force in the universe that is creating things that He is not aware of, because He said:Isaiah 45:18 "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD ; and there is none else".KarlP.S. These opinions are written to cause us to think, this is not etched in stone, so when replying, please keep that in mind.

P

philologos Mar 27, 2005

When God created evil, He considered it good, even though it was going to produce alot of heartache and sorry, yet by placing it there amongst His creation He was able to utilize it as a means of doing good. After all, how can God's nature be revealed without evil?You may ask, where does it say that God created evil and looked upon it and said it was good?This is a misunderstanding. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (Gen 1:4 KJV)This verse says quite specifically that 'the light was good'; it makes no comment on the state of the earth it illuminated.We know very little about the origin of 'evil'. We know of its entrance into the human race but that was not its origin. Its origin seems to have been with Satan, but the details are only provided in outline form in the scripture.

I

inotof Mar 27, 2005

I'm jus jumping in here i've read most of the other posts. Does it not make since that God created evil in that he made good and the absesnce of Good in turn creates evil? (See Isa. I made the darkness and the light i created Good and evil) ill get the ref for you later.

D

dohzman Mar 27, 2005

I understand the doctrines of original sin, I can see the insight on evil as absence of light. But Paul makes reference to us judging angels. So in what sense is that reference Paul made to be understood?I thought that after lucifier fell and took 1/3rd of the angels that was it. The rest would be spared?How do we figure in on the whole of scripture as to the outcome in evil or its stopping of it?(hard for me to put into words the questions I have on this subject, I'll watch and ask more as I see them.) Bro. Daryl

S

sermonindex Mar 27, 2005

Can God create a morally holy or sinful being?No!! It is impossible for God to create moral character in another living being. He has created beings that have the ability to make their own moral character, either good or bad. What any living being chooses to do with his free will is solely dependent on himself and himself alone.When God created Adam, he was neither sinful or holy. He was given the ability to make and form his own moral character. We know that Adam had knowledge and a free will that included the ability to make a moral choice. Adam and Eve both created their own sin out of their free will.

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 27, 2005

Hi freecd,Genesis ch's 1 and 2 would not agree with your assumptions.I would say that it is impossible for God to create a sinful being--of course I'm talking about prefallen man. However, whatever God creates is going to be a reflection of His nature so it will naturally be morally good. The creation account does not say that God looked and saw that it was neutral, but that it was good.This brings me to the flipside of this topic:Did God create Good??If this is so, then it brings up some very interesting implications. If God created good, and morality, then that means He is outside of morality and therefore is not a moral being but an arbitrary one.My reasoning is this, good is not a creation, and neither is evil. God is good because He IS goodness. It's His nature, and God can only be who He is. Anything He creates is going to be good simply because it's going to reflect the nature of God. Evil is the marring or absence of that nature, or a failure to reflect the nature of God's goodness.God will always be good because He is infinite and cannot change. But anything He creates is going to be finite and therefore capable of change. This creates the possibility of change for the worse and not better and the possibility of evil then comes into existence.

S

sermonindex Mar 27, 2005

Alright, now, let us consider the big bang.I had talked to a gent a few years ago, and he was trying to explain to me this big bang theory. What he was really trying to do was explain away God. But nevertheless, I listened to him, and after he was done explaining this and that, I asked him, "What caused the big bang to take place?" So he would begin to explain that, but I interrupted him and said, "You don't understand, what caused the spark to ignite?" And he would start of with all these gasses forming, and I would ask again, "Where did these gasses come from, who or what lit the match that caused the explosion?". He finally just stopped talking and said, "I don't know, that is a very good question". While he just looked at me with puzzlement, I told him about God. My Dad was at the Dr office one day getting a checkup on his heart and he asked the Dr. what starts the heart, and the doctor went on explain this about all the medical and scientific explainations and finally Dad said, "no, what I mean is what starts it what starts the beating?". The Dr said, "you got me, I don't know".The reason why I said all this was to get us to think about the origin of evil.We can explain this and explain that and we can write large volumes on the origin of evil, but who or what created it?If lucifer created it, then lucifer has power with God to create. Where is it written that God ever asked the Angels at anytime to sit at His right hand? Only the Son of God was granted that right.Where did it originate? It had to be created in order for the concept to be in existance, for one to cleave to it in disobedience.Consider Christ sinless life, we can't fathom that kind of life, but yet, Christ came down robed Himself in flesh of man and walked among us sinless.It is the same idea here, we can't comprehend how an all loving God could have created evil, we can't fathom that.We were born in sin because sin was there in our human blood passed on from our father, we can accept and see that. Let us think about these things carefully, I believe if it was written in the word, it must be important for us to read it and to understand it.Karl

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 27, 2005

Hi Karl,We can explain this and explain that and we can write large volumes on the origin of evil, but who or what created it?Evil is not a creation. If evil is a creation then who created goodness?? Or is it a creation?

