Why can't God be the author of evil?

[abacabb3]

I don't have a stance on this, because it seems to be an accusation more than an actual stance in the Scripture, but I pose this philosophically:

If God created the whole universe, and evil exists within this creation, and so we call the God the author of all things in creation, why is it bad that God is the author of evil as long as we are willing to call God the author of pumpkin pie and Of Mice and Men and all other things that exist?

If I make a pumpkin pie, I as the pie's creator am not be necessity a pumpkin pie. So, if God makes something evil (i.e. Satan, man who's every inclination of his heart is continually towards evil) what logically necessitates that God Himself would be evil? What if there was a very good, God-glorifying reason for it?

 

[hedrick]

I think that historically "author of evil" was taken to mean in effect "source of evil." The implication was that if he's the author of evil he has to be evil, just a person who does evil is. You're thinking of "author" in a more distant sense. My understanding is that many (though certainly not all) theologians would agree with you.

 

[dhh712]

So, if God makes something evil (i.e. Satan, man who's every inclination of his heart is continually towards evil) what logically necessitates that God Himself would be evil? What if there was a very good, God-glorifying reason for it?

I recently attended a lecture in which the theologian said that though he wouldn't find it exactly a satisfying answer, he would be okay with saying that God is the author of evil since He often does use evil for whatever is His purpose (and every instance of evil, there definitely is a good, God-glorifying reason for it though we may not be aware of it at the time). I also don't see wherefore, just because God created something mutable which became evil, He Himself would necessarily be described as evil.

Personally, I don't know how to logically reconcile how sin/evil (though sin would be the problem here) does not ultimately come from God (since He created all things and there is no source of anything outside of Him) though I do not attest to that; it just seems that with our limited and flawed logic, that is the end of a logically drawn conclusion (thus why our logic is corrupt because it would appear to assign God as the author of sin).

 

[abacabb3]

I think that historically "author of evil" was taken to mean in effect "source of evil." The implication was that if he's the author of evil he has to be evil, just a person who does evil is. You're thinking of "author" in a more distant sense. My understanding is that many (though certainly not all) theologians would agree with you.

The fact of the matter is that people, beginning with Irenaeus in his response to Florius, object to the fact that God could have even created something evil in of itself such as Satan. People will argue that Satan is evil of his own free will (which we do't exactly have proof for, but we can go with that anyway) but that still doesn't take away from the fact that 1. GOd made Satan and 2. God knew what Satan was going to do and 3. God already has in mind how He will take care of Satan for good.

TO me, I just don't see how any of this makes the author of righteousness unjust in some way, I work under the assumption that He knows what He is doing and He has a good reason for it.

 

[dhh712]

but that still doesn't take away from the fact that 1. GOd made Satan and 2. God knew what Satan was going to do and 3. God already has in mind how He will take care of Satan for good.

Right, and God certainly has the power to eliminate all Satanic forces right this minute if He wanted to; obviously, He has a very good God-glorifying reason not to do this. With this fact, I run into people who say then that a God that is loving would not allow Satanic forces to continue; what they do not understand is that they cannot understand God's ways and His reasons for doing what He does. When they object to that and say then that they refuse to believe God is good and just when He allows Satanic forces to continue, they are then requiring God to explain Himself sufficiently so that He can be understood by them and they most certainly do not trust Him.

TO me, I just don't see how any of this makes the author of righteousness unjust in some way, I work under the assumption that He knows what He is doing and He has a good reason for it.

That's basically how I see it. God's ways are not our own and I'm very grateful for the fact that it isn't a being with human ways that is sovereign over all. It is very much a comfort to know that God who is good, just, and benevolent and who knows what is best for us way more than we do reigns over all the earth.

 

[abacabb3]

 

[JM]

All things in time are purposed from eternity, including evil...which find there decree in God.

God, as the primary and efficient cause of all things, is not only the Author of those actions done by His elect as actions, but also as they are good actions, whereas, on the other hand, though He may be said to be the Author of all the actions done by the wicked, yet He is not the Author of them in a moral and compound sense as they are sinful; but physically, simply and sensu diviso as they are mere actions, abstractedly from all consideration of the goodness or badness of them.

Although there is no action whatever which is not in some sense either good or bad, yet we can easily conceive of an action, purely as such, without adverting to the quality of it, so that the distinction between an action itself and its denomination of good or evil is very obvious and natural.

