Origin of GOOD and EVIL!

[Bruce.Leiter]

I will interpret that to mean "yes", so I will begin by presenting part of Romans 1-3 and then you may want to share Psalms that are relevant.

A systematic study of election might begin well by examining what seems to be the fountainhead of the TULIP dogma, namely Romans 9:10-24, in the context of the rest of relevant Scripture in Romans regarding salvation/election (s/e), which is Romans 1-11:

1. Romans 1:16 says the Gospel reveals that (s/e) is for “everyone who believes”, both Jew and Gentile.

2. Romans 1:17 describes s/e as “righteousness from God” that is by faith “from first to last” or from creation until the end.

3. Romans 2:4 teaches that God’s kindness or patience with sinners is meant to lead them toward repentance, which implies that sinners are able to repent because of God’s leading.

4. Romans 2:5 warns that those who do not repent but instead stubbornly resist God’s leading are storing up wrath against themselves for the day when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed, which implies that God enables sinners to repent–or not (cf. Deut. 30:19).

5. Romans 2:6 affirms what is called karma by saying that “God will give to each person according to what he has done”, which (in Gal. 6:7-9) is called reaping what a person sows.

6. Romans 2:7 speaks of the need for “persistence in doing good” and seeking glory, honor and immortality in order to receive s/e or eternal life, which echoes what Jesus commanded (in Matt. 7:7) and connects with the doctrine of perseverance (cf. Heb. 10:36 & Jam. 1:3-4).

7. Romans 2:11 teaches that “God does not show favoritism” (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1Pet. 1:17), which is how God judges people justly, so the fact that some sinners ignore God’s Gospel indicates that His will or leading is resistible because of MFW.

8. Romans 2:15 teaches that sinful souls have a conscience or awareness of “the requirements of the law”, which may be combined with Romans 1:20 to teach that God’s power and moral nature or will may be perceived via creation and conscience (called natural revelation), thus those unfamiliar with God’s Word in Scripture have no good reason for resisting divine leading and choosing atheism/evil.

9. Romans 3:20-21 states the law makes souls conscious of sin and that “the Law and Prophets testify” or prepare the way for the new revelation of righteousness from God apart from the Law, which takes up where Romans 1:17 left off.

10. Romans 3:22a says that “righteousness from God” or s/e comes through faith “in Jesus Christ” (cf. Eph. 2:8), a phrase Paul used eleven times in Ephesians 1:3-14 to indicate s/e.

11. Romans 3:22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism (#7).

Over...

Groovy, I prefer a different approach to Romans: The passage 1:18--3:20 presents Paul's case that states all people (Gentiles and Jews) are guilty before their Judge, the Father. In 3:21--11:27, Paul shows that the only way for people to receive the Father's not-guilty verdict is our reception of Jesus' death as the source of that liberating pronouncement. Finally, Paul in 12:1--16:27 gives us commands to guide our lives as true believers. Another way to say it is that the three parts of Romans are GUILT, GRACE, and GRATITUDE or SIN, SALVATION, and SERVICE.

 

[GodsGrace]

"mfw" is from a human perspective. "tulip dogma" is from a spiritual perspective. It's not one or the other, but both/and. The foreknowledge of God does not merely mean foresight, but includes all the intricate detail of how God designed everything. It includes God foreloving the ones He chose "before the foundation of the world." So then, the scripture does not contradict itself, and neither does Paul contradict himself.

So when God passes by most people (the non-elect), it doesn't make Him the author of sin. He is choosing to exercise His justice on people who deserve it. But for His elect, He chooses to exercise mercy instead. So then, unconditional election glorifies God's choice, whereas "mfw" glorifies man's choice.

I've asked this many times tdidymas - I'll try again.

If God chooses some for salvation
and some to be passed over and thus for damnation.....

HOW is God a JUST God?

Please give the definition of justice...
and then reconcile with God CHOOSING WHO will be saved.

Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

Groovy, I prefer a different approach to Romans: The passage 1:18--3:20 presents Paul's case that states all people (Gentiles and Jews) are guilty before their Judge, the Father. In 3:21--11:27, Paul shows that the only way for people to receive the Father's not-guilty verdict is our reception of Jesus' death as the source of that liberating pronouncement. Finally, Paul in 12:1--16:27 gives us commands to guide our lives as true believers. Another way to say it is that the three parts of Romans are GUILT, GRACE, and GRATITUDE or SIN, SALVATION, and SERVICE.

Bruce, you're beginning to sound like a non-Reformed/Calvinist !

