Why God Created Evil

[TER]

These appeals to authority are not persuasive to me. I want to know what God's Word says, not what some men in robes tell me what to believe. If the men in robes differ with the Word of God, then its the men in robes who are wrong, not God.

Besides, I am intentionally not trying to engage that argument right now. I am appealing to your fairness, in that, because I attempted to exegete your verse, that you would exegete my passage from Romans 9. Can I count on your fairness?

I am proposing that Romans 9:14-24 shows us that God had a purpose in creating the evil in this world. Can you show me from that passage why I shouldn't believe this? What are your thoughts on this passage?

AB, I appreciate your patience. i will try to address you when I can. I'm getting creamed here right now.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I understand. Whenever man.

 

[WilliamC]

And here I thought he was just bored.

"God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be true, but it sounds good, and is no sillier than any other theology."

Lazarus Long, _Time Enough for Love_ by Robert Heinlein

 

[Sola_Fide]

And here I thought he was just bored.

"God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be true, but it sounds good, and is no sillier than any other theology."

Lazarus Long, _Time Enough for Love_ by Robert Heinlein

Since the Son has eternally proceeded from the Father, and the Spirit has eternally proceeded from the Father and the Son, there was no point in time where God "split himself up". There has always been love and communication within the Godhead from eternity.

 

[WilliamC]

Since the Son has eternally proceeded from the Father, and the Spirit has eternally proceeded from the Father and the Son, there was no point in time where God "split himself up". There has always been love and communication within the Godhead from eternity.

That's deep. I think. Well, the sun is a very magic fellow



I won't butt in anymore

 

[moostraks]

These appeals to authority are not persuasive to me. I want to know what God's Word says, not what some men in robes tell me what to believe. If the men in robes differ with the Word of God, then its the men in robes who are wrong, not God.

Besides, I am intentionally not trying to engage that argument right now. I am appealing to your fairness, in that, because I attempted to exegete your verse, that you would exegete my passage from Romans 9. Can I count on your fairness?

I am proposing that Romans 9:14-24 shows us that God had a purpose in creating the evil in this world. Can you show me from that passage why I shouldn't believe this? What are your thoughts on this passage?

So the men in robes of the church have no value, but the men you choose do? Your disparaging tone towards anyone other than Calvinists is disheartening. Some seem to feel that Mr. White was not all that convincing when it came to his arguments.


http://hbcdelivers.s439.sureserver.com/220


"The book Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views by Dave Hunt and James White (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2004) is a fascinating volume for those who are interested in this important issue.

James White wanted to debate Hunt on this topic, and this new book is the result. With the volume before me, I must say that White has more than met his match. Hunt calmly but enthusiastically answers every point that White makes, while White, in his rebuttals to Hunt, does a lot of huffing and puffing and dodging the issue and pretending that Hunt does not know what he is talking about; but “at the end of the day,” he simply cannot refute Hunt’s doctrine with the Scripture."

Fwiw, an alternative viewpoint to the passages you are discussing, including Luke 13 and Romans 9. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/37438180/EXEGETING-KEY-PASSAGES-FOR-JAMES-WHITE-DEBATE

 

[TER]

I understand. Whenever man.

AB, I wrote a long post, but decided against putting it up. And then I wrote this long post, and then I am going to bed!

I post this video because I think it answers some of our differences.

Be well, my friend.

(its a little hard to follow at times visually, and I had to pause it many times to better understand it, but it is chock full of wisdom)



I hope you watch it.

Sola Scriptura is to Christianity what Progressive Liberalism is to this Constitutional Republic. It is an entirely new way of understanding authority, the meaning of our life, and how one should live in the world. Relying on one's own interpretation of the words of the Holy Bible, even if it has no historical precedence or ever considered a commonly known and agreed upon Christian truth. Are we greater then St. Paul? Or St. Peter? Or those they layed hands on and entrusted the flock to in order to guide, protect, and teach to the truth of Jesus Christ? Consider this, the Holy Spirit Who works within the Church, came as Tongues of Fire over the heads of the Apostles, not as sheets of paper or of a scroll, but as tongues, showing how they would form their Church, by the words spoken by men. Sometimes written down, sometimes said once in the perfect time and in the perfect place, not known to the world, but all the same within the mind and wisdom of the Church even as there were no books and defending the truth of Jesus Christ even at the destruction of their own bodies.

Do not value symbols on pages over the value of blood. Christ came and bled for mankind, He did not sit and right a book.

But the question which might have to be answered first is, why do people put themselves above the saints of the Church? Perhaps we should read about the saints of the Church...

