Theory on the origin of evil

[GodsGrace101]

I think man is actually more evil than the devil.. or has shown to be. When we start looking back in history, whether world history or just something as small as domestic history.. we've beaten Satan on it.

Oh my goodness C, you can't say this.
Think of Hitler...the devil is what caused him to be like he was and the devil is hundreds of times worse.
Hitler had a tiny bit of love in him,,,at least for that woman he loved. The devil has NO LOVE in him,,,we can't even imagine what that's like.

I understand your point,,,I just wouldn't say it in those terms that you used.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Respectfully, the darkness upon the face of the deep is about earth's purpose in the creation, so it did not predate them. We should consider that the angels are watching something about to be played out in a temporal reality on earth that will inform them of Who God is and also inform them of who they are in relation to Him. Therefore the darkness on the face of the deep and God's Spirit moving on the face of the waters means that God is going to reveal His Light in the midst of a darkness so as to cause the created to worship Him in Spirit and Truth through the revelation. What will be revealed in the deep is God Himself.

If angels were created before "darkness was upon the face of the deep" than where did that darkness come from? That question is the OP of this whole thread.

"We should consider that the angels are watching something about to be played out in a temporal reality on earth that will inform them of Who God is and also inform them of who they are in relation to Him."

This assumes that angels are unaware that they are created entities; which categorically can not be true. We know they are aware they are created entities because there are angels who did not transgress.

God revealing Himself to what ever is witnessing His creating, is beyond the point of the question at hand. God telling angels "Look I'm showing you this." doesn't answer the question of where darkness came from.

The darkness is not the evil, it is the absence of God's Light, the knowledge of God as pertains to the value of His Spiritual Person and Character. The evil is the product of vanity in the creation which occurs in the void of this Light/knowledge. For example, how did Satan fall? Because he became vain due to his beauty in contrast to others. Had he been thankful to God for the beauty rather than counting himself better than others in vainglory (as if he deserved it or earned it), there would have been no fall from his high place. His words indicate that he assumed God was worshipped because God had the greater power rather than God was the goodness.

How'd Satan become vain? If the only other entities in the environment are God and other obedient angels, the only other element present is darkness. Satan's fall has to be linked to that darkness because there is nothing else it can be linked to. There's no darkness in God and there's no darkness in these other angels because they have not transgressed.

Remember that the angels fell because they left their former stations in an misinformed envy of those lower than themselves. Hence Satan despised the fact that Adam was content in his station under God while Satan was not, even though Satan was higher than Adam.

I believe you're correct that Satan envied Adam and if Adam was really content in his station, he never would have sinned; but that's a different issue. Yet Satan envied Adam because Adam was created in God's image - thus the true envy of Satan was God Himself!

The phrase "made (him / Christ) a little lower than the angels" is only used 2 places in the Scripture. One is Old Testament, one is New.

Psalm 8:5
In the Old Testament the word translated as "angel" is actually the word "Elohim" So what that verse is saying is that Christ was not made lower than the angels, he was made lower than God (the Father). Thus why Adam is created in the image of God. That image is Christ.

Hebrews 2:7-10
In the New Testament the word "angel" is the Greek word "angelos" (which is a Hebrew transliteration of "angel").

Now the word "angelos" is also translated "messenger" and is used in both contexts for not only "non carbon based entities called angels" but also for human "messengers". This is true of both OT and NT.

Verse 7 though is directly referencing Psalm 8:5. So we know that even though the Greek there does use the term "angelos" it is referencing "Elohim" back in the Hebrew. Now verse 9 uses the same phrase "made lower than the angels"; yet the end of that verse tells us what it means - "that he may taste death for every man."

Jesus referred to himself as "the son of man", because His purpose was to redeem sinners and those verses in Hebrews 2 are all talking about Christ receiving honor and glory because He obeyed the Father and became subject to the death that we deserve.

 

[Cis.jd]

Oh my goodness C, you can't say this.
Think of Hitler...the devil is what caused him to be like he was and the devil is hundreds of times worse.
Hitler had a tiny bit of love in him,,,at least for that woman he loved. The devil has NO LOVE in him,,,we can't even imagine what that's like.