 

[Groovy]

Groovy, I prefer a different approach to Romans: The passage 1:18--3:20 presents Paul's case that states all people (Gentiles and Jews) are guilty before their Judge, the Father. In 3:21--11:27, Paul shows that the only way for people to receive the Father's not-guilty verdict is our reception of Jesus' death as the source of that liberating pronouncement. Finally, Paul in 12:1--16:27 gives us commands to guide our lives as true believers. Another way to say it is that the three parts of Romans are GUILT, GRACE, and GRATITUDE or SIN, SALVATION, and SERVICE.

Different approaches can either agree or disagree. If there are any numbered items you disagree with,
please explain why, because I don't disagree with what you said. The three G's and S's sound good to me.
(I like alliteration.) Thanks.

 

[Elijah7777]

1. Romans 1:16 says the Gospel reveals that (s/e) is for “everyone who believes”, both Jew and Gentile.

Male and Female, Black and White, Hebrew and Gentile. God does not want division; He wants to unite us. The Grace of God works in us to restore us to God's justice.

The two statements above seem to contradict.

I think he is saying we are saved by Grace and not works.

 

[Groovy]

I agree with what you said and have considered this question for some fifty years, so please allow me to share my insight before reading the rest of this thread:

A person—even a theist—might think that God would not permit evil, suffering and hell to exist. People who are mystified by evil and repulsed by its punishment do not realize that the essential aspect of being a human rather than a robot or subhuman creature is moral free will (MFW), which is what enables a person to experience love and meaning. This is what makes humans different from animals, whose behavior is governed mainly by instinct. This is what it means to be created in God’s image (GN 1:26-27; robot or responsible)?

God could not force people to return His love without abrogating their humanity. If God were to zap ungodly souls, it would be tantamount to forcing conversions at gunpoint, which would not be free and genuine. If God were to prevent people from behaving hatefully, then He would need to prevent them from thinking evilly, which would make human souls programmed automatons.

MFW only exists when there is the possibility of choosing between two qualitatively opposite moral options that we call good and evil. These options are opposites because of essentially different consequences for choosing them. Choosing good results in blessing, life and heaven; and choosing evil results in cursing, death and hell (DT 30:19). This is why hell as well as heaven exists. It is the just consequence for choosing evil rather than God. The Spirit of God is good: love, peace and joy (GL 5:22-23). Therefore, whoever rejects the Lord is spiritually separated from Him (IS 59:2) and thereby chooses the evil or satanic spirit of hatred, strife and misery and reaps the just consequence called “hell” in the afterlife (GL 6:7-9, HB 9:27-28). These options were presented by Moses to the Israelites (DT 30:19), and Jesus referred to this fundamental choice in terms of a fish or egg versus a snake or scorpion (LK 11:11-13). Life… or Curse? (GN 3:24, RV 22:1-2)

God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (GN 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1JN 3:8) and humanity (RM 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word.

God loves a cheerful giver (2CR 9:7), which means He desires people to cooperate with Him happily because of love and gratitude for His grace rather than to cower before Him because of fear of hell. Love must be evoked; it cannot be coerced. And again, when souls sin or do NOT choose to love God freely, it is perfectly just (loving and logical) for them to reap the appropriate consequence (GL 6:7-9) or hell.

Getting back to the topic of the OP, we can see that God is good, and He created the option for human souls to oppose His good will via enabling them to resist it. His good will is expressed in 1 Timothy 2:3-4: "God our Savior wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." The truth that Paul had in mind is found in the next verses: "There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men."

In OT terms, the option or choice per Deuteronomy 30:19 was between life/blessings and death/curses, and God urged souls to listen to the Lord's urging and choose life. In NT terms, the binary choice per John 8:42-44 is between accepting Jesus as Lord/God's Messiah or choosing Satan/atheism. Souls who choose curses/atheism thereby make evil actual rather than merely theoretical and reap the logical consequence. This is why hell as well as heaven exists. It is the just consequence for choosing evil rather than God.

Again, the Spirit of God is good: love, peace and joy (GL 5:22-23). Therefore, whoever rejects the Lord is spiritually separated from Him (IS 59:2) and thereby chooses the evil or satanic spirit of hatred, strife and misery and reaps the just consequence called “hell” in the afterlife (GL 6:7-9, HB 9:27-28). These options were presented by Moses to the Israelites (DT 30:19), and Jesus referred to this fundamental choice in terms of a fish or egg versus a snake or scorpion (LK 11:11-13). Life… or Curse? (GN 3:24, RV 22:1-2)

God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (GN 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1JN 3:8) and humanity (RM 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word. And it is right for the ungodly to go to hell.

 

[live2blieve]

Everyone seems to agree. God is good and to turn away from God is evil. So evil is anything God is not a part of. We ask why does God allow evil and the answer is always the same because you can not have love without the freedom to choose.

Where did evil come from?

 

[Groovy]

Where did evil come from?

