Did God create evil?

2KnowHim said:

Really, why? Did He not choose Pharaoh and raise Him up to show forth His Glory? Did He not choose vessels of honor and dishonor? What about loving Jacob and hating Esau, because of Election?

And your last statement as far as "following Him to Hell" is something you have said not me. I would imagine that your concept, and purpose of hell differs greatly too compared to mine.


2Th_2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

But not to worry, God calls some out of every age to show His mercy to. But eventually All will come to Him through His Mercy, whither on this side Jordan or on the other. All will come to see The Glory of God and All will eventually confess and bow, and be redeemed by The Blood of The Lamb. And yes, even those who are not called now.

Click to expand...

Except on this point, if zgod either created evil or foreordained people to damnation, God would not be Love and would nkt be worthy of worship. Calvinism and the erroneous theodicy of the universalists properly derided by DrBubbaLove are evocative of the Cult of Kali, in that it is very difficult to comprehend in light of Christian morality the appeal of worshipping a deity who apparently scorns virtue. If such a theology were accurate it would I think mean the theological errors of Gnostics, who used such a malign deity as a sort of strawman to peddle their heresy, would have to be right.

From that we can conclude the malevolent deity implied by the universalists criticized in the OP, and by Calvin, Jansen et al,mis a delusion imprinted in vulnerable heterodox minds by demonic agencies, an inherently heretical concept.

Wgw said:

Except on this point, if zgod either created evil or foreordained people to damnation, God would not be Love and would nkt be worthy of worship. Calvinism and the erroneous theodicy of the universalists properly derided by DrBubbaLove are evocative of the Cult of Kali, in that it is very difficult to comprehend in light of Christian morality the appeal of worshipping a deity who apparently scorns virtue. If such a theology were accurate it would I think mean the theological errors of Gnostics, who used such a malign deity as a sort of strawman to peddle their heresy, would have to be right.

From that we can conclude the malevolent deity implied by the universalists criticized in the OP, and by Calvin, Jansen et al,mis a delusion imprinted in vulnerable heterodox minds by demonic agencies, an inherently heretical concept.

Click to expand...

Hey, I posted the scriptures to show why I believe what I do. It's you who will either choose to ignore them, or not give an explanation of what they mean to you.

God does all things according to the council of His own will. When you understand the Salvation of All, then everything is in proper order. And God is still Good and wise beyond our human reasoning.
For His thoughts are not ours, and His ways past finding out. Only The Spirit can Reveal.

It distresses me deeply to see that someone who so obviously understands the concepts of piety and divine love suffering under the frightful notion that an infinitely good God would, in effect, elect to eternally torture someone regardless of their actions. This was never the faith of the early Church, but is rather a deeply unpleasant 16th century innovation that should properly rejected in favor of the concept of a loving God who is "no respecter of persons." In other words, a God that does not stack the cards against His creatures.

Wgw said:

It distresses me deeply to see that someone who so obviously understands the concepts of piety and divine love suffering under the frightful notion that an infinitely good God would, in effect, elect to eternally torture someone regardless of their actions. This was never the faith of the early Church, but is rather a deeply unpleasant 16th century innovation that should properly rejected in favor of the concept of a loving God who is "no respecter of persons." In other words, a God that does not stack the cards against His creatures.

Click to expand...

Whoa hasse,.....I am not a believer in ET, so I don't know where you're getting that.
I am a believer In All Saved for all eternity.

As in Adam all die, so also IN Christ shall All be made Alive
As we have borne the image of the earthly we shall also bare the image of The heavenly.
For He is the Saviour of The World, especially to those who believe.
For God was in Christ Reconciling The World unto Himself, not imputing their sins unto them.
Etc...etc....

2KnowHim said:

Whoa hasse,.....I am not a believer in ET, so I don't know where you're getting that.
I am a believer In All Saved for all eternity.

Click to expand...

Hi there; Romans 8.38-39 is pretty clear, right?

2KnowHim said:

Whoa hasse,.....I am not a believer in ET, so I don't know where you're getting that.
I am a believer In All Saved for all eternity.

As in Adam all die, so also IN Christ shall All be made Alive
As we have borne the image of the earthly we shall also bare the image of The heavenly.
For He is the Saviour of The World, especially to those who believe.
For God was in Christ Reconciling The World unto Himself, not imputing their sins unto them.
Etc...etc....

Click to expand...

Ah well that at the very last explains your general amiability.

Alas I think it is wrong to say that "all must be saved" or to suggest that God created evil as some sort of enforced moral preparation in the manner of the conditioning asspciated with BF Skinner.

I think that acknowleding that God is love, we must give credence to the concept that the one thing God cannot do is force us to love Him; someone who does chose to embrace evil willingly must surely be accorded that right in order to protect the notion that love is inherently non-coercive and to protect the dignity of God from the accusation of being rapacious.

Orthodoxy interestingly regards Hell as being the voluntary rejection of divine love and the concomittant misery one would experience in opting to eternally embrace such a mode. Orthodox scholars like Metropolitan Kallistos Ware have stressed that one can hope that all may be saved; it is wrong simply to insist that all must be saved because this instills a coercive aspect in divinity and is also contrary to the scripture and ancient traditions of the Church.

