No answers for problem of evil

[Not_Now.Soon]

To wondering.

If Good and Evil are comparable to being right with God, and turning away from God; then the source of evil is the option of rebellion Against God. It seems like when I read the bible talking about Israel turning away from God they turned more and more wicked.

Taking it a step further though, is the concept of rebellion in heaven against God, and a third of the Angels banded with Satan. That is one huge foothold on evil. This might be the closest guess as to why evil was allowed as an option, because the rebellion had not yet been defeated. All of the evil that comes either as a consquence of sin and turning away, or comes more directly as an active choice choosing evil instead of good could be part of something bigger then us. It could be a Testiment in itself for both us and the Angels, to never again turn from God. Never let it get a foothold, and never repeat the trial that Satan and God are on right now, through Satan's rebellion.

Think about the book of Job, where Satan puts Job to the test; or Jesus telling Peter that Satan was wanting to sift him and test him. Sometimes it seems like God is on trial in the bible, as much as Satan is condemned in the bible (being already judged and condemned). When God finally removes the option of sin, I think He's going to do it with a permanent force. Not just is sin and evil no longer an option but a testament of why it will never be allowed again. At least that's my hope.

 

[John Doe Smith]

To wondering.
When God finally removes the option of sin

What will that look like and will it effect free will?

 

[for_his_glory]

@for_his_glory believes it originated with satan.
How could this be if all God made was good?
How did satan become evil?

No, I said it began with freewill given to the angels, including Satan as he is also a created angel, that has caused the problem of evil presenting itself by choices that were made before and after the foundation of the world.

Satan, like the other angels that are bound in chains, Jude 1:6, did not keep their first estate as being obedient to God. Same with humans starting with Adam who did not keep his first estate with God in being obedient to God's command not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil for surely you will Spiritually die if you do, Genesis 2:15, 16.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

What will that look like and will it effect free will?

I don't know what it would look like outside of what the bible says. Swords discarded and beaten into plow shears. Peace on earth. Long life where either A) dying at age 100 is considered young, or B) there is no more dying on the world. Where predator and pray can lie together in safety grazing together instead of running from each other, and hunting eachother.

Honestly it's hard to imagine a world where you don't need to lock your car doors. I don't think I can grasp what a world without sin and evil would look like because there's so much that's part of our world that we make efforts to protect ourselves from harm.

As for free will. I don't think that will go away. The way I think of it is looking at a time before a teconology was invented and used. Before cell phones were around we still had free will, but we didn't have the choice to make a call on a cell phone or nearly as often as we do today. It's not that we didn't have free will, but that the option just wasn't there.

Even if free will and sin are more closely connected, where you lose one you lose them both, then even that would be an ok trade off in my opinion. I know God isn't evil, and I trust Him. Having Him in charge to the point of no will of our own is not like a scary B rate movie where an evil dictator talks control of everyone and kills their freedom. With or without free will, I think God will be good. But without evil no matter free will, I hope for that world often.

 

[for_his_glory]

To wondering.

If Good and Evil are comparable to being right with God, and turning away from God; then the source of evil is the option of rebellion Against God. It seems like when I read the bible talking about Israel turning away from God they turned more and more wicked.

Taking it a step further though, is the concept of rebellion in heaven against God, and a third of the Angels banded with Satan. That is one huge foothold on evil. This might be the closest guess as to why evil was allowed as an option, because the rebellion had not yet been defeated. All of the evil that comes either as a consquence of sin and turning away, or comes more directly as an active choice choosing evil instead of good could be part of something bigger then us. It could be a Testiment in itself for both us and the Angels, to never again turn from God. Never let it get a foothold, and never repeat the trial that Satan and God are on right now, through Satan's rebellion.

Think about the book of Job, where Satan puts Job to the test; or Jesus telling Peter that Satan was wanting to sift him and test him. Sometimes it seems like God is on trial in the bible, as much as Satan is condemned in the bible (being already judged and condemned). When God finally removes the option of sin, I think He's going to do it with a permanent force. Not just is sin and evil no longer an option but a testament of why it will never be allowed again. At least that's my hope.

