In Calvinism why are the sinners God made responsible for what God has made them?

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes to the above.
But, you see, the confessions state God is not the author of evil, so, by golly, it must be so.
Yet the top theologians of the reformed teach that God Does create evil. If it was in writing, I could understand that maybe an article could be manipulated by the opposing side, but you see them saying it on YouTube with their own mouth!
I don't get it.

There is no understanding their position intellectually as the words always convey thoughts that are mutually exclusive. God “brings about evil” but is “not the author of evil.” What is that if not semantics? It’s playing with words to cover up the accusation. If you ask them, they’ll say it’s a “mystery.” I bring up the scenario because it is a reality check. When those who insist God “brings about moral evil” stand before Him, He just needs to ask them “like what” and scales will fall from the eyes.

I just thought to tag in Iconoclast .
We're having a nice conversation.

He falsely accused me of attacking John as a tactic when I never did and so was weary of that, but he’s welcome back in. I saw he had once repented in exchanges with you and it proceeded better.

 

[GodsGrace]

There is no understanding their position intellectually as the words always convey thoughts that are mutually exclusive. God “brings about evil” but is “not the author of evil.” What is that if not semantics? It’s playing with words to cover up the accusation. If you ask them, they’ll say it’s a “mystery.” I bring up the scenario because it is a reality check. When those who insist God “brings about moral evil” stand before Him, He just needs to ask them “like what” and scales will fall from the eyes.

He falsely accused me of attacking John as a tactic when I never did and so was weary of that, but he’s welcome back in. I saw he had once repented in exchanges with you and it proceeded better.

I believe some could be defensive due to having to defend their position all the time.
If we could all just calm down, we'd be able to have fruitful dialogue.
I think we're all doing our best to understand a mighty God.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I believe some could be defensive due to having to defend their position all the time.

Well entering into a discussion is entirely voluntary so that’s no excuse. If the kitchen is too hot one leaves. I think it’s the fruit of the theology itself.

If we could all just calm down, we'd be able to have fruitful dialogue.
I think we're all doing our best to understand a mighty God.

I think it’s more likely that the Holy Spirit challenges us in our thinking and behavior to one another and some are sensitive and obey and some aren’t. I’m less inclined to attribute motives that sound nice but don’t seem to be at work.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well entering into a discussion is entirely voluntary so that’s no excuse. If the kitchen is too hot one leaves. I think it’s the fruit of the theology itself.

I think it’s more likely that the Holy Spirit challenges us in our thinking and behavior to one another and sone are sensitive and obey and some aren’t. I’m less included to attribute motives that sound nice but don’t seem to be at work.

Many times I have left the hot kitchen and just don't even respond. It's not very courteous, but it would be unending otherwise.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Many times I have left the hot kitchen and just don't even respond. It's not very courteous, but it would be unending otherwise.

My view and decision many times as well.

 

[for_his_glory]

Yes to the above.
But, you see, the confessions state God is not the author of evil, so, by golly, it must be so.
Yet the top theologians of the reformed teach that God Does create evil. If it was in writing, I could understand that maybe an article could be manipulated by the opposing side, but you see them saying it on YouTube with their own mouth!
I don't get it.




I just thought to tag in Iconoclast .
We're having a nice conversation.

Scripture does say that God created evil, but only that which falls on those who choose to be God's enemy.

I will use Esau for an example as God did not hate Esau, but sore displeased with him in his deception of selling his birthright, Genesis 25. God said He also created evil and this is what fell upon Esau as we read in Malachi 1:2-5.

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

The word translated "evil" is from a Hebrew word kelalah that means adversary, affliction, calamity, distress and misery. This is what God has created and puts on those who He has cursed for their rebellion against Him so they know "I AM" in all sovereignty, Deuteronomy 27:11-26.

Exodus Chapter 7-11 is a witness of the "Great I AM" and what God brought forth in His affliction, calamity, distress and misery on Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

God gave Pharaoh and the Egyptians a chance to repent and turn back to Him, but they rejected God as Pharaoh hardened his heart against God like so many even today do this.

2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Scripture does say that God created evil, but only that which falls on those who choose to be God's enemy.

I will use Esau for an example as God did not hate Esau, but sore displeased with him in his deception of selling his birthright, Genesis 25. God said He also created evil and this is what fell upon Esau as we read in Malachi 1:2-5.