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 27, 2005

Here is a section from an excellent article on the origin of evil by John Macarthur:The source of evil, the source of sin, is outside God. When God created angels and God created humans, he gave them intelligence. He gave them reason, and he gave them choice. And there is a sequence. I put those words in that order for a purpose. Intelligence gave them the ability to understand things. Reason gave them the ability to process that understanding toward behavior. And choice gave them the freedom to determine that behavior. Intelligence, reason, and choice. Bottom line: With what they knew, and with the ability they had to process that information, they would be brought to a choice. And whether angels or men, they would have the choice either to obey God or not to obey God. Listen to this: To disobey God was to initiate evil. Evil is not the presence of something. Evil is the absence of righteousness. You can't create evil, because evil doesn't exist as a created entity. It doesn't exist as a created reality. Evil is a negative. Evil is the absence of perfection. It's the absence of holiness. It's the absence of goodness. It's the absence of righteousness. Evil became a reality only when creatures chose to disobey. Evil came into existence initially then in the fall of angels. And then next, in the fall of Adam and Eve. Just put it this way in your mind. Evil is not a created thing. Evil is not a substance. Evil is not an entity. Evil is not a being. Evil is not a force. Evil is not some floating spirit. Evil is a lack of moral perfection. God created absolute perfection. Wherever a lack of that exists, sin exists. And that cannot exist in the nature of God or in anything that God makes. Evil comes into existence when God's creatures fall short of the standard of moral perfection. Now, let me take it a step further. God did not create evil. He did not author evil. He did not make evil. But listen carefully, very important: God did decree to use evil as a part of his eternal plan, okay? He will not be culpable for it. He did not bring it into existence. That would be impossible because God is good, all good and only good. Therefore, whatever comes out of Him is all good and only good. God can, therefore, produce only good. And what is evil but the absence of that good, which is a choice made by the reasonings based upon the information revealed to his creatures? But, God was not caught off guard. In fact, God decreed that evil would be part of his plan. He is not the creator of evil, and He is not the cause of evil. He did not bring evil into existence in a cosmic sense, and he did not and does not bring evil into existence in a personal sense. He is not the cause of sin, nor is he the cause of sins in the lives of people. But he does use it for his purposes. And that's why in Isaiah 45:7 -- just write this down; you may run across it. It says God creates "calamity." Some older translations say He "creates evil." That is a really poor translation, and not true. God does create "calamity." And if you read the context of Isaiah 45:7, it is clear that judgment is the issue. God does not create evil, but God does bring judgment on evil, creating therefore the calamity by which evil is judged. Now, listen carefully: Scripture written by God always assigns the guilt and responsibility for all sin to creatures; never to God. Never to God. Folks, that's all we know. Okay? The whole article can be found here:The Origin Of Evil

P

philologos Mar 27, 2005

It's His nature, and God can only be who He is.Does that mean there is no virtue in God's goodness? Getting into some deep stuff here!

P

philologos Mar 27, 2005

Listen to this: To disobey God was to initiate evil. Evil is not the presence of something. Evil is the absence of righteousness. You can't create evil, because evil doesn't exist as a created entity. It doesn't exist as a created reality. Evil is a negative. Evil is the absence of perfection. It's the absence of holiness. It's the absence of goodness. It's the absence of righteousness. Evil became a reality only when creatures chose to disobey. Evil came into existence initially then in the fall of angels. And then next, in the fall of Adam and Eve.I don't think this is true. Evil is much more than the absence of good. Satan is a murderous spirit and would have dethroned God; this is not a mere absence of evil. Just put it this way in your mind. Evil is not a created thing. Evil is not a substance. Evil is not an entity. Evil is not a being. Evil is not a force. Evil is not some floating spirit. Evil is a lack of moral perfection. God created absolute perfection. Wherever a lack of that exists, sin exists. And that cannot exist in the nature of God or in anything that God makes. Evil comes into existence when God's creatures fall short of the standard of moral perfection.I think this is a defective view of evil.

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 27, 2005

Hi Ron,Does that mean there is no virtue in God's goodness? Getting into some deep stuff here!Of course not. Goodness finds its goodness from the very nature of who God is Himself. My attempt was to avoid implying that God is subordinate to a moral law above Himself--as if one existed--but that He is in Himself pure actuality. In other words, we can be good, but God is goodness its self. I guess to break it down further would be to call God the eternal "uncaused cause".I'm not really sure if I agree completely with your thoughts on evil being some sort of entity. How Satan fell without an outside force tempting him is a mystery somewhat. I can only conclude from what I read in the scriptures that something rose up in himself. But at this level it's easy to take off into speculations.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

S

sermonindex Mar 27, 2005

He did not bring it into existenceGod did not bring evil into existance. Hmmmm, So there must be a creative force outside of God that wills against God to create. The source of evil,....... is outside God"Behold the lamb of God that was slain BEFORE the foundation of the world".Now I ask you did Adam and Eve have a free will?According to that verse, they did not, yet because they chose that tree, they were given certain evils.Now God drew from that evil, where did He get it from if it was outside Himself?God also cursed the ground from His mouth, evil came to the ground.God is all loving, yet here we have God drawing from an evil source and placing evil into the ground and causing all havoc to spring forth.You can't create evilEvil came into existence initially then in the fall.Ok, Mr MacArther says in the same paragraph in the above quote that evil can't be created, yet in the same breath it came into existance in the fall of the Angels.Does that make sense to anyone?What doesn't make sense is this, who created the negative part and the positive part? If good is positive which God created all things to be, what brought the negative into being? Think about it. In order for us to believe that there is a negative force out there, that negativity must come from an actual source. It has an origin otherwise there would be no such a thing as a negative.God said to the Adam and Eve, "The day you eat of this tree, you shall die". Where did this concept of death come from? Before them there was no death, only life.We know what death is, it's all around us, but what if we lived in a paradise and that those thoughts don't even exist and God comes to us and tells us an ultimative on something and if we were to partake of it then we would surely die. The question that would be on everyone's mind is what is death? What does He mean die?Some older translations say He "creates evil." That is a really poor translation, and not true. God does create "calamity." And if you read the context of Isaiah 45:7, it is clear that judgment is the issue. God does not create evil, but God does bring judgment on evil, creating therefore the calamity by which evil is judged.So why don't we just throw the KJV bible out, it's not safe to read because it is poor in translation.Has anyone ever looked at a comparison between the KJV and the RSV? The RSV removes large portions of verses to accomodate it's revision, but why do they do that? What is wrong with the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, the Received Text that was used to translate the KJV?It doesn't bother me that God created evil, in fact I appreciate Him even more. Because He is my God, the soveriegn God, the Almighty who created everything. I am apart of His plan, I am in the centre of His divine perfection, I am the apple of His eye. There are many sides to God that we cannot see, He is a jealous God! He is a God that can get angry. He has His likes and dislikes. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (oh yes, another bad translation)Let us think about these things, Karl ;-)