I understand your point,,,I just wouldn't say it in those terms that you used.

no. I don't go for "the devil made me do it". Hitler's doing was his own decision rooted from his pov's and other things that where built from his life. "The devil made me do it" is one of the worse excuses in existence today.

 

[GodsGrace101]

About ¼ as long and quit readable judging by my responses.

He doesn’t – nor did I say He did. I thought I covered that.

Oh wait – here it is:


How can a person not consider and present their theology when they’re talking about the source of evil? When talking about something in the politics’ portion of the forum perhaps. But not in a section that has “theology” in it’s very title.

I always put “free will” in quotes when talking theology.. The reason is quite simple.

So long as donkeys speak Hebrew, Caiaphas prophesies the words of God, and men move by the Holy Spirit write the very words of God – in fact, so long as we live and move and have being in God - “free will” will always be relative.

Whatever theological bent you see coming through that is simply the facts of life according to the scriptures.

That’s a subject to be considered by every Christian I suppose. I already gave you my opinion on the matter.

Some not so much apparently.

No – He is not a wicked and mean God. Did someone say He was?

Which one would that be?

No – God sends forth His Word to accomplish what so ever He desires to be done.

I thought I covered that.

Flaws – undoubtedly – but you haven’t pointed any of them out.

Some more than others apparently.

No one, with the exception of Satan perhaps, would say that God is wicked and mean.

Of course. Did someone say otherwise?

Look –although the OP did, I haven’t chosen to list any theological group that I might be affiliated with.

But – having been around the block a few times here in the forum – judging by your belligerent attitude, I believe you are an anti-Calvinist and you assumed that I am a Calvinist because I referenced the “elect of God” in my post as well as the before mentioned “sovereignty” word.

If this is the case – let me put your mind to rest. I am not a Calvinist. God’s elect is a term God uses in the scriptures to describe His people. It is not something that Calvinists or any other group made up.

Nor is the sovereignty of God something which is in the theology of Calvinists only. As you so rightly pointed out, everyone believes in the sovereignty of God.

But as I so rightly pointed out – apparently some more than others.

I believe Calvinism changes the nature of God.
As you yourself have confirmed, you gave all the signs of being one....God's sovereignty, as if only they believe God is sovereign....God's elect, which is referring to the Hebrews in some places and those of us that believe in God in others...and free will in quotation marks because they believe in compatible free will which is no free will at all.

And out of the above come a rather mean and uncaring God, which is why I made the mean God remarks.

The O.P. is reformed -- who knows what anything means anymore. In true calvinism evil is not questionable. God created everything, including evil, and planned every little thing that happens...

As to flaws....what we on this thread don't seem to understand is that evil always was. It would seem that God DID create it...but we know from scripture that He couldn't have...

So: The question remains open.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Maybe these are the angels...?

The laws of physics are not angels any more than we are the laws of physics. LOL

The laws of physics govern the operation of the universe. That is not the purpose of angels. The laws of physics are like the engine of the car. God is driving and we and angels are passengers.

 

[GodsGrace101]

no. I don't go for "the devil made me do it". Hitler's doing was his own decision rooted from his pov's and other things that where built from his life. "The devil made me do it" is one of the worse excuses in existence today.

So where do YOU believe evil comes from?
Was Hitler an evil man?
WHAT made him be like that?
Is evil also in nature?
WHAT put the evil in nature?

 

[childeye 2]

Can never be proven in time...maybe...?

*Scripture is proof enough, for me though...

Time is temporal. What is Eternal and Holy can never actually be proven. Picture a person trying to follow a line that goes on forever so as to prove it goes on forever. It is impossible so faith is necessary. Now picture a person following a line that goes on forever to prove that it ends. Again this is futile but this essentially is unfaith or eternal cynicism or eternal darkness. But still you're right in a sense. What is proven in time is the consequences of unbelief in the Holy Image of God, or in negative terminology, the belief in a corrupt image of god (One which is invented through carnal values). Hence we experience corruption, sin, evil, death in this world because we believed in a false image of god presented in the Garden of Eden by Satan.

Therefore the term "faith" should never be applied in a negative sense (although it sometimes is misused as such), since it is supposed to imply "trust" which can only point to an incorruptible or Holy Image of God and therefore deemed as trustworthy. It makes no sense to have faith in a corrupt thing. The point is that the opposite of faith is basically a cynicism or skepticism towards our Creator's Person as Holy that ultimately ends in hypocritical reasoning, judgment, actions, and death.