Nevertheless, the understanding of the Church has always been that the Scriptures are inerrant, divinely-inspired, and to be held as an ultimate authority. But the understanding of the Church never separated themselves from the Church in the process of creating the Scriptures! The Scriptures (which was not compiled and canonized until centuries after the Day of Pentecost) were the product of the Church, written by the Church, in order to heed the commandment of the Lord and go and baptize the nations and proclaim His Good News. Baptizing the nations did not include organizing a written text to be as a sole authority for the truth. This came much later, when innovators began to proclaim their own private interpretation against the established interpretation of the Church. In fact, the very reason the Church eventually canonized a book called the New Testament centuries later was to counter the false religions being created in the guise of 'Christianity' and it seemed good to the bishops of the day to answer the call of the people and deliver one, holy, catholic, and apostolic book of Holy Scripture.

But the reality is that for the MAJORITY of history, the MAJORITY of Christians who have ever lived have been ILLITERATE. Here again we see the reason for the Holy Spirit revealing Himself as tongues of fire and not as scrolls or books. It is why St. Paul admonished the Church to stand firm to the teachings they have received, whether in word or epistle. In fact, from always it has involved preaching the teachings of Christ, standing at times in front of the illiterate masses and proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, and adding the newly baptized to the numbers of saints.

You don't doubt the wisdom and truth in the Founding Fathers of this Nation, why do you doubt the wisdom of the Holy Fathers of Christianity? A wisdom that did not limit itself to creating a nation, but to recreate human life and our eternal relationship with God. By Christ, we too become transfigured unto image and likeness of God, just as He created us. By the salvation He made possible through His willing sacrifice for the world. Our goal is not a book of papers and writings of men, though they are a necessary path to our real goal. And that goal is living in the eternal and everlasting loving presence of God. Both now, in this world, even in this flesh, as confirmed by the lives and miracles of the saints, and into the life of the ages to come.

 

[TomL]

AB, The answer to your question about Romans 9 is simple. Our God is in Heaven and He does whatever pleases Him.

Now the question for you to answer is, did it please God to create sin and evil? If it did not than He did not create evil.

 

[Sola_Fide]

AB, The answer to your question about Romans 9 is simple. Our God is in Heaven and He does whatever pleases Him.

I agree. God is the Soveriegn Lord who does whatever He intends to do.

Psalm 115:3
New Living Translation (NLT)

Our God is in the heavens,
and he does as he wishes

Now the question for you to answer is, did it please God to create sin and evil? If it did not than He did not create evil.

Then He did create evil for a specific purpose. As Romans 9 14-24 says:

So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.

For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth.”

So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.

Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”

No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?”

When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?

In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction.

He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory.

And we are among those whom he selected, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles

( wonder if anyone that is responding in this thread has read Romans 9:14-24 or anyone will attempt to go by line-by-line to understand...hope so!)

 

[Sola_Fide]

I figure I might as well give the biblical exegesis of the passage in Romans, as briefly and to the point as I can:

Romans 9:16-24

16 So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.

God is the sovereign Lord who shows mercy. We can neither choose our salvation or work for it, because we are dead in sins. Dead men don't work their way out of their death. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, He did not ask Lazarus' permission to raise him. He did it by His own sovereign power and plan. Lazurus responded only after he had been made alive again.

17 For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth.”

God hardened Pharoah's heart. He then used the evil of Pharoah for a purpose: to display His power and spread His name throughout the entire earth.

18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.

Because God is the sovereign Creator, he can choose to show mercy to sinful people or harden them so they refuse to listen. God is under no obligation to save anyone. We are fallen. We are sinful. We are at enmity with Him. We deserve punishment for our sins.

19 Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”

Paul, sensing how people are going to object to this (the same objection that many in this thread are having) says what he says in verse 19. People in this thread are saying that God is unfair because we are simply predestined to do what we are going to do. So here is Paul's response to this:

20 No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?” When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?

Who are you, a mere man, to talk back to God? Can the pot turn around to the Potter who made it and say, "Why did you make me like this?" Of course not. God has the sovereign right to make some pots for a wonderful purpose and He has the right to make some (like Pharoah) for another purpose.

22 In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction.

God has the right to bring His judgement down RIGHT NOW on the people who are sinning against Him, but he is patient to the ones who are destined for destruction. Why does He do this? Answer:

23 He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory.

And there is the answer as to why there is evil in this world. Because out of the destruction of evil men, the riches of GOd's glory are going to be even more wonderful to those who He he predestined for Heaven. The elect will truly know how unworthy they are to have been shown grace.

24 And we are among those whom he selected, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles

From all the people of the earth (Jews and Gentiles, you're either one or the other), God has selected His people to show mercy toward. And he has selected the others to harden.




There is a quick exegesis on my part, which explains the classic Reformed (the Biblical) understanding of Romans 9. I have specifically not talked about any other verses, hoping that we could focus on just one passage at a time in this thread (since the OP mentions it). But many people (I know because I was once one) will recoil at this. You will bring up the exact same objection that the apostle Paul answers in verses 19 and 20.