There will be no sin in the New Jerusalem as we will no longer have a sin nature as our bodies have now been raised a Spiritual body that is incorruptible and immortal and can not sin. God has now honored his promise of eternal life and we will be totally submitted to Gods will. Gods will is love and it's that love we will live eternally in towards each other. God has already cast out the sinful one from His Throne and his fate is the lake of fire with his beast and false prophets. Sin will no longer reign in heaven or the New Jerusalem.

 

[stovebolts]

If God is all good and everything He created was good, according to Genesis 1....then how did evil come about?

Again, evil is the result of "missing the mark".
Evil is not some entity, like a rock, or a tree or anything else created. Evil is directly tied to " missing the mark" aka sin. It's really that simple. Evil is not "created" rather, it's the absence of creation.

Let's look at Cain. Cain murders his brother. Do we call that evil? Yes we do. Was evil created? No... But yes. Cain failed to love his brother Able and as a result, Ables death followed. We can directly link Ables death with not having love. Love hits the mark. Not loving misses the mark.

Love is created, murder is the absence of love. We could say murder is the void which occurs when love is not present. This, murder is created when there is absence of love. This is why sin is empty and void. This is why sin cannot fulfill the soul, because you cannot fill and empty vessel with emptiness and expect it to be full, unless one regards being full as one being empty.

Moral evil is evil that persons do that can cause distress to another person.

It is also what we fail to do. When we fail to provide comfort etc to another in need, the darkness remains. We are to be a light that pierces the darkness.

Natural evil is the evil we find in nature that we have no control over.

I disagree. The earth has been set in motion. If a tornado kills a family, it is not evil. Tragic yes, but not evil.
BTW, really, you have no control over anything other than your own actions. Honestly, you don't even have control over the thoughts that pop into your head. About the only thing you, I or anyone else has control over is what you do with them.

Everything is infected with evil.
Where did it come from? (Not talking about sin).

Again, you speak as if evil is some sort of viable entity one can seize or take hold of.

Do me a favor, define evil, and give me an example.

 

[GodsGrace]

Again, evil is the result of "missing the mark".
Evil is not some entity, like a rock, or a tree or anything else created. Evil is directly tied to " missing the mark" aka sin. It's really that simple. Evil is not "created" rather, it's the absence of creation.

Let's look at Cain. Cain murders his brother. Do we call that evil? Yes we do. Was evil created? No... But yes. Cain failed to love his brother Able and as a result, Ables death followed. We can directly link Ables death with not having love. Love hits the mark. Not loving misses the mark.

Love is created, murder is the absence of love. We could say murder is the void which occurs when love is not present. This, murder is created when there is absence of love. This is why sin is empty and void. This is why sin cannot fulfill the soul, because you cannot fill and empty vessel with emptiness and expect it to be full, unless one regards being full as one being empty.



It is also what we fail to do. When we fail to provide comfort etc to another in need, the darkness remains. We are to be a light that pierces the darkness.

I disagree. The earth has been set in motion. If a tornado kills a family, it is not evil. Tragic yes, but not evil.
BTW, really, you have no control over anything other than your own actions. Honestly, you don't even have control over the thoughts that pop into your head. About the only thing you, I or anyone else has control over is what you do with them.



Again, you speak as if evil is some sort of viable entity one can seize or take hold of.

Do me a favor, define evil, and give me an example.

See post number 4.
Oz asked the same question...

 

[GodsGrace]

To wondering.

If Good and Evil are comparable to being right with God, and turning away from God; then the source of evil is the option of rebellion Against God. It seems like when I read the bible talking about Israel turning away from God they turned more and more wicked.

Taking it a step further though, is the concept of rebellion in heaven against God, and a third of the Angels banded with Satan. That is one huge foothold on evil. This might be the closest guess as to why evil was allowed as an option, because the rebellion had not yet been defeated. All of the evil that comes either as a consquence of sin and turning away, or comes more directly as an active choice choosing evil instead of good could be part of something bigger then us. It could be a Testiment in itself for both us and the Angels, to never again turn from God. Never let it get a foothold, and never repeat the trial that Satan and God are on right now, through Satan's rebellion.