Hello live2blieve, as I just posted, my answer to your question is that God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/free human personality, beginning with Adam and Eve. As such it is necessary and even good (GN 1:31).

Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1JN 3:8) and humanity (RM 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word. And it is right for the ungodly to go to hell.

 

[tdidymas]

Glad to meet you, td. Your concern to affirm the sovereignty of God is valid, but your solution is problematic, because you deny or ignore Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners (because of MFW) for rejecting the love of God, thereby effectively perverting the Gospel (Gal. 5:6) and impugning God’s justness/righteousness (Psa. 33:5, Isa. 9:7).

Your argument is a straw man, because the gospel is in no way perverted by God electing some for salvation. The fact that Paul says it clearly puts you in conflict with what the apostle Paul wrote, since you reject Paul's clear teaching.

May I suggest that the apparent reasons for these errors are threefold:

1. Ignorance of Scripture that contradicts their dogma, such as those teaching the possibility of apostasy,

Warnings of apostasy is for those in the church not born again, but are believers of convenience. Peter, Jude, James and John all concur in talking about such people.

2. Viewing faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace, and

Quite the opposite, actually, since God elects those who have zero merit. There is no such thing as "non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God's grace" if you are talking about salvation coming to someone as a result of that person's "cooperation." Such cooperation is meritorious by nature.

3. Unconcern about portraying God as unjust by showing favoritism toward the elect. Once these errors are cured by including Scripture supporting MFW, doctrinal harmony is enhanced.

If the apostle Paul is correct in saying that God elected people for salvation (his words, "to adoption as sons"), then you are judging Paul's teaching as unjust. Your opinion falls flat when compared with scripture.

Also, there are a couple of verses in Romans cited in post 19 that you need to address:

7. Romans 2:11 teaches that “God does not show favoritism” (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1Pet. 1:17), which is how God judges people justly, so the fact that some sinners ignore God’s Gospel indicates that His will or leading is resistible because of MFW.

In every case where it says God does not show favoritism (or "not a respector of persons"), it is talking about race, nationality, or other physical features in which men are typically bigots. So if God does not show favoritism based on race or nationality, then He elects people "from every tribe, tongue, and nation" on the earth. If a person must "cooperate" with God, then would that not be favoritism based on some meritorious action and attitude?

11. Romans 3:22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism.

And you say...

"all who believe" is the key to understanding this. Why no go deeper than this shallow idea, by asking where does a person's belief (faith) come from? It most certainly does not come from a choice by the person to believe, because one will never choose to believe something they don't believe. If a person hears the gospel and does not believe the message, then they will never choose to believe that message they don't believe. Something has to happen in a person's heart and mind to make them believe the truth of the gospel. That something comes from God, as Paul clearly teaches in 1 Cor. ch. 1 & 2 and elsewhere. The apostle John in 1 Jn. 5:1 states clearly that anyone who believes in Jesus has already been born of God. So then, Eph. 2:5 happens before 2:8.

The point in all this is that you are using the term "favoritism" wrongly, in an unbiblical way. Most certainly God has favorites, as ultimately shown in the final judgment, where some are received into eternal life and others (the many) are thrown into the lake of fire. The real question is, what is the basis of God favoring some over others? It certainly isn't any merit on the part of the favorites.

 

[tdidymas]

I've asked this many times tdidymas - I'll try again.

If God chooses some for salvation
and some to be passed over and thus for damnation.....

HOW is God a JUST God?

Please give the definition of justice...
and then reconcile with God CHOOSING WHO will be saved.

Thanks.

According to Rom. 9, it is obvious that God chooses who will be saved. So the question is, how is that just? Very simply, justice is people getting what they deserve. Sinners deserve lake of fire judgment, according to many statements in scripture, both old and new testaments. If God chose not to save any man, He would still be just, because everyone deserves lake of fire judgment, regardless of how religious they try to make themselves. Self-righteousness does not merit salvation.

But Rom. 9 clearly says that God has mercy on whom He desires, and by the very nature of the statement means that He has mercy on some, not all. And mercy is not part of justice, nor does it have anything to do with justice, except to circumvent it. Mercy is an exception to justice. So God is not obligated in any way to have mercy on everyone, just because He decided to have mercy on some.

Therefore, your question that if God choses some for salvation and some to be passed over, how is that just - is a question that lacks understanding. Now you're the one who must define justice according to how you are using the word. Justice does not require mercy on anyone, much less on everyone, just because mercy is given to another. But God has the right to do whatever He wants with His own creation.

Rom. 3:10-18 clearly states why God is not obligated to save anyone. But in fact He does save some, as Paul argues in the rest of Romans (and 1 Cor. 1&2 and Eph. 2). First accept what God says about Himself and His choices (even if you don't understand it), then you will be in a better attitude to later understand what it means.