If we use deductive reasoning it should be clear that the world is held captive through a corrupt image of god, because God sent His Christ so as to believe/trust in/have faith in and be saved/quickened/renewed. The term Christ=Messiah=anointed one=The True Image of God sent by God. This image that is sent by God is presented somewhere in the middle of the creation as pertains to time so as to be the True Light of the Creator presented in the midst of darkness. Applicable scriptures: Colossians 1:13,
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

2 Corinthians 4:4,
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

[The Righterzpen]

If evil came about as a reaction to what God did...wouldn't that mean that evil came from NOTHING?

In a demonstrative sense, I suppose you could say that's true. "Evil" (or darkness) came out of "nothing". Yet the universe was created out of "nothing" also.

So fair question to ask? Is darkness than a secondary reaction of the created thing itself, or a primary reaction to God's creating? That would take a bit of "meeting out"; yet either way, I don't see how that would make God responsible for evil.

You follow me here?

I think that no matter how you stir the soup, evil will never come out of it.

I would agree. Evil is "inherent" in this current created world.

I just think we can't know...but the conversations about this is always interesting.

Is it truly "knowable" - eventually I believe this question will be known for sure. (If only on the other side of eternity.) Am I satisfied enough with my "theory" that the question doesn't bother me? Yes I am. It might not be the "full answer" but it's a "good enough" one for now. - If that makes sense to you?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You bring up some points which are going to be problematic.

God created the angels, of which one of them turned out to be the enemy. How could God...who is perfect...create something that is NOT perfect? This is a problem. Man makes imperfect things because he has the sin nature in him and this is passed on to everything he makes..even nature has sin in it as per Romans 8:19-22 ...all of creation waits eagerly for the redemption.

No, it's not a problem, God alone is perfect, which means He is not lacking in any way, He is self-sufficient and not dependent upon any other. God calls his creation good, and good does not entail the notion of God creating God.

It's apparent that evil existed BEFORE God created the angels and Lucifer...THIS is the problem faced by Christianity.

As a conceptual non-materialized reality?

And IF the angels did NOT have a chance,,,then we are definitely stating that God created evil.

Only if pantheism were true, which it is not, so we have to distinguish between the will of God and the will of His creatures and first causes and secondary causal agents.

Now, in the O.T. (Isaiah 45) it states that God created everything even evil (calamity). We can attribute this to the fact that the O.T. population attributed everything to God...both the good and the bad.

Natural evil vs moral evil.

I've followed the rabbit down many trails and they all end up with a big sign that says: No Answer Here.

Something tells me though, you'll try to educate me with answers.

 

[GodsGrace101]

In a demonstrative sense, I suppose you could say that's true. "Evil" (or darkness) came out of "nothing". Yet the universe was created out of "nothing" also.

So fair question to ask? Is darkness than a secondary reaction of the created thing itself, or a primary reaction to God's creating? That would take a bit of "meeting out"; yet either way, I don't see how that would make God responsible for evil.

You follow me here?



I would agree. Evil is "inherent" in this current created world.



Is it truly "knowable" - eventually I believe this question will be known for sure. (If only on the other side of eternity.) Am I satisfied enough with my "theory" that the question doesn't bother me? Yes I am. It might not be the "full answer" but it's a "good enough" one for now. - If that makes sense to you?

The universe was created out of nothing, but God created it. And, look....it also has evil in it. Asteroids colliding into moons, planets, each other.
You always get back to square one.

You're right as to evil being inherent in our world system.

If you've come up with an answer that is good for you...you've taken a big step. I thought I did too many years ago...but I've come to realize I was wrong and simplistic. (I was a new Christian).

I think this is one of those questions that boggle the mind and might cause it to explode!

• 

 

[The Righterzpen]

The universe was created out of nothing, but God created it. And, look....it also has evil in it. Asteroids colliding into moons, planets, each other.
You always get back to square one.

You're right as to evil being inherent in our world system.

If you've come up with an answer that is good for you...you've taken a big step. I thought I did too many years ago...but I've come to realize I was wrong and simplistic. (I was a new Christian).