A

AgesofWar Mar 28, 2005

One more time for you guys that might of skiped itGOD did not create Evil in the sence that He Created the Satan, No he created a being with free will, namly Lucifer.That Being(Lucifer) made a choice as did Adam.Namly to Sin and birthed into exsitance Evil.John 8:42-4442 Jesus said to them“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me.43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot bear to hear my word.44 You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.Note Here that JESUS says that Satan is the Father of Lies Not GodIn Christ Michael

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 28, 2005

Hi Karl,Ok, Mr MacArther says in the same paragraph in the above quote that evil can't be created, yet in the same breath it came into existance in the fall of the Angels.Does that make sense to anyone?It makes perfect sense if you understand that the nature of evil is the absence of good. Evil could never exist if God were the only one to exist because He cannot change. Creation, however, and this is the point you seem to be missing, can change and therefore has the potential to change for the worse. The power of contrary choice is the essence of free will. God could not bring evil into existence because he'll never change and in him is no darkness at all, but His creation can and has fallen, that change to the lack of good has brought about evil.That God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden did not mean that He had created evil but that in creating rational beings the possibility did exist. The potential for evil was not in God but in His creatures, therefore they were warned and tested. Because they could not understand the potential that was in them does not establish in the fall narative that God created evil."Behold the lamb of God that was slain BEFORE the foundation of the world".I take it you're quoting Rev. 13:8 which reads: "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."Here's Barnes notes on this verse:"The meaning here is, not that he was actually put to death “from the foundation of the world,” but that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and that it was so certain that it might be spoken of as actually then occurring."I'm interested in how you conceive that this verse proves Adam and Eve did not have a free will. The foreknowledge of God does not unhinge the actual choices of men.So why don't we just throw the KJV bible out, it's not safe to read because it is poor in translation.Oh karl, I'm sure this is not an intentional straw man but that you are truely sincere in this.;-) The truth is, however, that MacArthur was not referring only to the KJV, but many, many others: Darby, YLT, ASV, Webster's...ect, etc. all translate Isa. 45:7 basically the same.In our large western vocabulary we have shortened the semantic range of many words considerably. Therefore the need to explain what is meant in the context of the text.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

J

Jimm Mar 28, 2005

Ephesians 3: 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: Would the manifold wisdom of God have be demonstrable without the presence of evil? The eternal purpose being that which was conceived before creation of both the spiritual and the physical world.

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 28, 2005

Hi Jimm,In a mysterious way I believe that God decreed that evil would come into existence for this very reason. Here is the link once again to the rest of the article I quoted. I think it will answer your question thouroughly. I would have posted the whole thing but it's really long.The Origin of Evil

S

sermonindex Mar 28, 2005

Very interesting Posts guys, very interesting indeed.JeremyYour a very wordy fellow, and I mean that in a good way. My mind is small and my faith is weak for me to comprehend what you are trying to project. I am sorry, forgive me.When I read that where it says that God created evil, I believe that!It doesn't make God a bad person, nor does my sight see Him to be something ugly. I see Him as all creative, that all things that exists are because of Him, even Lucifer. I can't believe that God is not in control of everything that happens, I must believe that He is, if not,then He can't be God.Again, I don't mean to be a Calvinist, and I assure you I have not read anything of Calvins works, but I do not believe that we have a free will. Mind you I can make choices that effect my relationship with God, but ultimately He will have His way in my life.When your His, your His! If you belong to Him, your one of His kids, if you rebel, your still one of His kids. Eventually He will correct you and be conformed into the image of His Son. The Father has a way of convincing you, He never forces His will on anyone, but man He sure knows how to get your attention."There is a way that seemth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death" I certainly do not want to hold to my ways, but I am learning, and I do appreciate your words as much as I am able to comprehend. God Bless you JeremyKarl

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 28, 2005

Hi Karl,Actually the minister I quoted, John MacArthur, is a strong calvinist.Myself, I'm somewhere in the middle.When I read that where it says that God created evil, I believe that!Remember you have to read the Bibble according to it's context. Jesus said that he was a door but that doesn't mean that he is made of wood and has a doorknob.Isa. 45:7 is poetry. One of the main characteristics of Hebrew poetry is parallelisms. In a parallel structure the verse builds on its self. It can same the same thing in a different way like in Psalm 2:4 "He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them." The first part is built upon by the second part. Hebrew poetry can also contrast and this is what is happening in Isa. 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.Here you have Light contrasted with Darkness, and Peace contrasted with Evil. Therefore our understanding of what is meant by evil here is that which is contrasted with the word peace. Darkness is the lack of light and evil would be the lack of peace. It has in it the sense of calamity being brought about as a result of judgment. Now if it had said that he makes "good and creates evil" then evil would carry with it the meaning of immorality/sin.Here's what John Chrysostom, one of the church fathers, says about evil:There is then evil, which is really evil; fornication, adultery, covetousness, and the countless dreadful things, which are worthy of the utmost reproach and punishment. Again there is evil, which rather is not evil, but is called so, fammine, pestilence, death, disease, and others of a like kind. For these would not be evils. On this account I said they are called so only. Why then? Because, were they evils, they would not have become the sources of good to us, chastening our pride, goading our sloth, and leading us on to zeal, making us more attentive. "For when," saith one, "he slew them, then they sought him, and they returned and came early to God." (Psalm not sure which chapter) He calls this evil therefore which chastens them, which makes them purer, which renders them more zealous, which leads them on to love of wisdom; not that which comes under suspicion and is worhty of reproach; for that is not a work of God, but an invention of our own will, but this is for the destruction of the other. He calls then by the name of evil the affliction, which arises from our punishment; thus naming it not in regard to its own nature, but according to that view which men take of it. For since we are accustomed to call by the name of evil, not only thefts and adulteries, but also calamities; so he has called the matter according to the estimate of mankind. This then is that which the prophet saith "There is no evil in the city which the Lord hath not done." This too by means of Isaiah God has mad clear saying "I am God who maketh peace and createth evil," again naming calamities evils.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