Think about the book of Job, where Satan puts Job to the test; or Jesus telling Peter that Satan was wanting to sift him and test him. Sometimes it seems like God is on trial in the bible, as much as Satan is condemned in the bible (being already judged and condemned). When God finally removes the option of sin, I think He's going to do it with a permanent force. Not just is sin and evil no longer an option but a testament of why it will never be allowed again. At least that's my hope.

I looked around on the net this pm and found this...
Pretty much explains the problem...
It's worth the time to take a listen...

for_his_glory
StoveBolts
OzSpen
Not_Now.Soon
John Doe Smith
jasonc ( I think that's it)

It starts at 7.00

 

[OzSpen]

I like Wm. Lane Craig.
He said God PERMITS Natural Evil.

If he said that it is a flow from Moral Evil then he'll have to explain how that could be.

How does Moral Evil cause a hurricane? An earthquake? A Tsunami?

You keep offering me answers to my questions.
I don't have any questions...not on this subject.

wondering,

Moral evil doesn't cause hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and Australia's current big drought.

I'm of the view we have biblical evidence that in the Fall, there were consequences of natural evil.

While some philosophers and antagonists to the Christian, omnipotent, all-good God object strongly to belief in God when we have natural evil - tsunamis, cyclones, tornadoes - there are biblical answers. Why are they not wrong for God to commit?

• Rom 14:12 (NLT) states: 'Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God'. Human beings are subject to God's authority and not the other way around. He is Lord of all and why natural evil happens is under his sovereign control. However, he has provided us with some additional information:
  
• We know from Genesis 3 and Romans 8 that natural evil is a flow on effect from human sin: 'Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time' (Rom 8:20-22 NLT). Therefore, as a direct result of the Fall, natural evil and moral evil are in the world.
• There is an added dynamic when natural evil is God's judgment. We saw it in the time of Noah when God wiped out all but 8 of the people on earth because of their sin against God (see Gen 6-9).

I recommend a read of What is theodicy? (Got Questions)

Seems like you don't want to continue further with this discussion as you can't see an answer to the issue.

Oz

 

[atpollard]

The explanation you gave of unconditional election does not agree with Calvin's view.

Calvinism is not defined by John Calvin. The Reformed movement was named “Calvinism“ by the Lutheran Church. In a point of irony, John Calvin only supported 4 of the later 5 points called T.U.L.I.P. making him only a 4 point Calvinist. ;)

For the origin for “Calvinism”, read the decision of the Synod of Dort to the “Arminian Remonstrances”.

Personally, I am utterly indifferent to the writings of both John Calvin and the Synod of Dort. I read the Bible and see the Total Inability of man to save himself taught in scripture. I see the choice of God to save me as an act of Unconditional Election taught in scripture. I see the draw of “Jesus sheep” by the Father to the Son as an act of Irresistible Grace taught in scripture. I see the promise that He who began a good work will complete it, and the Holy Spirit is a deposit which guarantees our inheritance and no one can snatch us out of the hand of God as Perseverance of the Saints being taught in scripture.

That only left Limited vs Unlimited atonement as a theological question for me to answer to decide if I wanted to call myself a 4 pointer or a 5 pointer.

 

[stovebolts]

Anything that is not good is evil.
A person could be evil or do evil things (bad things).

That's an interesting thought and a very interesting, binary way of looking at things. If it's not good, then it's evil. Evil puts the focus on what's bad in relation to what's good.

This should be fun. Can we have a bit of foolishness here lol! ?

If a good king does bad things, is he an evil king, or a good king? Or, is he a King that is capable of doing both Good things and Evil things?
Is there a weighted system that says your allowed to do these evil things because they're not too bad, but those evil over there are really, really bad, so those are a special kind of evil.

I'm reminded of the Northern tribe of Israel. They were really evil. So we're the Assyrians and their king. So God took a really evil King and had him exile a king that wasn't as bad. And lots of innocent people were exiled with the not so evil king. Was Gods action evil?