2“I have loved you,” says the Lord.
“Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’
Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?”
Says the Lord.
“Yet Jacob I have loved;
3But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness.”

Is laying waste the mountains of an evil people a moral evil? What kind of "bad" did God in this case create? (This did not happen to the man Esau whom God loved enough to give an inheritance in land, buy the way.) When fire rained on Sodom, was that moral "bad" or were these things unpleasant consequences from a judgement by a just God? For the sake of the honor and name of the Lord, I must defend his character against the accusation that he creates more evil. When a man comes home and says he has a "bad" day, does he mean things did not go well or that real moral evil accosted him? One ought to be careful when attributing moral evil to the Maker. The past of being the Accuser of the righteous is not one a Christian ought to take claiming scripture supports God doing/creating/arranging moral evil.

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

Is moral evil the opposite of peace? What is the opposite of peace? T R O U B L E. God creates trouble. He does not create situations when men are tempted to do more evil. (The Lord does not tempt people nor set up situations where choosing evil is inevitable.) Again, it is a fearful thing to accuse God of being the author of moral evil. He does not take kindly to being accused of moral evil.

The word translated "evil" is from a Hebrew word kelalah that means adversary, affliction, calamity, distress and misery. This is what God has created and puts on those who He has cursed for their rebellion against Him so they know "I AM" in all sovereignty, Deuteronomy 27:11-26.

Exodus Chapter 7-11 is a witness of the "Great I AM" and what God brought forth in His affliction, calamity, distress and misery on Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

God gave Pharaoh and the Egyptians a chance to repent and turn back to Him, but they rejected God as Pharaoh hardened his heart against God like so many even today do this.

2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

This is better and it would have been better to adjusts the opening lines to reflect this. God did not do any moral evil to the descendants of Esau (let alone Esau himself). He does not do moral evil to anyone nor does He tempt anyone to do moral evil.

 

[GodsGrace]

Scripture does say that God created evil, but only that which falls on those who choose to be God's enemy.

I will use Esau for an example as God did not hate Esau, but sore displeased with him in his deception of selling his birthright, Genesis 25. God said He also created evil and this is what fell upon Esau as we read in Malachi 1:2-5.

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

The word translated "evil" is from a Hebrew word kelalah that means adversary, affliction, calamity, distress and misery. This is what God has created and puts on those who He has cursed for their rebellion against Him so they know "I AM" in all sovereignty, Deuteronomy 27:11-26.

Exodus Chapter 7-11 is a witness of the "Great I AM" and what God brought forth in His affliction, calamity, distress and misery on Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

God gave Pharaoh and the Egyptians a chance to repent and turn back to Him, but they rejected God as Pharaoh hardened his heart against God like so many even today do this.

2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Yes. Agreed to all of the above.
God is all-good and has no darkness in Him.
1 John 1:5

Also, John tells us that GOD IS LOVE.
1 John 4:8
Not God Has love, but GOD IS love.
He cannot be separated from His nature, which is love.

We should also say that one verse must surely mean something different, which indeed Isaiah 45 does, if every other scripture about God is different. We never make doctrine out of one verse.

Ditto for Esau.
How could God hate Esau if Jesus taught us not to hate?? You've explained it perfectly.

2 Chronicles 7:4 states we are to seek God.
The reformed believe man is unable to seek God due to total depravity, thus God must do the choosing.

It's very different.

 

[GodsGrace]

2“I have loved you,” says the Lord.
“Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’
Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?”
Says the Lord.
“Yet Jacob I have loved;
3But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness.”

Is laying waste the mountains of an evil people a moral evil? What kind of "bad" did God in this case create? (This did not happen to the man Esau whom God loved enough to give an inheritance in land, buy the way.) When fire rained on Sodom, was that moral "bad" or were these things unpleasant consequences from a judgement by a just God? For the sake of the honor and name of the Lord, I must defend his character against the accusation that he creates more evil. When a man comes home and says he has a "bad" day, does he mean things did not go well or that real moral evil accosted him? One ought to be careful when attributing moral evil to the Maker. The past of being the Accuser of the righteous is not one a Christian ought to take claiming scripture supports God doing/creating/arranging moral evil.

Is moral evil the opposite of peace? What is the opposite of peace? T R O U B L E. God creates trouble. He does not create situations when men are tempted to do more evil. (The Lord does not tempt people nor set up situations where choosing evil is inevitable.) Again, it is a fearful thing to accuse God of being the author of moral evil. He does not take kindly to being accused of moral evil.