P

philologos Mar 28, 2005

My attempt was to avoid implying that God is subordinate to a moral law above Himself--as if one existed--but that He is in Himself pure actuality. In other words, we can be good, but God is goodness its self. I guess to break it down further would be to call God the eternal "uncaused cause".Hi Jeremy, I suppose the idea I have at the back of my mind is that God has chosen to be as He is. Ephesians speaks of 'his great love with which he has loved us'. Has he chosen, then, to love us, or is His love an inevitable consequence and thus without virtue?I often hear preachers say 'God cannot help loving us'; I don't believe it. God judges His own actions, saying of the creation 'it is good'. Surely this is not aesthetics but self-assessment.That God 'repents' surely means that He is capable of more than one action, and thereby must choose. If He chooses He is a moral being.You have probably seen that I think the Rom 5:12 section is the most informative passage on this topic. This refers, very clearly, to 'The Sin' entering accompanied by 'The Death'. Sin here is not the absence of goodness, and death is not the absence of life. Both are dynaminc forces which clearly, from Rom 5:12, pre-date man's experience of them.Sin and death are both consequently regarded as,not only entities, but as personalities which reign and subjugate. What is going to happen to our doctrine of 'consitutional sin' if evil is a mere absence of good?

P

philologos Mar 28, 2005

My attempt was to avoid implying that God is subordinate to a moral law above Himself--as if one existed--but that He is in Himself pure actuality. In other words, we can be good, but God is goodness its self. I guess to break it down further would be to call God the eternal "uncaused cause".We can, almost certainly, identify a couple of steps before this, but the ultimate origin of evil remains 'unrevealed' (the real meaning of 'mystery').

P

philologos Mar 28, 2005

Evil could never exist if God were the only one to exist because He cannot change.The power of contrary choice is the essence of free will. He does not change, has not changed and will not change. But that is not because He 'cannot' but because He chooses not. If He is not the arbiter of His own nature, His nature has become God. According to your definintion above, God does not have 'free will'?

P

philologos Mar 28, 2005

Listen to this: To disobey God was to initiate evil. Evil is not the presence of something. Evil is the absence of righteousness. You can't create evil, because evil doesn't exist as a created entity. It doesn't exist as a created reality. Evil is a negative. Evil is the absence of perfection. It's the absence of holiness. It's the absence of goodness. It's the absence of righteousness. Evil became a reality only when creatures chose to disobey. Evil came into existence initially then in the fall of angels. And then next, in the fall of Adam and Eve. I do think this is defective reasoning. Turn it around and see. The absence of evil is not holiness, and the absence of absence of evil is not righteousness. Here is a chunk of 'space'; it is without holiness and without holiness. Does that make it evil? Put it the other way around. He is a chunk of space that is without evil or unrighteousness. Does that make it holy or righteous. Holiness is not the absence of evil, and evil is not the absence of holiness. The state to describe absences of holiness or evil it 'innocence'.

P

philologos Mar 28, 2005

hulsey writes:In a mysterious way I believe that God decreed that evil would come into existence for this very reason. I want to be even more pedantic than usual here... :-D We have heard several statements here.God created evil; healing watersGod decreed evil; hulsey God allowed evil; MacArther. "And these are the three reasons why I believe God allowed evil." (and I am comfortable with all three of his reasons)Personally, I have to reject the first two. I am not pedentic enough to be able to drive a wedge between God's culpability in 'creating' or 'decreeing'. In each of the first two positions; God is responsible; I think only MacArthur's position is scripturally tenable.The difference between 'decreeing' and 'allowing', incidentally is the difference between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism! See Infralapsarianism for Dummies. And, Jeremy, for a self-confessed Arminian, you are putting yourself in strange company in the Supralapsarian camp!!Although I still disagree with MacArthur's defintion of 'evil' as the absence of 'good'. To choose not to 'go good' would be an evil choice and hence sin, but 'evil' does not exist simply because we remove righteousness from the equation.

S

sermonindex Mar 28, 2005

How can God be the author of rebellion?God created Lucifer with the ability to create his own moral character. He was created with a free will so that he could chose to obey or rebel. There was NOTHING wrong in God’s creation.Lucifer did create evil by his free choice to rebel.All moral beings have the ability of choice. Now the question is can God WISELY prevent sin?

P

philologos Mar 28, 2005

freecd wrote:How can God be the author of rebellion?to whom do you address this question?

S

sermonindex Mar 28, 2005

How can God be the author of rebellion?Anyone who wants to can answer this question.