As Dr. James White says, (He was mentioned in this thread), many people will say they will never worship a God like this...one who chooses to show mercy to some and chooses to harden others. To that, he says he responds, "I know". I know you won't worship a God like this until he takes out your heart of stone and puts in a heart of flesh.

 

[moostraks]

( wonder if anyone that is responding in this thread has read Romans 9:14-24 or anyone will attempt to go by line-by-line to understand...hope so!)

I have and again, I disagree with your assessment. I think that by dismissing the early church writings and claiming the Mr.White has the better understanding you are much as TER said, reinterpreting outside of the original intent. Here is the link to St.John of Chrysostom's homilies on Romans, link is to the specific verses you are targeting. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm

I also gave you previously a link to a seperate view which covered a modern argument against Mr. White's analysis specifically. It also goes into Luke 13 which you brought up. Here it is again:http://www.docstoc.com/docs/37438180/EXEGETING-KEY-PASSAGES-FOR-JAMES-WHITE-DEBATE Romans 9 portion starts on page 7. Luke 13 starts on page 14 of that document.

The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura had the best of intentions when it came to weeding out the degenerate teachings of the Church at the time it was proposed. However, it threw the baby out with the bath water when people now think they can call their church, The Church, based upon the opinions of modern thinkings operating in a vacuum. Much like your insistence on limiting discussion to the verses you wish, by taking scriptures seperately and refusing to look at the whole body of information (as well as common practice by early Christians) one can attempt to propose one intent when by looking at the body of information the meaning is different based upon context.

I am not arguing with you for the sake of proving I am right and you are wrong. I am greatly offended by the portrayal put forth by the views you are espousing as biblical truths. You are right though in that I don't want to worship the god Mr. White believes in. I find him (the god of Mr.White) to be a petty tyrant with a lust for blood that would create something merely to have it live a wretched existence with no hope of relief from torment it imposed on its creation.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You are right though in that I don't want to worship the god Mr. White believes in. I find him (the god of Mr.White) to be a petty tyrant with a lust for blood that would create something merely to have it live a wretched existence with no hope of relief from torment it imposed on its creation.

Moosetracks,

Would you walk with me verse by verse on Romans 9:14-24 to tell me exactly where you think I am not exegeting it correctly?

Why did you not quote where you disagreed with me an offer a counter-exegesis? That's what I would have hoped you'd do. I would welcome us going through that portion line by line together. Would you do it?

 

[eduardo89]

The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura had the best of intentions when it came to weeding out the degenerate teachings of the Church at the time it was proposed. However, it threw the baby out with the bath water when people now think they can call their church, The Church, based upon the opinions of modern thinkings operating in a vacuum. Much like your insistence on limiting discussion to the verses you wish, by taking scriptures seperately and refusing to look at the whole body of information (as well as common practice by early Christians) one can attempt to propose one intent when by looking at the body of information the meaning is different based upon context.

I am not arguing with you for the sake of proving I am right and you are wrong. I am greatly offended by the portrayal put forth by the views you are espousing as biblical truths. You are right though in that I don't want to worship the god Mr. White believes in. I find him (the god of Mr.White) to be a petty tyrant with a lust for blood that would create something merely to have it live a wretched existence with no hope of relief from torment it imposed on its creation.

I agree, the flaw of Sola Scriptura is it completely excludes Sacred Tradition. It assumes the the Holy Spirit only passed on the word of God through writing and not through spoken word. How does one reconcile this with 2 Thessalonians 15?

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings (or traditions) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Or the fact the Christ himself told us to listen to the Church Founders in 2 Timothy 2

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I agree, the flaw of Sola Scriptura is it completely excludes Sacred Tradition. It assumes the the Holy Spirit only passed on the word of God through writing and not through spoken word. How does one reconcile this with 2 Thessalonians 15?



Or the fact the Christ himself told us to listen to the Church Founders in 2 Timothy 2

Nah. Sola Scriptura does not mean "throw out all tradition", it simply means "tradition must be brought in to line by the Word of God, which is the ultimate authority".

But again, I have tried 3 times to bring the subject back on the issue of what the text says. I would rather talk about that

 

[eduardo89]

Nah. Sola Scriptura does not mean "throw out all tradition", it simply means "tradition must be brought in to line by the Word of God, which is the ultimate authority".

But again, I have tried 3 times to bring the subject back on the issue of what the text says. I would rather talk about that

Many of us (Catholics and Orthodox) disagree. Scripture is but one of the three authorities, the others being Sacred Tradition and espiscopacy. None can override or contradict the other.

 

[moostraks]

Moosetracks,

Would you walk with me verse by verse on Romans 9:14-24 to tell me exactly where you think I am not exegeting it correctly?