This is better and it would have been better to adjusts the opening lines to reflect this. God did not do any moral evil to the descendants of Esau (let alone Esau himself). He does not do moral evil to anyone nor does He tempt anyone to do moral evil.

I also believe God could create chaos by removing Himself from a situation.

In a war soldier's might be keeping peace, if they're removed, chaos will prevail.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I also believe God could create chaos by removing Himself from a situation.

In a war soldier's might be keeping peace, if they're removed, chaos will prevail.

Absolutely!! Good point!

 

[Fastfredy0]

Scripture does say that God created evil,

This is untrue IMO.
In point of fact, evil is not a thing. It is the lack of a thing.

Evil is nothing. It is not a thing that has existence. It is an action of something that is a thing. When I do something that is not good, then I am doing something that is evil, but evil then is an activity of some being. It has no being of itself.

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas use the words negation and privation to define evil. Negation talks in terms of what something is not. For example, we say God is infinite which means He is not finite. Evil in this sense can only be defined against the backdrop of what is good. In biblical terms, evil is defined by words like ungodliness, unrighteousness, injustice, so that the term is used as the negation, the opposite of the positive thing that is being affirmed, so that injustice or un-justness can only be understood against the previous concept of justice. R.C. Sproul

1) God created all things;
2) evil is a thing;
3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil.
Augustine realized that the solution was tied to the question: What is evil? The argument above depends on the idea that evil is a thing (note the second premise). But what if evil is not a "thing" in that sense? Then evil did not need creating. If so, our search for the source of evil will take us in a another direction.

Augustine approached the problem from a different angle. He asked: Do we have any convincing evidence that a good God exists? If independent evidence leads us to conclude that God exists and is good, then He would be incapable of creating evil. Something else, then, must be its source.

If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion.

First:
1) All things that God created are good;
2) evil is not good;
3) therefore, evil was not created by God.

Second:
1) God created everything;
2) God did not create evil;
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.
Aside: I give you props for giving verses that seem to support your contention. It is a bold statement to say "

Scripture does say that God created evil,

Aside2: It a tricky subject.

 

[electedbyHim]

Ex

This is untrue IMO.
In point of fact, evil is not a thing. It is the lack of a thing.

Evil is nothing. It is not a thing that has existence. It is an action of something that is a thing. When I do something that is not good, then I am doing something that is evil, but evil then is an activity of some being. It has no being of itself.

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas use the words negation and privation to define evil. Negation talks in terms of what something is not. For example, we say God is infinite which means He is not finite. Evil in this sense can only be defined against the backdrop of what is good. In biblical terms, evil is defined by words like ungodliness, unrighteousness, injustice, so that the term is used as the negation, the opposite of the positive thing that is being affirmed, so that injustice or un-justness can only be understood against the previous concept of justice. R.C. Sproul

1) God created all things;
2) evil is a thing;
3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil.
Augustine realized that the solution was tied to the question: What is evil? The argument above depends on the idea that evil is a thing (note the second premise). But what if evil is not a "thing" in that sense? Then evil did not need creating. If so, our search for the source of evil will take us in a another direction.

Augustine approached the problem from a different angle. He asked: Do we have any convincing evidence that a good God exists? If independent evidence leads us to conclude that God exists and is good, then He would be incapable of creating evil. Something else, then, must be its source.

If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion.

First:
1) All things that God created are good;
2) evil is not good;
3) therefore, evil was not created by God.

Second:
1) God created everything;
2) God did not create evil;
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.
Aside: I give you props for giving verses that seem to support your contention. It is a bold statement to say "

Aside2: It a tricky subject.

Excellent

 

[GodsGrace]

This is untrue IMO.
In point of fact, evil is not a thing. It is the lack of a thing.

Evil is nothing. It is not a thing that has existence. It is an action of something that is a thing. When I do something that is not good, then I am doing something that is evil, but evil then is an activity of some being. It has no being of itself.

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas use the words negation and privation to define evil. Negation talks in terms of what something is not. For example, we say God is infinite which means He is not finite. Evil in this sense can only be defined against the backdrop of what is good. In biblical terms, evil is defined by words like ungodliness, unrighteousness, injustice, so that the term is used as the negation, the opposite of the positive thing that is being affirmed, so that injustice or un-justness can only be understood against the previous concept of justice. R.C. Sproul

1) God created all things;
2) evil is a thing;
3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil.
Augustine realized that the solution was tied to the question: What is evil? The argument above depends on the idea that evil is a thing (note the second premise). But what if evil is not a "thing" in that sense? Then evil did not need creating. If so, our search for the source of evil will take us in a another direction.