S

sermonindex Mar 28, 2005

Thanks Jeremy, John Chrysostom made more sense than John MacArthur, I can blend that in more to my understanding.I still believe that God created evil, but now in a different sense by blending that together with what I know. By mixing these elements together in an Apothecary, we are sure that something will come together, after all that is how doctrines and teachings are formed, and thank God for that. Lest we only base our whole understanding upon one word or verse which many in their folly have done.Karl

S

sermonindex Mar 28, 2005

If He chooses He is a moral being.Forgive me brother, but that 'a' just before the word 'moral' bothers me.It implies that God was created, it should read, "God is moral", making Him the author of it, not one who is subject to it. Just like He says, "I AM that I AM", He is supreme.Thought I'd point that out.Karl ;-)

I

InTheLight Mar 28, 2005

Although I still disagree with MacArthur's defintion of 'evil' as the absence of 'good'. To choose not to 'go good' would be an evil choice and hence sin, but 'evil' does not exist simply because we remove righteousness from the equation.If evil is a created "thing" then it should exist independently. This leads to the question, "does evil exist without some point of good being involved in an evil action?"For example, theft has as its basis a desire to raise ones comfort level or for pleasure in using the stolen item. Those things in and of themselves are not bad but when excersized inappropraitely they are considered evil. In other words, there is always part of an evil desire that is not wrong in and of itself, can you think of any type of evil that is self contained? Good actions however can exist independently. In Christ,Ron

P

philologos Mar 28, 2005

Healingwaters wrote:

If He chooses He is a moral being.Forgive me brother, but that 'a' just before the word 'moral' bothers me.It implies that God was created, it should read, "God is moral", making Him the author of it, not one who is subject to it. Just like He says, "I AM that I AM", He is supreme.Thought I'd point that out.Karl ;-)

It implies no such thing. A being is not a creature. God is a being. He is a unique being, and an uncreated being, but He is quite definitely a being. I don't think you understand the word 'moral' or 'being' or both.

P

philologos Mar 28, 2005

freecd wrote:How can God be the author of rebellion?Anyone who wants to can answer this question.Why would ayone want to? Has anyone suggested that God is 'the author of rebellion'?

S

sermonindex Mar 28, 2005

God is not the author of rebellion, but He did place certain elements that caused a rebellion to occur.He placed the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden.The question that is on everyone's mind including mine, IF God knew that man was going to fall, why did He put that tree in there? Why didn't He tell them more about the Tree of Life, why just that Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?That really is the key to this whole thing, that God knew. And we may just as well leave it at that.My own personal belief is that, how can the mercies of God be revealed if there is nothing to have mercy on? How can His longsuffering be active when there is nothing to be longsuffering over? How can He pardon someone when there is nothing to pardon?My thoughts, my opinions.Karl

S

sermonindex Mar 28, 2005

if God "created evil" than He is the author of rebellion.

S

sermonindex Mar 28, 2005

BrotherIf that is the way you see it, then I can't change you and really I do not want to, just sharing with you my thoughts, and that is really what we are all here doing. If just a little thing like this gets your feathers ruffled, then what would a big thing do?There are many peoples here on this website from all over the world. We all see things differently, and thank God we do. I see your previous post the way I see it and you see it the way you see it.I'll remember next time NOT to reply to your 'perfect' posts, a silly action that I must take, it has to be done to avoid a little thing like this and by keeping the peace on these boards.But please do NOT stop replying to mine as I don't mind being corrected, it's good to be corrected when your wrong, and stepping stones I need.I was hoping that you would reply something like this:--------------------------------------------------Brother KarlWow, really is that how you see it? O.k. I guess I can see how you came to that conclusion, but I want to assure you that that is not what I meant that to mean. Let me explain, "God IS a moral being" by stating that "He Is" and by placing an 'A' only amplifies the fact that "He Is".Karl, I hope that helps you understand why I used that 'a' in that statement. Thanks for pointing that out and God bless.Ron--------------------------------------------------And my reply would be, thanks for explaining that a little more, I understand where you coming from.--------------------------------------------------Sincerely and Thank YOU for your words.Karl

P

philologos Mar 28, 2005

RonAll sin has an element of the original 'good' desires that God planted in the human race. This is the target of the tempter. Eve witnessed and 'desired' the fruit before she sinned in taking it. God had not said they should not desire it, only that they must not eat it.There is only one creator, so if 'evil' is created then God created it. Satan is a creature and cannot properly create anything. He can, however, distort and vandalise something. And it appears this is what he did. He is a cosmic vandal. He is also the slanderer, constantly defaming God's character.Our difficulty in expressing what happened is that we are not told, and can only produce 'best fit' theories.Ezekiel tells us, of Satan...Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (Eze 28:15)This speaks of Satan being 'created' but 'evil' being found. The 'evil' clearly did not have the same origin as the 'creature'. God created Satan, but Satan 'became' evil.Some of the steps are in our line of sight, but others are not...Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. (Eze 28:17)At some point Satan became 'self-conscious' of his own glory. The Cherubim who daily worship God are only conscious of His. How could this have happened? I do not think we are told. We can only trace the steps back to this point.Isaiah tells us of Satan's 'heart' stakes For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: Isa 14:13) This identifies the moment of choice, which is a step later than the self-consciousness.So we can identify 'desire' which was not subject to the will of God, and a 'decision' which was not subject to the will of God, but earlier than that we are into speculation.What is not speculation is that as a result of Adam's disobedience 'The Sin' entered the human race and from that point its career can be traced more easily. It brought with it 'The Death'. Just as The Sin was not the absence of evil, The Death was not the absence of life, but both behave in the later verses of Romans 5 as 'entities' ruling on thrones.Evil had its origin in this being we know as Satan. And since that time Satan has been its source either directly or indirectly. That this is allowed by God is self-evident; it is here, so God must have allowed it. To say it was 'created or decreed' by God, is to my mind impossible, as there is nothing in God that could have created this mutated life form. All created things came 'out of' God; if Sin is a created thing it can only have had one origin. Satan's judgment is declared and the sentence passed; he is guilty. He, not God, is held accountable. Those who refuse to repent must share his rebellion and his destiny.The Hebrew word for 'found' in Ezek is literally 'came out of'. According to Ezekiel 28:18 his final destruction will be caused by a 'fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee'. Surely sin has the seeds of its own destruction within it, and God will 'permit' this to be so.Man's sin was derived. Is this why repentance is a possiblity? Satan's sin was 'original'.