I think this is one of those questions that boggle the mind and might cause it to explode!

• 

It's OK not to know.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, it's not a problem, God alone is perfect, which means He is not lacking in any way, He is self-sufficient and not dependent upon any other. God calls his creation good, and good does not entail the notion of God creating God.

As a conceptual non-materialized reality?

Only if pantheism were true, which it is not, so we have to distinguish between the will of God and the will of His creatures and first causes and secondary causal agents.

Natural evil vs moral evil.

Something tells me though, you'll try to educate me with answers.

No sir!
I don't have the answer and neither does anyone else. I wonder if you've read any of my posts here...
I DO NOT have the answer.

Your very first statement for example:
If God is perfect...HOW does He create something imperfect? (as evil). I never said God creates God.
And He DID call His creation good --- so where did evil come from?

This discussion goes beyond causal and secondary causal agents. It also cannot specify if evil existed before creation (Genesis) or after.

Dualism could be considered, but it has to be rejected, as you've said, pantheism is not biblical.

In short...I think we know nothing about it.

 

[Cis.jd]

So where do YOU believe evil comes from?
Was Hitler an evil man?
WHAT made him be like that?
Is evil also in nature?
WHAT put the evil in nature?

I don't know where evil originates, my assumption is that evil came to be due to man. Take man away from this world and all you have is nature. The way animals kill each other for food is completely sadistic, you have eagles throw sheep of mountains, wild dogs eating their pray alive from the rear to the head, chimps splitting their live pray in half-- yet it's not "evil" to these species because this is how they live in order to carry on the natural cycle for all life on this planet.

Regardless, just because we can't be sure where it originates doesn't mean satan should fill in the gaps to answer for the cause of a man's carnage. By that reason alone then we aren't completely sinners because we were just fooled by the one orchestrating it.

 

[His student]

You very well may be correct that "darkness" is not the same as "evil"....

I am correct. Evil was not on the face of the deep - darkness was.

.....if evil is simply what comes to be the physical manifestation of darkness in the world.

Which is not the case.

Darkness has to have a cause because before God created anything, darkness did not exist. There is no shadow of turning in God, so darkness had to come from somewhere; as a result of within the context of the created order.

I can receive that.
But I was talking about where it comes from in the created order.

.......but angels were not eternally existent either,

As they like to say at Geico - "Everyone knows that".

Now what you say about angels watching the creation of earth; (I think it was you who said that; but may not have been?) in order to have God's glory demonstrated to them in the creation of life. This would only make applicable sense if they were not aware they were created also. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case though.

That wasn't me.

Well then you would need to define what this means.

Not really.
You seem to be objecting on the basis of me saying that the Holy Spirit supposedly was nonexistent before He was created. I have said no such thing. My pointed use of the word "eternally" takes care of that misconception.

Eternal generation is a theological term often used in Reformed circles. Probably not the best one but commonly used when speaking of the Trinity. One theological source (only as an example) puts it this way.

"The eternal generation of the Son is defined as "an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, He generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son."

They work in conjunction but are separate persons.

Again - everyone knows that.

Note it says "I shall know fully." but does not define "know what" fully, other than "as I am known".

I am known fully - therefore I will know fully.

Because we are created entities there is a limit to the fullness of the knowledge that we are known; and these limits are because we are created.

Perhaps in the form we now exist.
But perhaps in our glorified state, as the body of Christ, that will not be a limitation. We simply don't know.

Now the second person of the Trinity shares our "createdness"; and so we shall fully know Him in His createdness as He knows us in our createdness. Because we are created, we do not have the capacity to know God in His eternal essence. Follow me here?

I do follow you.

The difference is that the Son of God who is in the busom of the Father explains Him.

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." John 1:18

I've got to leave town for a while. Have fun with the thread.

 

[His student]

I believe Calvinism changes the nature of God.

While I don't claim to be a Calvinist - I don't believe it does.

But regardless of your (incorrect IMO) opinion of what Calvinism teaches - does your hatred of your Calvinist brethren run so deep that you can't even let them comment on a thread having nothing to do with Calvinism without your taking them to task on what they believe in other areas?

By the way, as you say, you were very much bringing your theology into play when you addressed me the first time.