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

Moral evil doesn't cause hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and Australia's current big drought.

I'm of the view we have biblical evidence that in the Fall, there were consequences of natural evil.

While some philosophers and antagonists to the Christian, omnipotent, all-good God object strongly to belief in God when we have natural evil - tsunamis, cyclones, tornadoes - there are biblical answers. Why are they not wrong for God to commit?

• Rom 14:12 (NLT) states: 'Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God'. Human beings are subject to God's authority and not the other way around. He is Lord of all and why natural evil happens is under his sovereign control. However, he has provided us with some additional information:
• We know from Genesis 3 and Romans 8 that natural evil is a flow on effect from human sin: 'Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time' (Rom 8:20-22 NLT). Therefore, as a direct result of the Fall, natural evil and moral evil are in the world.
• There is an added dynamic when natural evil is God's judgment. We saw it in the time of Noah when God wiped out all but 8 of the people on earth because of their sin against God (see Gen 6-9).

I recommend a read of What is theodicy? (Got Questions)

Seems like you don't want to continue further with this discussion as you can't see an answer to the issue.

Oz

I read the Theodicy article on GotQuestions.
It states that evil is the absence of good.
So does this mean satan and his influence does not exist?
Is there no lake of fire in which to banish satan at the end?
Is Genesis wrong? It was the tree of the knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL...It does seem that evil is a real entity and not the absence of something.

When we are told in scripture to change from the inside, are we not being told to remove evil --- or are we being told to just be good? Then what does Romans 12:21 mean?

The bible teaches us to use good speech. Proverbs 8:13.
So if evil is the absence of good...all I'd need to do is be quiet. No,,,evil is a real entity. The same proverb says to hate evil....how does one hate a non-entity? How do I hate a non-good?

Even if God only ALLOWS evil, which is stated in the article...we still need to know how it originated since it statese God did not create evil --- and thus finds an easy answer by saying that evil is the absence of good.

The following, from the article, goes to what John Doe Smith has been stating and with which I agree. I don't know why evil is necessary to know good. Should I beat up my puppy once a week so he could enjoy life the other 6 days?

Second, God could create but allow nothing in His creation the capacity for moral free will. In other words, allow no deviation leading to “evil.” But this makes a mockery of every other emotion, ideal, and benefit that critics of God want to uphold. In short, a universe logically incapable of evil is also one logically incapable of love, nobility, sacrifice or success.

A being unable to partake in evil is also incapable of exhibiting mercy, compassion, or love. It’s not hard to see how, if God had created things with this limitation, creation would seem like a waste of time. God desires love and glory—and our approval of that desire is irrelevant to its truth—but there can be no love given by robotic, choice-less creations.

 

[GodsGrace]

OzSpen

I listened to a few YouTube talks of Wm. L. Craig. It seems to me he has two answers to the problem of evil:

1. God created evil because of some motivation that we cannot understand and is not told to us.

2. Dualism

 

[WalterandDebbie]

In another thread, wondering (also include JLB) stated:

I'll deal with these issues only one at a time:

1. If we go back to the beginning of time "if we want to go back far enough, we find that there is no real answer to evil" because in the Garden there was "the tree of good and evil. Where did the evil come from?"

Gen 1:31 (NIV) states: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day". Then there was the challenge by God to Adam:


It literally was not 'the tree of good and evil' but 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' OR 'the tree of the knowing of good and evil' (Lenski 1942:127). There is only one tree. The meaning here is similar to Deut 6:4-6 and Matt 22:36-38: The call is for all human beings, especially believers to love and obey the Creator God.

These 2 verses are the climax of the whole human race. What happened here flowed on to all human beings. God did not make a tree of evil. He made one tree and there was nothing especially different with this tree. In the text there is no indication this tree was different from any other tree. What was different was that Adam was confronted with a choice - thus indicating the first human being had the ability, given by God, to agree with God or disagree with him.