S

sermonindex Mar 28, 2005

Did not God create moral beings with the ability to make a FREE choice? If so, they have the ability to create their own moral character.

P

philologos Mar 28, 2005

freecd wrote:Did not God create moral beings with the ability to make a FREE choice? If so, they have the ability to create their own moral character.But does a single transgression create a character? If so will your next sin change your character? Adam's transgression was unique because by it' The Sin' entered the world ,and The Death by The Sin. No other man's sin could have had this consequence. Eve's sin did not have this consequence. Sin entered through one 'man'.

D

dohzman Mar 29, 2005

As I was taught the angels and lucifer in many ways mirror the creation of man.Now as I understand lucifer fell when violence was discovered in him and he said...... pride.....I will be like God,basically. How can a being created in the image of God without knowledge of evil fall? After he fell I can understand how he became the instrument of introducing sin into the human race.But would man have fallen just like 1third of the angels did in the heavenly revolt had not man had a tempter? And if so in what way and in what limitations is it to be understood that man was created in the image of God? Was it just for communion or was there virtues like holiness that came as a byproduct with that image? Were we basically flawed from creation God knowing we would sin but that He could through the redemption process make us what he couldn't creat us to be? Bro. Daryl

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 29, 2005

Hi Ron (and everyone else),I can now say that my brain is officially smoking. The difference between 'decreeing' and 'allowing', incidentally is the difference between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism! See Infralapsarianism for Dummies. And, Jeremy, for a self-confessed Arminian, you are putting yourself in strange company in the Supralapsarian camp!!That's awesome... :-D! I guess I should have explained it differently. My best answer right now to this whole thing is I DON'T KNOW :-D .In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

P

philologos Mar 29, 2005

That's awesome... ! I guess I should have explained it differently. My best answer right now to this whole thing is I DON'T KNOW This is why I love Paul's phrase 'we know it part'. and I still like Rumsfeld's comment's about the nature of our ignorance. There are some things we know, and there are some things we don't know. There are somethings we know we don't know, but there are things we don't know and we don't know we don't know them. (how's your brain doing, Jeremy?) It is the latter category which should keep us humble; there are things we don't know and we don't even know that we don't know them.We could know nothing of spiritual import without revelation. It is when we start to feel the need to feel the gaps that we need to remind ourselves that 'there are things we don't know and we don't even know that we don't know them'. Our ignorance is massive.And the origin of sin, not in the human race, but before Adam's transgression is a graph with two or three points on it. The man or woman that extrapolates that curve is likely to end up anywhere.Of course, we like order. This is part of our temptation 'to be like God' and have everything under our control. But it remains that there are, even for us, things that we cannot bear yet. In kindness God has kept much veiled. God still reveals things to us on a 'need to know' basis, to part-quote John... there are many things "'which are not written in this book: but these are written that ye might believe..." When we take our stand on things 'not written' we often use the words 'I believe' (it is interesting to see how often evolutionists use it!) but faith that is not based on revelation is not biblical faith, but something of a different order.WKIP!

N

nimble Mar 29, 2005

philologos wrote:In kindness God has kept much veiled. God still reveals things to us on a 'need to know' basis, I think that's the greatest blessing in all this - that we are to be "simple concerning evil"... I for one wouldn't know where to start in order to be complex!However, this thread has brought many questions to mind...The first is in the title, although this one has already been answered in part. The thread title reads "did God Create evil". And we ask: was evil actually created? Surely "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" does made = created? What does the word acutually mean in John 1, Isaiah 45 and the (two, i think?) words in Genesis 1? What are the differences?The second question is where does the commonly held understanding of the whole Lucifer became Satan, got cast down to hell with a third of the angels etc etc come from? I know the verses in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation.. but they seem a little enigmatic at best - why does everyone seem to be agreed on the interpretation? It doesn't seem that clear.

P

philologos Mar 29, 2005

The first is in the title, although this one has already been answered in part. The thread title reads "did God Create evil". And we ask: was evil actually created? Surely "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" does made = created? What does the word acutually mean in John 1, Isaiah 45 and the (two, i think?) words in Genesis 1? What are the differences?hmmm? interesting stuff here...I suppose the earliest (chronological) statement about sin would be Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (Eze 28:15 KJV)Personally I think this verses long pre-date the earthly Eden. The word 'iniquity' is just a general word for 'evil' or 'unrighteousness', and this passage refers to time when this was 'found' in the 'prince of Tyre'. So in that sense I think this thread title may have been a misnomer; I'm not sure that evil was 'created' in the normal sense.The words you are referring to in John and Isaiah might to be able to be applied to 'evil' in quite the same sense. The 'creator' in the other sense is surely only ever God. The Hebrew word 'created' in Gen 1:1 is bara which is almost, but not quite always, used of God as Creator. One of the verses that has figured in this thread has been I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isa 45:7 KJV) but as others have pointed out the NASB gets the sense more accurately here;The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (Isa 45:7 NASB) We see the sense of 'evil' here by its contrast with 'peace' (shalom) So I'm not sure that pursuing the meanings of 'create' will further this exploration much. does the commonly held understanding of the whole Lucifer became Satan, got cast down to hell with a third of the angels etc etc come from? I know the verses in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation.. but they seem a little enigmatic at best - why does everyone seem to be agreed on the interpretation? It doesn't seem that clear. In fact, not everyone is agreed on the interpretation. Most commentaries will discount the identification with Satan on the Isaiah 14 and Ezek 28 sections. The link was first made my the early church fathers, but many evangelicals would be suprised to hear any other interpretation of these sections.I am personally comfortable with the interpretation of these verses as pertaining to something much greater than earthly kings. The language would seem extravagant in the extreme if only a human being were in view. The third part of the angels, as you say, is a quote from the Revelation and to build on a single verse from a book which is based on signs and symbols is a bit dicey to say the least.If you 'ban' Isaiah and Ezekiel from this conversation, and question the identification of numbers from the Revelation you are right in implying that we don't know much about this subject. This has been my plea throughout this theme. Adam Clarke has a quote regarding the phrase 'the angels that sinned' (2 Pet 2:4) For if God spared not the angels - The angels were originally placed in a state of probation; some having fallen and some having stood proves this. How long that probation was to last to them, and what was the particular test of their fidelity, we know not; nor indeed do we know what was their sin; nor when nor how they fell. St. Jude says they kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation; which seems to indicate that they got discontented with their lot, and aspired to higher honors, or perhaps to celestial domination. The tradition of their fall is in all countries and in all religions, but the accounts given are various and contradictory; and no wonder, for we have no direct revelation on the subject. They kept not their first estate, and they sinned, is the sum of what we know on the subject; and here curiosity and conjecture are useless. Useless but fascinating!