In and by the elect, therefore, God not only produces works and actions through His almighty power, but likewise, through the salutary influences of His Spirit, first makes their persons good, and then their actions so too; but, in and by the reprobate, He produces actions by His power alone, which actions, as neither issuing from faith nor being wrought with a view to the Divine glory, nor done in the manner prescribed by the Divine Word, are, on these accounts, properly denominated evil. Hence we see that God does not, immediately and per se, infuse iniquity into the wicked; but, as Luther expresses it, powerfully excites them to action, and withholds those gracious influences of His Spirit, without which every action is necessarily evil. That God either directly or remotely excites bad men as well as good ones to action cannot be denied by any but Atheists, or by those who carry their notions of free-will and human independency so high as to exclude the Deity from all actual operation in and among His creatures, which is little short of Atheism. Every work performed, whether good or evil, is done in strength and by the power derived immediately from God Himself, “in whom all men live, move, and have their being” (Acts 17.28). As, at first, without Him was not anything made which was made, so, now, without Him is not anything done which is done. We have no power or faculty, whether corporal or intellectual, but what we received from God, subsists by Him, and is exercised in subserviency to His will and appointment. It is He who created, preserves, actuates and directs all things. But it by no means follows, from these premises, that God is therefore the cause of sin, for sin is nothing but auomia, illegality, want of conformity to the Divine law (1 John 3.4), a mere privation of rectitude; consequently, being itself a thing purely negative, it can have no positive or efficient cause, but only a negative and deficient one.

And:

That God often lets the wicked go on to more ungodliness, which He does (a) negatively by withholding that grace which alone can restrain them from evil; (b) remotely, by the providential concourse and mediation of second causes, which second causes, meeting and acting in concert with the corruption of the reprobate’s unregenerate nature, produce sinful effects; (c) judicially, or in a way of judgment. “The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of waters; He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Prov. 21.1); and if the King’s heart, why not the hearts of all men? “Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lam. 3.38). Hence we find that the Lord bid Shimei curse David (2 Sam. 16.10); that He moved David himself to number the people (compare 1 Chron. 21.1 with 2 Sam. 24.1); stirred up Joseph’s brethren to sell him into Egypt (Genesis 50.20); positively and immediately hardened the heart of Pharaoh (Exod. 4.21); delivered up David’s wives to be defiled by Absalom (2 Sam. 12.11; 16.22); sent a lying spirit to deceive Ahab (1 Kings 22.20-23), and mingled a perverse spirit in the midst of Egypt, that is, made that nation perverse, obdurate and stiff-necked (Isa. 19.14). To cite other instances would be almost endless, and after these, quite unnecessary, all being summed up in that express passage, “I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things” (Isa. 45.7). See farther, 1 Sam. 16.14; Psalm 105.25; Jer. 13.12,13; Acts 2.23, & 4.28; Rom. 11.8; 2 Thess. 2.11, every one of which implies more than a bare permission of sin. Bucer asserts this, not only in the place referred to below, but continually throughout his works, particularly on Matt. 6. § 2, where this is the sense of his comments on that petition, “Lead us not into temptation”: “It is abundantly evident, from most express testimonies of Scripture, that God, occasionally in the course of His providence, puts both elect and reprobate persons into circumstances of temptation, by which temptation are meant not only those trials that are of an outward, afflictive nature, but those also that are inward and spiritual, even such as shall cause the persons so tempted actually to turn aside from the path of duty, to commit sin, and involve both themselves and others in evil. Hence we find the elect complaining, ‘O Lord, why hast Thou made us to err from Thy ways, and hardened our hearts from Thy fear?’ (Isaiah 63.17). But there is also a kind of temptation, which is peculiar to the non-elect, whereby God, in a way of just judgment, makes them totally blind and obdurate, inasmuch as they are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (See also his exposition of Rom. 9.)

 

[JustAsIam77]

This is an interesting question and one which I've pondered for a long time. I usually cut & paste the obvious answer from the Westminster Confession and I know the authors of it are far superior in their understanding of this subject than I am but I can't help but entertain the notion that all things are created by God, including evil. His ways are far beyond human comprehension and all that He does points to His everlasting Glory, including His Divine mercy for the elect that in no way deserve it.

Thanks JM, I just went back and read your post, in Is 45:7 the Lord Himself said He creates evil! Whew! I'm off the hook, I thought I may be saying something blasphemous!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't have a stance on this, because it seems to be an accusation more than an actual stance in the Scripture, but I pose this philosophically:

If God created the whole universe, and evil exists within this creation, and so we call the God the author of all things in creation, why is it bad that God is the author of evil as long as we are willing to call God the author of pumpkin pie and Of Mice and Men and all other things that exist?

If I make a pumpkin pie, I as the pie's creator am not be necessity a pumpkin pie. So, if God makes something evil (i.e. Satan, man who's every inclination of his heart is continually towards evil) what logically necessitates that God Himself would be evil? What if there was a very good, God-glorifying reason for it?