Francis Schaeffer put it this way:


Evil is a result of the risky gift of free will. When God promised 'death' would come because of disobedience, he did not refer to physical death as Adam & Eve continued to live and reproduce. So 'death' here refers to inner spiritual separation from God.

We must not overlook the fact that this account in Gen 2 confirms the fact that God gave Adam the gift of freedom of the will.

See, 'Who is responsible for evil?' (Ravi Zacharias)

I'll deal with these topics from wondering later:

1. Lucifer fell from grace because of pride: "Where did this sin of pride come from?"
2. "How is it that A and E ate of the fruit if they were still innocent and had not eaten from the tree yet? WHAT made them eat?"
3. "I still haven't found the answer and most believe we cannot really know this."

Oz

Works consulted
Leupold, H C 1942. Exposition of Genesis, vol 1 (chapters 1-19). London: Evangelical Press.
Schaeffer, F A 1972. Genesis in space and time. London: Hodder and Stoughton (1976. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press).

Amen, One thing is hearing what the words of the Lord have said, but obeying His voice is another as in the Garden knowing good and evil, and it is not the hearers of what He is saying but the doers, which I think by not doing what He have said, will present evil doings, this is just my opinion.

James 1:19-27

 

[GodsGrace]

That's an interesting thought and a very interesting, binary way of looking at things. If it's not good, then it's evil. Evil puts the focus on what's bad in relation to what's good.

This should be fun. Can we have a bit of foolishness here lol! ?

If a good king does bad things, is he an evil king, or a good king? Or, is he a King that is capable of doing both Good things and Evil things?
Is there a weighted system that says your allowed to do these evil things because they're not too bad, but those evil over there are really, really bad, so those are a special kind of evil.

I'm reminded of the Northern tribe of Israel. They were really evil. So we're the Assyrians and their king. So God took a really evil King and had him exile a king that wasn't as bad. And lots of innocent people were exiled with the not so evil king. Was Gods action evil?

A good King cannot do evil things.
The tree is known by its fruit.
A good King can only do good things.

As to the rest, see post no. 10,,,it'll explain how things could be good or bad.

As to the weighted system...no, something is either good or evil (bad).

 

[OzSpen]

Calvinism is not defined by John Calvin. The Reformed movement was named “Calvinism“ by the Lutheran Church. In a point of irony, John Calvin only supported 4 of the later 5 points called T.U.L.I.P. making him only a 4 point Calvinist. ;)

atp,

I have pursued further research on whether Calvin was a TULIP Calvinist. Sometimes he believed Jesus died for the whole world while at other times he didn't believe that. He was a fence sitter on limited atonement:

(image courtesy The Remarkable Blog)​

See my article: Was John Calvin a TULIP Calvinist?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I read the Theodicy article on GotQuestions.
It states that evil is the absence of good.
So does this mean satan and his influence does not exist?
Is there no lake of fire in which to banish satan at the end?
Is Genesis wrong? It was the tree of the knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL...It does seem that evil is a real entity and not the absence of something.

Wondering,

As I've stated throughout this thread, evil is not the absence of good but is a decision by A & E to choose to disobey God's rules. Evil entering the human race is a direct result of disobedience of God.

Of course Satan still exists, operates in the world, but his end is coming. It will be in the the Lake of Fire.

When we are told in scripture to change from the inside, are we not being told to remove evil --- or are we being told to just be good? Then what does Romans 12:21 mean?

Rom 12:21 (NLT) states, 'Don’t let evil conquer you, but conquer evil by doing good'. This does not mean that evil is completely removed from within me. I can choose to do good as opposed to evil. But I'm still left with Paul's struggle with sin, articulated in Rom 7.

He wrote in Rom 7:15 (NLT): 'I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate'.

He was born again but he still wrestled with sin within. That is a life-long battle.

The bible teaches us to use good speech. Proverbs 8:13.
So if evil is the absence of good...all I'd need to do is be quiet. No,,,evil is a real entity. The same proverb says to hate evil....how does one hate a non-entity? How do I hate a non-good?