N

Nasher Mar 29, 2005

I may have missed this somewhere in this long thread, but has "evil" been defined yet?Should we replace "evil" with "Sin"?Then when we ask the question "did God create Sin?" the answer must surely be "no!"Why?Because God is Holy, Holy, Holy (evidence for the trinity? ;-) )If God were to create Sin then Sin would have to come from God, which would mean that God wouldn't be Holy, Holy, Holy.God will only create good (Genesis 1), but the good things he creates still have the ability to make choices, therefore they can choose to obey God or to Sin.Question - will we be able to make choices in Heaven?Could someone then choose to disobey God?Or will we see a deeper revelation of his Holy character that we will be awe-struck for eternity!P.S. I'm thinking out loud here!

J

jeremyhulsey Mar 29, 2005

Hi Nasher,Question - will we be able to make choices in Heaven?Could someone then choose to disobey God?Or will we see a deeper revelation of his Holy character that we will be awe-struck for eternity!P.S. I'm thinking out loud here!In some way I don't think we will be able to disobey God when this age is over but not because we don't have a choice, but rather, our choice is now and the one we make is an eternal one.

S

sermonindex Mar 29, 2005

Two of my favorite quotes on good and evil are:Everything is plural and balanced, but good and bad are human inventions: we walk right foot, left foot, not right foot, wrong foot. Ignorance and greed are part of the evolutionary process, which is to say that mistakes are part of learning. There is nothing bad about behaviors or perceptions that do not work, they simply have to be replaced by behaviors and perceptions that do work. – R. Buckminster Fuller.Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow from thee turn not away. . . that ye may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven; for He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

S

sermonindex Mar 29, 2005

The one great advantage that we have over the Angels is that Christ is recreating Himself in us. The finish work of Calvary is the death buriel and resurrection of Jesus Christ, how that we (and the Angels can't do this) died with Christ, that we were buried with Him and [we should] we arose with Him in His resurrection. Realize yourself to be dead indeed unto sin and alive unto God. And believe me, we are still trying to realize that we are dead, and when that day comes that we realize that fact, there will be a resurrection.Karl

R

relewis111 Mar 29, 2005

I'd like to go out on a theological limb and feel free to saw it off behind me. God cannot create sin and God Almighty is not in place in time. Man can not possibly grasp eternity this side of the grave nor can he be ever free from sin. Our nature is one that is based upon opposites, dichomities, lefts and rights, holiness and sin however God alone is truth without deceipt, life without end, and light without darkness or blemish. We are in fact subject to decay, death and time whereas Almighty God does not exist in time at all. Therefore it is only possible for sin to be revealed in our human nature as the response of will and choice. In this age to apprehend that promise inherent in our ressurection with Christ is but a small foretaste of the infinite, unmeasurable riches of His grace. We see with weak eyes and hear with dull ears and are shocked and amazed at the depths of human depravity and wickedness while hidden sin in our own heart seperates us from the true revealation of God's eternal holy nature. I'm am humbled and awed that the perfect Son of God would love someone as filthy as I am and truthfully that fact still sends chills down my spine. To continue on this path of a growing , deepening walk with Christ convinces me even further that the only answer is Jesus Christ and only in the resurrection will I finally know the depth and breadth of the sin s of my heart that seperate me from my Lord and Saviour. I don't have tons of scripture to back these thoughts but I do know how utterly incapable I am to create grace of my own power and that only Almighty God's mercy and love is the true light by which I must strive to live. Please don't hesitate to comment because if you were sitting here with me , sharing a cup of coffee I would listen to you with love in my heart and Christ in our presence as we are gathered together in His name.Rich

I

iHilam Mar 29, 2005

It's been a few days since I've been online. I see this topic has been fastinatiing. It's gonna take a while for me to read all of these posts.In Christ,iHilam

I

iHilam Mar 29, 2005

Wow, There are some very interesting views. I guess basically the way I see it is that evil or sin whichever you choose to use are not created to begin with. As with love, faith, hope or peace. These are words that describe the heart or a situation of the heart. Not the heart that pumps the blood through your body. When we say someone is evil, we are simply descibing a persons character or his true heart. That would be the same as describing someone who is good. We all know that God is love. I would have to think the opposite of that (hate) would be evil. When lucifer decided to seperate himself from God thus becoming evil or without God. Sin is a word used to describe evil. If we live in sin we become one with sin and are then made evil (seperated from God). So the word evil was born from the actions of lucifer who lost that name and is now known as satan, devil, etc....