Augustine approached the problem from a different angle. He asked: Do we have any convincing evidence that a good God exists? If independent evidence leads us to conclude that God exists and is good, then He would be incapable of creating evil. Something else, then, must be its source.

If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion.

First:
1) All things that God created are good;
2) evil is not good;
3) therefore, evil was not created by God.

Second:
1) God created everything;
2) God did not create evil;
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.

for_his_glory and I are happy to see you here.
Please abide by forum rules.

RC Sproul spoke of negation and privation,
However he came to the conclusion that it had to be God that created evil, since there was no other source of creation.

Some believe evil is not a thing.
Satan is a thing.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This is untrue IMO.
In point of fact, evil is not a thing. It is the lack of a thing.

Evil is nothing. It is not a thing that has existence. It is an action of something that is a thing. When I do something that is not good, then I am doing something that is evil, but evil then is an activity of some being. It has no being of itself.

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas use the words negation and privation to define evil. Negation talks in terms of what something is not. For example, we say God is infinite which means He is not finite. Evil in this sense can only be defined against the backdrop of what is good. In biblical terms, evil is defined by words like ungodliness, unrighteousness, injustice, so that the term is used as the negation, the opposite of the positive thing that is being affirmed, so that injustice or un-justness can only be understood against the previous concept of justice. R.C. Sproul

1) God created all things;
2) evil is a thing;
3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil.
Augustine realized that the solution was tied to the question: What is evil? The argument above depends on the idea that evil is a thing (note the second premise). But what if evil is not a "thing" in that sense? Then evil did not need creating. If so, our search for the source of evil will take us in a another direction.

Augustine approached the problem from a different angle. He asked: Do we have any convincing evidence that a good God exists? If independent evidence leads us to conclude that God exists and is good, then He would be incapable of creating evil. Something else, then, must be its source.

If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion.

First:
1) All things that God created are good;
2) evil is not good;
3) therefore, evil was not created by God.

Second:
1) God created everything;
2) God did not create evil;
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.
Aside: I give you props for giving verses that seem to support your contention. It is a bold statement to say "

Aside2: It a tricky subject.

It seems rather unreasonable to think that the creation account that clearly says that God created all things AND all life, means he created all the non-material and concepts. All things means the material. Genesis describes it in detail. No one can read a single passage that says God created mathematics, information, love, courage, humor, truth, honesty and a host of non-material matters. And yet "all things" is supposed to mean "all concepts" or anything the reader can thing of. This is NOT what Genesis says. God did not create truth or love or courage. It doesn't say he does.

And so He did not create good and did not create evil in the sense he created trees and cats (not fond of dogs) and people. And evil, like darkness, is an absence of the opposite as you say. That makes sense. It is really best if we stick to the scripture and not add to it. Saying he created concepts or the non-material is adding to the word.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

for_his_glory and I are happy to see you here.
Please abide by forum rules.

RC Sproul spoke of negation and privation,
However he came to the conclusion that it had to be God that created evil, since there was no other source of creation.

Some believe evil is not a thing.
Satan is a thing.

RC Sproul is not our source of truth, the Bible is. The Bible does not say God created the concept of moral evil. He did not create the concept of moral good either.

Satan, was actually created good. He was created morally good and good in every other way as well so that is not a good example of created moral evil.

 

[GodsGrace]

RC Sproul is not our source of truth, the Bible is. The Bible does not say God created the concept of moral evil. He did not create the concept of moral good and there was something before that creation, which boggles the mind.

Satan, was actually created good. He was created morally good and good in every other way as well so that is not a good example of created moral evil.

If satan was created good, why did he fall?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If satan was created good, why did he fall?

He had free will. It actually says "until the day evil was found in you." Shall we not simply accept what the Word says? I think that is the wisest course.

Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

 

[Fastfredy0]

It seems rather unreasonable to think that the creation account that clearly says that God created all things AND all life, means he created all the non-material and concepts. All things means the material. Genesis describes it in detail. No one can read a single passage that says God created mathematics, information, love, courage, humor, truth, honesty and a host of non-material matters. And yet "all things" is supposed to mean "all concepts" or anything the reader can thing of. This is NOT what Genesis says.IGod did not create truth or love or courage. It doesn't say he does.