Why did you not quote where you disagreed with me an offer a counter-exegesis? That's what I would have hoped you'd do. I would welcome us going through that portion line by line together. Would you do it?

I think I provided you with alternative discussions which take you or anyone else concerned with this issue through the verses, verse by verse, better than I myself can do justice to the issue. I would take the time to do it myself but it would be redundant considering the links I provided and I feel an exercise in frustration, probably for the both of us. As long as you hold fast to the belief of determinism you will interpret the verses in a manner that comes from that premise. I disagree completely with that philosophy and the conclusions that come from that belief system. It is my obligation to put forth an alternative as one who feels that the Father is being misrepresented. The rest is between you and Him. Peace on your path....

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think I provided you with alternative discussions which take you or anyone else concerned with this issue through the verses, verse by verse, better than I myself can do justice to the issue. I would take the time to do it myself but it would be redundant considering the links I provided and I feel an exercise in frustration, probably for the both of us. As long as you hold fast to the belief of determinism you will interpret the verses in a manner that comes from that premise. I disagree completely with that philosophy and the conclusions that come from that belief system. It is my obligation to put forth an alternative as one who feels that the Father is being misrepresented. The rest is between you and Him. Peace on your path....

I know, but you are linking to Dave Hunt books like he is a good person to fall back on when everyone who is familiar with the James White/Dave Hunt "debate" knows that Dave Hunt was utterly embarrassed and has refused to debate for several years. Google it, YouTube it. I'm not making it up.

One of the criticisms we Reformed people have is that Arminians can not and will not walk through a text of Scripture with us. We know that when you finally commit to doing that, you will become Calvinists. This is just simply what the Scripture teaches.

Also, don't ever underestimate your fallen heart. The natural man recoils at any doctrine that denies his own power and autonomy. Calvinism is true Christianity, and true Christianity exalts the Creator and humbles the created.

 

[moostraks]

I know, but you are linking to Dave Hunt books like he is a good person to fall back on when everyone who is familiar with the James White/Dave Hunt "debate" knows that Dave Hunt was utterly embarrassed and has refused to debate for several years. Google it, YouTube it. I'm not making it up.

One of the criticisms we Reformed people have is that Arminians can not and will not walk through a text of Scripture with us. We know that when you finally commit to doing that, you will become Calvinists. This is just simply what the Scripture teaches.

Also, don't ever underestimate your fallen heart. The natural man recoils at any doctrine that denies his own power and autonomy. Calvinism is true Christianity, and true Christianity exalts the Creator and humbles the created.

Oh please. I did my stint as a Calvinist and bear the war wounds to prove it. I will NEVER return to that dismal place of despair and arrogance that Calvinism embraces. Scripture taken in a vacuum can be corrupted to mean a number of things. As for the Dave Hunt thing, don't have a dog in that fight. I posted a link to an opposing point of view just as I did with the Orthodox views. I liken man's understanding of the Creator to the blind men and the elephant. Each one right and each one wrong. Some get it more right than others based on having a link to oral tradition while others are grasping blindly in the dark and only have their own limited experience to go by. So one can take anothers argument and argue about the character of the person puting it forth or they can argue about the validity of the possibility for difference in interpretation. I see you are choosing not to argue the case of perception but dispute his character. Coming from someone who has disrespected the early church leaders and other sects this is not surprising but still depressing none the less.

When it comes to matters of major importance such as the issue of evil, I think one would be best served to try and get to the earliest opinions on the matter rather than taking the word of someone who is so far removed from the culture in time and space. Why are you choosing to ignore Chrysostom's work from the link I posted? Have you done any research involving the early church on the matter? May you keep an open mind in your quest.

As for being Arminian, that is probably what I am closest to as it stands right now from a point of worship but I wouldn't limit myself to that analysis. EO is my go to for my personal information in times of question. I also have some commonality with conservative Quakers. Religion is man's form to define the undefinable and worship. I am not choosing not to argue with you because I fear that you might prove me wrong or change my views. I am not arguing the issue with you because you seem too invested in proving your views right imo and I just feel like I will waste another day on these forums in futility when my family needs me for more important things. I don't see why my opinion on this issue should matter anyways. If you were interested in the issue of evil you would look at the links myself and others have provided and argue the merits of an alternative view rather than having any of us give a personal line by line dissertation of our own making or dismissing the argument because it isn't from your chosen source. Again your premise for your viewpoint is the lack of free will and we will never get anywhere as long as you and I are on opposing sides of the matter. I can only give you food for thought to challenge your beliefs.

 

[AFPVet]

Man created evil

Yep... "free will". Adam and Eve both chose to know both good and evil. God didn't force them to "eat of the tree"... they did it by their own free will. God is like the ultimate Libertarian.

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

you can't really be free without a choice