Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Correct and that is what it means to say creatures like us and also angels, which all includes both Adam and Satan, they/we all have choice. The creation part, in that evil is actually non-existent as dark is non-existent, means evil is something such creatures can bring from just potential into reality by their choices. Which is why God allowing such freedom only makes evil a potential, not a necessity. Not being a necessity is why most of the angels, who clearly had the freedom of such a choice, yet chose correctly to not do evil and did not participate in making evil present in our reality. God is not involved in taking evil from just a potential to making it a reality. His involvement ends with giving rational creatures the freedom to choose whether to make evil part of this reality or not. So while it is true He makes all of us, He had nothing to do with creating evil.I agree with you until the point where adam 'created' evil. I say evil was just an option that he chose with his free will. And yes, God gave him the capacity! There's no other way Adam could have willfully choose evil
Scripture cannot negate scripture, Denying this about Adam, negates Luke's genealogy connecting Jesus being the son of God because Adam was the son of God.
I guess with this proposal, which don't get me wrong, I agree with you, of a cost/benefit analysis, the question to be answered is are people who lack the capacity to commit evil deeds evil if they do so? An example would be an individual with an extremely low IQ who commits murder with no capacity to evaluate the evil in the act. If not evil, what is the phenomenon that makes their act wrong?
According to scripture yes, we are All "By Nature" children of Disobedience, until that nature is changed.
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
There are only two natures, of the first Adam, or the Last Adam. The first is against God, The Last is The Nature of Christ.
Maybe we should define evil first?
I would think any image we could create in our minds of Good, Just and Loving God should address that question very well. Having a free will addresses only the truth that we have choices and we are not forced to return the Love that has been freely given and demonstrated for us. The righteous judgement of a particular act, even by perfectly sane (and also with average IQ) is possible even in our court system. So I would find it difficult to imagine a God that could do infinitely better and much more Perfect Judgement than our feeble attempts to do so.I guess with this proposal, which don't get me wrong, I agree with you, of a cost/benefit analysis, the question to be answered is are people who lack the capacity to commit evil deeds evil if they do so? An example would be an individual with an extremely low IQ who commits murder with no capacity to evaluate the evil in the act. If not evil, what is the phenomenon that makes their act wrong?
While correct that we can only speak of One Son of God, that Person existed eternally prior to the Incarnation. It says mankind is made in His Image. Whatever else one believes that means, it clearly indicates a relationship we could at least agree is a familio type. Which is why we are all, not just Christians, rightly called His Children, whether we are currently behaving as His sons should or not. Through Adam we are both His Children because He made us and sons of man because the first sin marred and our sins continue to mar that relationship. That we are free to inherit (or not) the adoptive relationship His Son made possible for us by becoming one of us, is a relationship the Apostles would describe as a "sons of God" (Rom 8, 1Col 4, 2 Col 6, Gal 4, Phil 2, Heb 12, 1 Jo 3 )- don't forget these are primarily adult Jewish men writing in an age with the value and dignity of the fairer gender was downplayed to say the least - hence the use of "sons" and a not an inclusive gender neutral term would not seem unnatural or exclusive to them. Even so I think there is at least one reference to "sons and daughters" of God. But it is correct to also to refer to all of us collectively as sons of Adam/man - meaning human and currently living in the reality of a fallen state in our relationship with our Father.Adam was "of" God, not "the son" of God, "the son" was added by the translators.
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
It should read like this:
Luk 3:36 of Cainan, of Arphaxad, of Shem, of Noah, of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 of Methuselah, of Enoch, of Jared, of Maleleel, of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 of Enosh, of Seth, of Adam, of God."
There is only ONE Son of God, The Only Begotten Son, even where it says "sons" plural in scripture, it is not plural but singular "Son", because only those born of His Spirit are considered "The Son".
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the "son" of God.
Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the "son" of God.
So your saying God is clueless before time?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.
So your saying God is clueless before time?
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.
I think that is what I meant to say and also CS Lewis meant when saying that a forced loved would be of no use, not worth having unless it was free.Evil is without God....so by definition "Without God" must exist if people are given the freedom to choose.
For whatever reasons, God gives man the choice to love Him as a choice and not compel our love by force.
Perhaps it's not really Love if we have no choice.
The question of God's sovereignty does not hinge on whether one claims He does or does not do something.God created evil. If He did not create it, it wouldn't be here. Evil is part of creation - it is not merely the opposite of God's character or attributes.
God is sovereign above all creation. He does what pleases Him. Evil things happen in the world for no other reason than God ordained it that way. Nothing happens outside the sovereign will of God. God created evil so He could be glorified by the eventual destruction of it.
To say that God did not create evil is to imply that evil just "happens" and is outside the control of God.
No one implied evil "just happens".
Of course God created evil if you believe God is the creator of all things. Everything created must have an opposite to exist. Where God is good and pure does not mean He could not create something foul and vulgar. Beautiful newborn babies that are pure and innocent still create nasty poop! It's just part of existence! We do not know the origin of evil because Lucifer chose to sin against God before humans were created so we know evil existed before our existence. Knowing the difference is the free will we are given. What I've always wondered is why would God give us the gift of free will and then punish us for using it if we choose the wrong one? Aren't we supposed to learn by the results we get from the actions we make but if we are punished what kind of free will is that? Seems pretty restricting to give us free will that is prohibited.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.
Of course God created evil if you believe God is the creator of all things. Everything created must have an opposite to exist. Where God is good and pure does not mean He could not create something foul and vulgar. Beautiful newborn babies that are pure and innocent still create nasty poop! It's just part of existence! We do not know the origin of evil because Lucifer chose to sin against God before humans were created so we know evil existed before our existence. Knowing the difference is the free will we are given. What I've always wondered is why would God give us the gift of free will and then punish us for using it if we choose the wrong one? Aren't we supposed to learn by the results we get from the actions we make but if we are punished what kind of free will is that? Seems pretty restricting to give us free will that is prohibited.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?