K

kirindor Mar 30, 2005

Rich,I would like to echo your thoughts on "the depth and breadth of the sins of my heart." I know that I am so much more concious of sin now than I was 25 years ago when I came to faith.I often think on the resurrection and our glorification when we will be free from sin. I look forward to being able to look back at myself, so that I might better understand Christ's love and sacrifice for me.Also, while eternity may be "timeless," it must still have provision for "succession." Because we are finite and the Lord is infinite, we will never fully comprehend Him. There is a sense in which, even on the New Earth, we will be able to say, "I know the Lord better today than yesterday.For this reason, I believe that time will continue, and that it is a result of our finitude that we can never really escape. Think about it. I think that it makes good logical sense.In Christ,adam@adamchristiansen.orgwww.adamchristiansen.org

K

kirindor Mar 30, 2005

Karl,The differences between the angels and us fascinate me.First, Satan was the first to sin, but there seems to be very little fallout from his rebellion, but Adam's sin brought about the Fall and the entrance of sin and death.Second, the angels, as servants, were created to be powerful, but man was created to morally great. We were created to choose the Lord.Third, the angels in all their holiness cover their eyes and feet before the Lord, while Adam stood face to face before God. Adam must have created with an unimaginable holiness to have done that.I could go on and on, but to bring myself back to the topic a bit: the great mystery of evil is how could Holy Adam with every advantage ever fall into sin?I do not think that we will understand that mystery until we have spent countless ages in the presence of the Lord.In Christ,adam@adamchristiansen.orgwww.adamchristiansen.org

P

philologos Mar 30, 2005

kirindor wrote:Karl,The differences between the angels and us fascinate me.First, Satan was the first to sin, but there seems to be very little fallout from his rebellion, but Adam's sin brought about the Fall and the entrance of sin and death. I'm afraid this is a conclusion based on our ignorance rather than our knowledge. It is recorded that Satan 'defiled his holy places' and in Hebrews that 'the heavenly things' had to be purified. (Heb 9:23) Additionally, the whole 'earth' episode' is a 'stage' in the cosmic rebellion. There may well be 'theatres of war' of which we know nothing. Second, the angels, as servants, were created to be powerful, but man was created to morally great. We were created to choose the Lord. Angels are described as 'holy', is this not a moral category? Third, the angels in all their holiness cover their eyes and feet before the Lord, while Adam stood face to face before God. Adam must have created with an unimaginable holiness to have done that. I think your reasoning is mistaken here. God manifests His glory in accordance with the ability of watchers to receive it. No one, not Adam nor angel, could see God and live, if God did not 'veil' His glory. He covers Himself with light as a garment. I do not think that we will understand that mystery until we have spent countless ages in the presence of the Lord. I am sure you are right!

K

kirindor Mar 31, 2005

Ron,Thanks for the discussion. Pick my argument apart, because I need to make it more rigourous, and the help is appreciated.First, Satan was the first to sin, but there seems to be very little fallout from his rebellion, but Adam's sin brought about the Fall and the entrance of sin and death.I was less than precise as I worded this. Satan sinned and other angels fell with him. However, when Adam sinned the whole of creation fell with him. Romans 8:19 tells us that the creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. Because the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own will, but by the will of the one who subjected it.Adam's sin had profound far reaching effects into the whole creation. Creation was fundamentally different after Adam's sin. The same is simply not true of Satan's sin. Second, the angels, as servants, were created to be powerful, but man was created to morally great. We were created to choose the Lord. This is response avoids what I was suggesting by redirection. You could just as eaasily referenced David's Mighty Men and asked a simlar question,Angels are described as 'holy', is this not a moral category?You implied a contradiction where none exist. I did not deny that the angels are moral agents, nor did I say that men lacked power. I compared two qualities - power and moral agency, and said that while angels have a greater quantity of the quality of power than we, we have a greater quantity of the quality of moral agency than do the angels.However, the distinction is real. The last verse of Hebrews 1 makes this apparent. "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"There is a qualitative difference between Man and Angels. They are "ministering spirits" and we are the "heirs of salvation." Why is this so? Because we are sons of God by adoption. And a man, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, sits on the throne of heaven. Third, the angels in all their holiness cover their eyes and feet before the Lord, while Adam stood face to face before God. Adam must have created with an unimaginable holiness to have done that To which you respondedI think your reasoning is mistaken here. God manifests His glory in accordance with the ability of watchers to receive it. No one, not Adam nor angel, could see God and live, if God did not 'veil' His glory. He covers Himself with light as a garment.I agree with you objection in principle however I do not believe that you have taken the nature of the Fall into proper account. The nature of the Lord's holiness is expounded in many places.However, in the Garden, before the Fall, there is no indication that Adam behaved in any manner similar to the angels in veiling their faces and feet before the Lord; instead, there is the most plain indication that they were in inimate communion with one another.With the Fall, the relationship radically changed. When Adam heard the voice of his Father, he hid himself, because he was naked and afraid. Do you see the significance of this act?This can also be argued logically by working through questions concerning the nature of our sonship. Will we have a distant father who keeps us at arm length? This seems to go contrary to the very nature of being a child of God.Even so, I recognize that a transcendent God must condescend to make relationship possible with a finite creature.

J

jouko Apr 3, 2005

Below a text that I copied from another writing, a rather long one. The other text I got from the Bible. :-oGen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. joukoWe desperately need to understand something of the magnitude of sin, ofevil, and of gross wickedness in this world if we are to appreciate ourredemption. God's love, grace, and mercy shine all the brighter against theawful reality of evil. Indeed, the very existence of evil is a powerfulproof of God's existence and holiness. God says, "I form the light, andcreate darkness: I make peace, and create evil..." (Is 45:7). God createsevil? Yes, the same way that light exposes darkness. A person who was born, lived, and died in total darkness in a cave deepbeneath the earth would not know that he lived in the dark until someonecame into the cave with a light and the darkness was revealed. In the sameway, God's goodness, perfect holiness, and righteousness reveal evil forwhat it is. Without God and the conscience He has given us we would notrecognize evil. Indeed, evil makes good shine all the brighter -- and thisworld is full of evil.