.......what we on this thread don't seem to understand is that evil always was. It would seem that God DID create it...but we know from scripture that He couldn't have...
So: The question remains open.

Did you mean to say "evil was not always existent?

I would say that most of us agree that God has always had the knowledge of good and evil. But not that evil itself always existed.

I don't think the question does remain open - at least to many people. Evil is the result of rebellion against God's expressed will.

As I told The Righterzpen, I'm leaving town for awhile. Have fun on the thread.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I did state specifically that evil is not equal to God because evil is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal or immortal.

Then the premise of your argument fails. God is not bound by physics. Just because God acted does not mean that there has to be an equal and opposite reaction.

Evil is a "thing" confined to this current universe that will be overcome by God.

Evil is not a thing in itself. It is a corruption of something that is good. Like a moth hole in a sweater. The hole is not a thing in itself. It is an absence of sweater that ought to be there. Good must exist in order for evil to exist in the sense that there must be a goodness that can be corrupted. Nothing is entirely evil. A fully moth eaten sweater is just a hanger in the closet. Someone who is utterly depraved is still good in the sense that they were created in the image of God. Even Lucifer is good in the sense that he was an angel of God. So the issue is not that evil must exist if good exists. Rather, it is possible for good to exist without evil, however, it is impossible for evil to exist without good.

"Good" in the context of the created order is actually overpowered by evil. This is what the fall is about. This is why man can not save himself. This is why after the choice was made to transgress, human will was no longer free. "Will" now is encumbered by sin and also encumbered by the consequences of the fall.

How is God responsible for the fall, when Adam was the one who chose, of his own free will mind you! - to eat the fruit?

I never said God is responsible for the fall. I said that God was responsible for making it possible. We are responsible for making it actual.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That's not the description of dualism....
Dualism means there's
a good god and a bad god.

Not necessary. Just a one force/power equal to and at odds with another force/power. In regards to the OP, it was suggesting that evil is a force/power that is "an equal and opposite reaction to" good.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Then the premise of your argument fails. God is not bound by physics. Just because God acted does not mean that there has to be an equal and opposite reaction.

Evil is not a thing in itself. It is a corruption of something that is good. Like a moth hole in a sweater. The hole is not a thing in itself. It is an absence of sweater that ought to be there. Good must exist in order for evil to exist in the sense that there must be a goodness that can be corrupted. Nothing is entirely evil. A fully moth eaten sweater is just a hanger in the closet. Someone who is utterly depraved is still good in the sense that they were created in the image of God. Even Lucifer is good in the sense that he was an angel of God. So the issue is not that evil must exist if good exists. Rather, it is possible for good to exist without evil, however, it is impossible for evil to exist without good.

I never said God is responsible for the fall. I said that God was responsible for making it possible. We are responsible for making it actual.

Well, I don't see this as Scripturally sound; so we depart here on differences in belief systems.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I am correct. Evil was not on the face of the deep - darkness was.

Which is not the case.

I can receive that.
But I was talking about where it comes from in the created order.

As they like to say at Geico - "Everyone knows that".

That wasn't me.

Not really.
You seem to be objecting on the basis of me saying that the Holy Spirit supposedly was nonexistent before He was created. I have said no such thing. My pointed use of the word "eternally" takes care of that misconception.

Eternal generation is a theological term often used in Reformed circles. Probably not the best one but commonly used when speaking of the Trinity. One theological source (only as an example) puts it this way.

"The eternal generation of the Son is defined as "an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, He generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son."

Again - everyone knows that.

I am known fully - therefore I will know fully.

Perhaps in the form we now exist.
But perhaps in our glorified state, as the body of Christ, that will not be a limitation. We simply don't know.

I do follow you.

The difference is that the Son of God who is in the busom of the Father explains Him.

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." John 1:18

I've got to leave town for a while. Have fun with the thread.

Well, you tend to get sarcastic and nasty and I'm not going to argue with you; so we depart here on differences in belief systems.

 

[Tone]

The laws of physics are not angels any more than we are the laws of physics. LOL

The laws of physics govern the operation of the universe. That is not the purpose of angels. The laws of physics are like the engine of the car. God is driving and we and angels are passengers.

...you sure?...okay...