While we're pondering these things, something that somewhat bothers me sometimes is the thought that BEFORE evil existed, GOD knew or had knowledge of every possible evil. This is mind blowing to me, how God is pure and Holy, perfect and omniscient, and at the same time, has complete knowledge of evil. This is probably a place where the Creator - creation distinction would be helpful.

So far as directly authoring evil goes, since there is no evil in God, it would contradict His attribute of Holiness if evil originated in God. There is no need to struggle with that though, simply recognizing FIRST and SECONDARY causes nearly gets God off the hook so to speak. All that is required then, is for God to create a being with the potential with the capability of disobedience, which He did with Lucifer. Now in man's eyes, this still makes God an accomplice, or we could call it premeditated evil if it were man's court, but that is part of the problem, no man can rightfully call evil evil if a Holy and Righteousness judge the Lord God Creator of the universe does not exist. We should make no mistake, the Lord our God governs evil, whatsoever He ALLOWS He also WILLS, and not one molecule is beyond His control or providence. This is also why and how God can bring good out of evil, what men mean for evil, the Lord can use to His ends and means for His glory.

In closing summary of thought, nothing pre-dates God, nothing exists apart from His will, and everything that exists, does so either directly or indirectly according to His decrees. This may sound obvious, but my existence is an example of secondary causes and God creating indirectly. God knew me before I existed, He knew at what point and time in the history of redemption that I would be born, who my parents (the first causers in my case) would be, everything.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

We should acknowledge that Isa 45:7 is not a detailed explanation of the origin of evil, nor does it tell us whether God "create calamity" directly or indirectly. This is a perplexing place in Scripture where more detail or explanation would be helpful on one hand, on the other, God purposely hides certain things from the wise and learned (Matt 11:25), Scripture is spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14), and I believe He wills us to think on these things for a long time (Isa 1:18).

 

[JM]

We should acknowledge that Isa 45:7 is not a detailed explanation of the origin of evil, nor does it tell us whether God "create calamity" directly or indirectly. This is a perplexing place in Scripture where more detail or explanation would be helpful on one hand, on the other, God purposely hides certain things from the wise and learned (Matt 11:25), Scripture is spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14), and I believe He wills us to think on these things for a long time (Isa 1:18).

Won't argue brother...Gill brings out the point that Isa. 45.7 is speaking of the evil involved in the punishment for sin which includes "afflictions, adversities, and calamities" which are delivered by God on sinful humanity. The note from the Geneva Bible on this issue reads, "I send peace and war, prosperity and adversity, as in (Amo_3:6)." This verse means "evil" but not "sin" which I think people get hung up on.

Gilbert Beebe echos Gill:

But the term evil as used in our text we understand to mean judgments, calamities, afflictions and chastisements which are sent upon the children of men. They come not up out of the ground, nor do they fall upon us by chance. God’s careful providence watches over us, and no evil can come nigh our dwelling except meted out in weight and measure, time, duration and result, by the unerring wisdom and power of God himself. As it is written, “Is there evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” Job said, “Shall we receive good from the Lord, and not evil?” That is, shall we receive prosperity, and not adversity, pleasure and not pain, joy and not sorrow? Wars, famine, and pestilence are evils, which come and go at God’s command. And persecution and oppression are under his control. Men are used by him as his sword and his hand; devils and wicked men are restrained or suffered to vent their malice, as God ordains. And under this conviction we are instructed to pray God to, “Lead us not into temptation, but to deliver us from evil,” and to shield us in the day of evil. As in our text light is contrasted with darkness, so is evil contrasted with peace. “I make peace and create evil.” By withholding peace and bringing evil upon them, that is. The Israelites received evil at the hand of the Lord for their rebellion and idolatry when he sent fiery serpents into their camps, and when he caused their enemies to triumph over them. And so in his dealings with his children, sometimes he sends on them fiery trials, deep afflictions, sore temptations which disturb their peace, and bring labor, sorrow and grief upon them for the trial of their faith, and as chastisement for their faults.
​

After all that...I think it's a matter of perspective. From Joseph's perspective his brothers selling him into slavery was evil, for God having purposed it from eternity, it was not evil but for good.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

You should find contentment in the fact that:

“Nothing befalls you, good or evil, but there is a providence of the infinite eternal first Being in that thing; and therein is God’s infiniteness, that it reaches to the least things, to the least worm that is under your feet.”

Excerpt From: Burroughs, Jeremiah. “The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment.”

 

[JM]

Luther tells us God is the ultimate cause of evil:

http://www.the-highway.com/onfreewill_Luther.html

It would certainly be a hard question, I allow—indeed, an insoluble one—if you sought to establish both the foreknowledge of God and the freedom of man together; for what is harder, yea, more impossible, than maintaining that contraries and contradictories do not clash?