It seems to me that this theological perspective represents the ideal solution to the otherwise untenable Universalism vs. relishing the thought of people being consumed in Hellfire that seems characteristic of Calvinism, which dominates in the West.

Roman Catholicism to its credit has the interesting theological option of invincible ignorance, which allows us to cut around the unpleasant quandary posed by, for example, uncontacted tribes in the Amazon and other remote regions. I wish we had more Orthodox-Catholic discussion of this interesting point; it has not proven to be a controversial issue in ecumenical talks so I would assume that at the very least Orthodox bishops and theologians are not generally hostile to the idea (actually the main sticking point in such talks predictably concerns questions of polity and ecclesiology).

DrBubbaLove said:

I think Saint Paul is absolutely clear in Romans - but we have plenty of threads already to discuss her love of UR and it is a nice hope that everyone will be saved as well as a Good thing to be sure to help all those we come into contact with know they can be eternally Happy as opposed to being a stumbling block for them.

I wanted to start this thread to talk about another heresy that apparently often results from holding a belief in UR, that God is said to create evil. Not sure if I remember correctly but from what she has said here in this thread 2knowHim is not one of the Christians believing the heresy of UR that also believes the heresy that God creates evil. The ECFs have long said, and I like to repeat it often, that holding any heresy is destructive to the Christian faith, which is why they objected to heresies so strongly as their writings attest.

Click to expand...

On this point by the way I was relieved to note that 2knowhim did not fall into either that trap or the trap of Calvinism as she comes across as rather too good natured for me to be able to handle the thought of her descending to those dark depths; I very much wish at another time some effort might be extended to show her the very considerable lengths that the apostolic faith goes through to properly consider divine love, so there is in fact no compelling reason to be a Universalist (given that the extrapolation of "God is love" by the ancient Church Catholic is actually rather more compelling and less coercive than the smothering, touchy-feely-squeezy deity of Universalism, who seems to be more or less Stuck On You to a degree that is rapacious, and demeaning to the proper fear of God).

Now on the subject raised by the OP we can draw an interesting parallel between the even more disagreeable Universalism that you properly detest, with its risible theodicy, and the form of Zoroastrianism practiced by the Sassanians known as Zurvanism, in which the immanent dual principles of Good (Ahura Mazda) and Evil (Angra Mainyu) were not eternally coexistant as in ancient Zoroastrianism but were rather the creation of a neutral, transcendant, monadic diety known as Zurvan. The horrifying Universalism rejected by the OP also evokes images of the Gnostic demiurge, a blithering incompetent lesser diety who wittingly or unwittingly creates evil as a result of his own stupidity. It also when combined with temporary hellfire calls to mind the flawed god-beings that flowed from the pen of Gene Roddenberry; Q comes to mind, but perhaps to a greater extent one is reminded of the flamboyant, harpsichord-playing, sadistic god child, The Squire of Gothos.

All of these parallels should show just how entirely objectionable this impiety is or should be to the Christian faithful. It is entirely insulting to the dignity of God to accuse him of creating evil, or to suggest against natural reason that God could reasonably prevent evil without entirely suppressing free will, since God cannot force us to love him, God has chosen to enshrine love, a voluntary process, at the apex of the human conscience, and to say that God disregards what surely must be at the root of what Roman Catholicism likes to refer to as Natural Law, is to pose an irreconcilable contradiction with the Christian faith as understood with any sense of wit, reason and knowledge.

It also if widely believed would have the effect of bringing forth into reality the crude strawman of Christianity employed for polemical purposes by atheists such as Dawkins.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Dr Bubba, since you don't believe that God creates evil, or that the word "ra" just means calamity, let's just go with your definition of the word for a minute ok?

If God creates calamity, how would you perceive this? After all the definition for calamity is:
An event resulting in great loss and misfortune

What event could this possibly be referring to in Scripture?
And please don't twist my words, I would never say that this word even in it's original definition, is sin, nor would I ever say that, that is what it's is referring to. It doesn't mean sin.

GOD is love. GOD wishes all men to do good and forsake evil. GODs will, both past and present, is for all men to freely chose to come to HIM to be saved. GOD can NEVER be the author/creator of sin and evil. It is virtually impossible for GOD to be the author of sin and evil; or for HIM to commit sin and evil, or to think evil thoughts.


Sin and evil are an abominable perversion of not only the perfection of Creation but also the perfection of Heaven prior to Creation. Sin and evil were originally authored by the Creator of rebellion against GODs will, by the free-will of the reprobate Lucifer.


Lucifer's rebellion and ultimately successful parasitic contagion of Eve and Adam's free-will is the source and prime mover events setting in motion the advent of sin and evil.


The catastrophe which ensued was so profoundly destructive to GODs original intent/plan that the effects fashioned by the sin and evil from Lucifer's and Eve's and Adam's "CHOICEs" to rebel against GODs will actually had the real world effects of corrupting the very chemistry and composition of "The Periodic Table of Elements" comprising GODs Creation, THIS is where sickness, disease and calamity come from.