Even if God only ALLOWS evil, which is stated in the article...we still need to know how it originated since it statese God did not create evil --- and thus finds an easy answer by saying that evil is the absence of good.

Why can't you accept that fact that God only ALLOWS people the choice of breaking a relationship with him = creation of evil?

I cannot see any way of my or others convincing you of evil entering the human race because you seem to be looking for 'a thing' called 'evil'. There is no thing = evil. There is a broken relationship between A & E and God and that was when the knowledge of evil entered the human race. Why can't you accept that explanation?

The following, from the article, goes to what John Doe Smith has been stating and with which I agree. I don't know why evil is necessary to know good. Should I beat up my puppy once a week so he could enjoy life the other 6 days?

Second, God could create but allow nothing in His creation the capacity for moral free will. In other words, allow no deviation leading to “evil.” But this makes a mockery of every other emotion, ideal, and benefit that critics of God want to uphold. In short, a universe logically incapable of evil is also one logically incapable of love, nobility, sacrifice or success.

A being unable to partake in evil is also incapable of exhibiting mercy, compassion, or love. It’s not hard to see how, if God had created things with this limitation, creation would seem like a waste of time. God desires love and glory—and our approval of that desire is irrelevant to its truth—but there can be no love given by robotic, choice-less creations.

I find your premise to be false. Where does Scripture state that evil is necessary to know good. That sounds extra-biblical to me but I'm open to your convincing me that is biblical Christianity.

To address your second comment, why don't you join with me in discussing it in: Who or what causes physical evil in the world?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

A good King cannot do evil things.
The tree is known by its fruit.
A good King can only do good things.

As to the rest, see post no. 10,,,it'll explain how things could be good or bad.

As to the weighted system...no, something is either good or evil (bad).

wondering,

Can a good King give his subjects choices to serve him or disobey him? To be a good King must he take away from people all prospects of autonomy for or against him?

When I buy fruit around here, there are good peaches, bad peaches (not offered for sale) and 'seconds' (hail damaged fruit that is still edible. The choice is not only good vs evil.

Oz

 

[atpollard]

atp,

I have pursued further research on whether Calvin was a TULIP Calvinist. Sometimes he believed Jesus died for the whole world while at other times he didn't believe that. He was a fence sitter on limited atonement:

(image courtesy The Remarkable Blog)​

See my article: Was John Calvin a TULIP Calvinist?

Oz

Between you and me ... Scripture is a fence sitter on that topic as well. It comes down to an inference from a personal view of God.

Limited Atonement: Jesus knew exactly which sins he was dying for and didn’t even bother to waste one drop of blood on most people (wide is the path that leads to destruction), but every drop of blood that Jesus shed fully accomplished its purpose of forgiving a sin and transforming a Saint.

Unlimited Atonement: Jesus shed his blood for all, granting all equal opportunity for access to the Father, but the blood alone saved no one because most for whom Jesus blood was shed will ultimately reach destruction via the wide path ... so salvation requires the Blood of Christ plus SOMETHING else. Since Jesus paid for the sin on the cross and the unrepentant pays for that same sin in Hell, God punishes the same sin twice.

Scripture can support either logical consequence, so which poison do you prefer to swallow?

 

[OzSpen]

Between you and me ... Scripture is a fence sitter on that topic as well. It comes down to an inference from a personal view of God.

Limited Atonement: Jesus knew exactly which sins he was dying for and didn’t even bother to waste one drop of blood on most people (wide is the path that leads to destruction), but every drop of blood that Jesus shed fully accomplished its purpose of forgiving a sin and transforming a Saint.

Unlimited Atonement: Jesus shed his blood for all, granting all equal opportunity for access to the Father, but the blood alone saved no one because most for whom Jesus blood was shed will ultimately reach destruction via the wide path ... so salvation requires the Blood of Christ plus SOMETHING else. Since Jesus paid for the sin on the cross and the unrepentant pays for that same sin in Hell, God punishes the same sin twice.

Scripture can support either logical consequence, so which poison do you prefer to swallow?

Are you recommending one of the 'poisons'?