The apostle, therefore, is bridling the ungodly who take offense at his plain speaking, telling them they should realize that the Divine will is fulfilled by what to us is necessity, and that it is definitely established that no freedom or “free-will” is left them, but all things depend on the will of God alone (215).

Two things should be observed from the above quotations. First, to hold contradictories as both true is not the position of the Reformation, but the position of a muddle-headed thinker (or non-thinker). Second, Luther calls the free-willists “ungodly.”

So the foreknowledge and omnipotence of God are diametrically opposed to our “free-will.” Either God makes mistakes in his foreknowledge, and errors in his action (which is impossible), or else we act, and are caused to act, according to his foreknowledge and action. And by the omnipotence of God I mean, not the power by which he omits to do many things that he could do, but the active power by which he mightily works all in all. It is in this sense that Scripture calls him omnipotent. This omnipotence and foreknowledge of God, I repeat, utterly destroy the doctrine of free will (217).

The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was not done by the passive permission of God. Nor did God merely foresee it as an observer passively observes the future. God caused it to come to pass by his “active power.” This view certainly establishes God as the ultimate cause of evil. But does this view make man a mere puppet on a string? Luther answered: “It is true that Judas acted willingly, and not under compulsion, but his willing was the work of God, brought into being by his omnipotence, like everything else” (213).

Man acts willingly. A puppet not only does not have free will; it does not have any will at all. Man has a will, but his will is in the hands of God, and he directs it wherever he likes (Proverbs 21:1). Therefore, God never causes man to act against his own will, for it is the very will that he controls. Judas acted willingly, not by compulsion.
​

 

[SeventhValley]

It seems to me that as God showed more of his goodness in the incarnation of Christ than he did in the OT. He would want a counterpoint to his goodness that showed evil. Since you cannot know day without the night he could have made evil to give us a small idea of what good really is.
In a way Satan could show us a small window into God's juctice and goodness. God using Satan and evil to increase humanities knowledge of himself.

Just some thoughts.

 

[AMR]

I don't have a stance on this, because it seems to be an accusation more than an actual stance in the Scripture, but I pose this philosophically:

If God created the whole universe, and evil exists within this creation, and so we call the God the author of all things in creation, why is it bad that God is the author of evil as long as we are willing to call God the author of pumpkin pie and Of Mice and Men and all other things that exist?

If I make a pumpkin pie, I as the pie's creator am not be necessity a pumpkin pie. So, if God makes something evil (i.e. Satan, man who's every inclination of his heart is continually towards evil) what logically necessitates that God Himself would be evil? What if there was a very good, God-glorifying reason for it?

It could be very carefully argued that God’s relationship to free agents is in some way like the relationship of an author of a play or book to his characters.

For example, to what extent God’s relationship to human sinners is like that of Shakespeare to Macbeth, the murderer?

Wayne Grudem's use of the play is instructive but a wee bit flawed. Grudem states that either Macbeth or Shakespeare killed King Duncan. But when we consider the language being used as we typically use them, while both Macbeth and Shakespeare are responsible, we would not normally say that Shakespeare killed King Duncan. Yes, Shakespeare wrote the murder into his play, but the murder took place in the world of the play, not the real world of the author. Macbeth did it, not Shakespeare. We can grasp the sense of the justice of Macbeth paying for his crime. Likewise we get Shakespeare's omnipotence over the drama's world. But I think we would certainly consider it very unjust if Shakespeare were tried and put to death for killing. In fact, we have reason to praise Shakespeare for raising up this character, Macbeth, to show us the consequences of sin.

Consequently there are moral and metaphysical differences at play here. These differences may indeed explain why the Biblical writers, not hesitating to say that God brings about sin and evil, never accuse him of wrongdoing.

I realize that the relationship between God and ourselves is different in some respects from that between an author of a book or play and his characters. For example, Macbeth is fictional, we are not. Nevertheless, between God and us there is a transcendent difference in the kind of reality and in relative status. Can we not claim these differences not put God in a different moral category as well? As we see time and again in Scripture, our covenant Lord is not required to defend himself against charges of injustice (see Job). God often rebukes those people who question him. (Job 38:3).

See also here.

 

[JustAsIam77]

As we see time and again in Scripture, our covenant Lord is not required to defend himself against charges of injustice (see Job). God often rebukes those people who question him. (Job 38:3).

See also here.

Amen! The Lord chastises Job again in chapter 40 for questioning His authority to do as He pleases.

"Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said,
Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it".

"Then Job answered the Lord, and said,
Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.
Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further". Job 40:1-5