The Old Testament is the story of the history of YHVH shepherding HIS chosen people into a righteous godly people who love and worship HIM. Ironically it is the story of their incessant rebellion against HIS will. So it would seem to be utterly illogical to believe that YHVH GOD willed or caused or commanded HIS people to rebel against HIS will.


That is just completely incomprehensible.


No! YHVH GOD gave us and HIS Heavenly Hosts free-will because YHVH does NOT want to be worshiped by robots or automatons, YHVH wants us to love and worship HIM because we freely choose to love and worship HIM. That is the ONLY way love can ever have any meaning whatsoever!


Peace!

DrBubbaLove said:

Hillsage, 2knowhim and others in defense of Universal Reconciliation (UR), have argued that God created evil.

I have defended the traditional orthodox view that God is All Good and maintain that one cannot say that God is All Good and believe He creates the opposite. Certainly evil is a part of our reality, but it directly caused by the acts of God's creatures rather than God Himself. The only thing one can say God did in that regard is to give those creatures (angels and us) the freedom to love Him or not. It would be the not loving All Good which brings evil from purely a potential to reality.

Click to expand...

When God judges a nation and sends the sword against them, that's him creating "evil." When he sends a plague and burns a city to the ground, that's him creating "evil." So yes, he is good but he does create "evil."

God is an Adversary and death to the carnal nature, but He is an Advocate and Life to our new man.

DrBubbaLove said:

So am not asking for platitudes to support the opposing view. Am asking how, even in light of those platitudes allegedly providing support, how it can be true that God is Good and is still claimed to "create" the opposite of not just what He is, but also the opposite of the only thing His Will is said to be directed toward (Good). The will is what moves any person to act and that is no different with the Divine.

Click to expand...

Because it all comes down to how you perceive Him to be, perception is everything. God does not change He is Good always, but it's our understanding of Him that changes.
There are many people today that view God as Evil, haven't you ever heard of someone saying "why does God hate me"?
But to us we have come to know that God loves us very much. God is who He is by nature, Holy and Good, but to those who don't know Him, He is Evil, vengeful and hateful towards them. Don't you think God knows this? This is how He can say He creates evil. His very presence can be both, depending on the person who is there.

DrBubbaLove said:

Spouting platitudes is fine but none of this addresses how to view God as both All Good and also saying He creates "evil", which can only be looking at God as a "divided" house working against Himself. Creating evil is not the same as acknowledging God can use/allow evil/suffering for Good. The traditional orthodox view of Good and evil addresses all these things, including suffering and does so without confounding the truth that God is Good.

So am not asking for platitudes to support the opposing view. Am asking how, even in light of those platitudes allegedly providing support, how it can be true that God is Good and is still claimed to "create" the opposite of not just what He is, but also the opposite of the only thing His Will is said to be directed toward (Good). The will is what moves any person to act and that is no different with the Divine. So the notion that God can move (Will) Himself to act against Himself (create is an act), against what we say He is, can only mean His Will is not aligned with what He is. I see it as impossible to imagine a Will directly only at Good moving God to create evil.

And btw and fwiw though I doubt it will be understood by everyone here, the traditional orthodox view (and Judaic view as well) of "evil" allows for the Just act of God in causing calamities without compromising the idea that He is Good or that His Will is ONLY directed at what He is, (Good).

Click to expand...

dr. bubba love,

1. I totally agree with you and I believe that you have addressed the seemingly contradiction between moving himself against himself. I have always been taught it meant calamities because it rains on the just and the unjust.

2. Calamities are judgement and God is a just judge. To create evil would have to be understood in this context, otherwise it would stay a paradox unsolved.

3. That reminds me of a phrase that says, we are sinners saved by grace used in present day living. We were sinners saved by grace and now we are no longer a sinner because it is not our nature. The only way to be a sinner saved by grace after salvation is the fact that we can commit a sin or looking back as reflection when we first got saved.

4. I just think people read a phrase and have a point of reference to what it means in their understanding that may be limited by not knowing the context of the matter. This is why it is important for all of us to understand proper biblical hermeneutics. Understanding to different people when they read a phrase may mean something different with each person. Sometimes phrase may appear cut and dry and straight forward and may be more of an idiom. Paul said I die daily which had to do with physical death but he wasn't dying everyday and being resurrected every day but he was putting his life on the line everyday and had that possibility and he wanted them Corinthians to know that didn't believe in the physical resurrection that there was a real and physical resurrection otherwise everything was in vain.

5. The same way with "Created evil". He literally created men and so people automatically thinks he created evil. When evil is translated properly to calamities and associated with judgement then it makes sense and avoids the confusion of God being contradictory between making evil and good. Evil as far as sin was not spoken into existence by God. It came into existence when he sinned. The only reason it was there at all is because God deals with freewill people and the created have to make a choice to serve God or not. Even at this it would still be judgement for Satan was judged that moment he sinned and put out of Heaven. Good job and God bless! Jerry kelso