Interesting thoughts.
Regarding "God didn't create mathematics." Hmmm, I'm thinking as I go here ... hmmmm

Premise 1: Mathematics would exist even if God did not exist
Premise 2: Without God there would be nothing.
Conclusion: Mathematics is nothing.
Hmmm... what is mathematics then ... I suppose a concept that doesn't exist without a host/spirit. OK, I can agree that God didn't create math, that math doesn't exist save in a host/spirit.

I don't agree that everything God created is only material things because angels are immaterial things that God created. Our will was created by God who initially made us without sin and then imputed a sin nature (defect) to everyone after Adam "blew it".

God did not create truth or love or courage. It doesn't say he does.

Hmmm .... thinking ...
Premise 1: God gave everyone a spirit where "spirit" needs a definition. Spirit is a force or principle believed to animate humans and often to endure after departing from the body of a person at death; the soul.
Premise 2: Truth and love are not things (uncreated)
Premise 3: God gives us a finite spirit that let us to a degree understand concepts like love, truth,
Yeah, I suppose I could agree with that statement that math, and truth are not created but names of concepts that God allows us to varying degrees, to understand and manifest using our physical bodies.

Aside: I'm not a philosophy person. Ontology,epistemology, whatever...

And so He did not create good and did not create evil in the sense he created trees and cats and people. And evil, like darkness, is an absence of the opposite as you say. That makes sense. It is really best if we stick to the scripture and not add to it. Saying he created concepts or the non-material is adding to the word.

Yeah, I like this.​

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Interesting thoughts.
Regarding "God didn't create mathematics." Hmmm, I'm thinking as I go here ... hmmmm

Me too.

Premise 1: Mathematics would exist even if God did not exist

This is really beyond our pay scale and I see no good out of speculating on this one. What was God doing before he created the world? How shall we know? There is no world without God so speculating on more details is futile.

Premise 2: Without God there would be nothing.

Correct.

Conclusion: Mathematics is nothing.

That does not logically follow. Mathematics is not material. It is, in that sense, no thing. But information, as in mathematics is not of no importance and so not that kind of "nothing."

Hmmm... what is mathematics then ... I suppose a concept that doesn't exist without a host/spirit. OK, I can agree that God didn't create math, that math doesn't exist save in a host/spirit.

Math is a mental exercise that has correspondence the world outside of the mind. It is essentially information but it hangs together and matches matter outside the mind. What about that? I am thinking as I go as well. New territory for me too.

I don't agree that everything God created is only material things because angels are immaterial things that God created. Our will was created by God who initially made us without sin and then imputed a sin nature (defect) to everyone after Adam "blew it".

Angels are material beings. They are not immaterial. The laws that government their being are different than ours, but they are under certain laws nevertheless. They cannot just be anything or anyone they want to be, for example. Satan wanted to be God and that did not work out.

Hmmm .... thinking ...
Premise 1: God gave everyone a spirit where "spirit" needs a definition. Spirit is a force or principle believed to animate humans and often to endure after departing from the body of a person at death; the soul.

Agreed.

Premise 2: Truth and love are not things (uncreated)

Agreed.

Premise 3: God gives us a finite spirit that let us to a degree understand concepts like love, truth,

Agreed again.

Yeah, I suppose I could agree with that statement that math, and truth are not created but names of concepts that God allows us to varying degrees, to understand and manifest using our physical bodies.

Aside: I'm not a philosophy person. Ontology,epistemology, whatever...

For someone who is not, you are doing really really well. Lack of formal education does not limit mental prowess. I am impressed, Fast Freddy.

Yeah, I like this.​

Me too.

 

[Fastfredy0]

He had free will. It actually says "until the day evil was found in you." Shall we not simply accept what the Word says? I think that is the wisest course.

What is free will? You seem intelligent. I rarely get an answer. Define "free will" with an emphasis in your definition on FREE. How is one's will, which I assume you agree that your will was created by God and continues to exist because of God ( ... how is one's will free from the way God made it; free from what God wishes you to know/do?

Anecdote: My will desires that I be twice as good looking ... obviously, I have a will but it is not Free from God ... Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring..Romans 11:36, etc. etc.

Augustine: Free will is the ability to choose what you desire most at the time
or
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.
or
whatever