Evil as a created thing

[darinhouston]

I think we may have had a topic on this before, but Calvinists debate whether God or man "created" evil. I think this is a "category error" because I don't think evil is a "thing" that was created by anyone but instead merely a description of anything that doesn't reflect the glory of God.

Does anyone recall this topic? Or have thoughts?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[robbyyoung]

I think we may have had a topic on this before, but Calvinists debate whether God or man "created" evil. I think this is a "category error" because I don't think evil is a "thing" that was created by anyone but instead merely a description of anything that doesn't reflect the glory of God.

Does anyone recall this topic? Or have thoughts?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi Darin,

One of the most seemingly unambiguous passage is found in Isa 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Notice the following Hebrew for "Create and Evil":

1. Create, (בָּרָא - bara')

(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

2. Evil, (רַע - ra`)

bad, evil

Furthermore, you can observe the detailed list that comprise the notion of "bad things happening" when "ra" is in view, by using any lexicon or concordance.

The bottom-line is that God says HE Creates RA. Which means RA did not exist before, but now it does. This creative choice, by God, is repetitive as we see throughout scripture. Therefore, one needs to draw their own conclusions on the matter.

God Bless.

[Paidion]

I have heard it said from several sources that "evil" is but the absence of "good," just as "cold" is but the absence of "heat."
But I think that is a mistaken concept. "Evil" as well as "good" are not things that are created. Rather they are adjectives which describe people's actions.
The origin of evil actions are clear. Satan is the first to perform an evil action of his own free will. As I see it, he was originally an archangel who rebelled along with a large number of other angels (later called "fallen angels" or "demons." These beings do not cause people to perform evil acts, but they influence them toward evil acts, just as God, and perhaps His angels, influence them toward good acts.
When a man performs an evil act, such as torturing someone, this is not merely the absence of a good act, but is an act totally independent of good acts, and is an evil act in its own right.

If a man should have helped his neigbhour in his need, but did not do so, THAT would be the absence of good.

[robbyyoung]

"Evil" as well as "good" are not things that are created. Rather they are adjectives which describe people's actions.

Hi Paidion,

I respectfully disagree with your statement. Unless you can show Isa 45:7 to be saying, grammatically otherwise, "ra" is used as an noun, in Isa 45:7.

Strong's Concordance

ra': adversity
Original Word: רָע
Part of Speech: Adjective; noun masculine; noun feminine
Transliteration: ra'
Phonetic Spelling: (rah)
Short Definition: adversity

Since "ra" has a host of meanings, the fact remains that they all denote an adverse meaning. However, God does not sin in HIS creative nature to impose "ra". I think we can be on safe ground by acknowledging God in this capacity, rather than denying His proclamations regarding it.

God Bless.

[steve]

One of the most seemingly unambiguous passage is found in Isa 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

This is, apparently, not so unambiguous, since so many Christians mistakenly take it in the manner that you are taking it here. "Evil", in this context, clearly means "calamity," as is very often the case in the Old Testament (cf., Gen.19:19; 44:34; 50:20; Job 2:10; Isa.47:11; 57:1; etc.).

In the poetic structure of the present verse, it is contrasted with "peace" (not contrasted with "goodness"). The prophet is speaking about the downfall of Babylon, which God is going to bring about through Cyrus. In this context, God is saying that calamity (judgment) and protection from calamity (peace) are both within His province to bring upon any nation, according to His discretion. He is not addressing, in any sense, the origins of moral evil as a created "thing."

[robbyyoung]

One of the most seemingly unambiguous passage is found in Isa 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

This is, apparently, not so unambiguous, since so many Christians mistakenly take it in the manner that you are taking it here. "Evil", in this context, clearly means "calamity," as is very often the case in the Old Testament (cf., Gen.19:19; 44:34; 50:20; Job 2:10; Isa.47:11; 57:1; etc.). In the poetic structure of the present verse, it is contrasted with "peace" (not contrasted with "goodness"). The prophet is speaking about the downfall of Babylon, which God is going to bring about through Cyrus. In this context, God is saying that calamity (judgment) and protection from calamity (peace) are both within His province to bring upon any nation, according to His discretion. He is not addressing, in any sense, the origins of moral evil as a created "thing."

Hi Steve,

I know of what you're speaking and you're absolutely right. This is why I noted the Hebrew word "ra" and mentioned its use as a noun to denote an adverse action from God apart from sin. Darin may not have been focusing on the Hebrew word "ra", probably evil, as in what's attributed to sin. I never made the claim that "ra" spoken, of in Isa 45:7, is what you implied I said. But I can see how my approach lends credence to it. Nevertheless, thanks for your careful analysis on the subject. Like I said before, "I'm not the most gifted person when committing thoughts to paper."

God Bless.

[dizerner]

Debating whether evil is a real "thing" or not seems a bit side-tracking. Whatever you want to call it or describe it as, we surely must say it exists, as much as any state of being or feeling or spiritual entity or essence. We can describe evil both as physical evil and spiritual evil. The Calvinist has to believe God himself virtually forced Satan and Adam to sin, by decreeing what they will freely will. This means that whatever game God is playing, he is duplicitous, because he commands and entreats his creatures to do one thing, but secretly makes them disobey him. I think a fair and straight reading of Scripture requires the assumption that God really and actually desires for his creation to obey him so he can bless his creation and not curse it.

[steve7150]

I think a fair and straight reading of Scripture requires the assumption that God really and actually desires for his creation to obey him so he can bless his creation and not curse it.









Why must God curse his creation if they are not obedient? I can understand withholding blessing but what is it that compels God to curse his creation if it is not his desire to do this? Also why are the decendents of the disobedient ones also cursed, when they had no imput into the disobedience?
Actually I see a different conclusion from the fair and straight reading of scripture. It seems to me people desire to see God a certain way and like to blame man for anything and everything perceived as negative in the world as if God had no idea and no input into the course of human history.

[dizerner]

Why must God curse his creation if they are not obedient? I can understand withholding blessing but what is it that compels God to curse his creation if it is not his desire to do this?

It would seem the free choice of creation has value to God. Why do the consequences have to be so severe? Whatever the rules are, God sets them. Perhaps real rejection had to have consequences, or it wouldn't be genuine. You will find many more Scriptures showing humans have some measure of self-determination, than you will find Scriptures that might be saying we have no free will choice whatsoever.

Also why are the descendents of the disobedient ones also cursed, when they had no input into the disobedience?

I find this the hardest problem to deal with in my faith, but Scripture clearly indicates that due to the sin of one person, other people's destinies are unfairly effected. I am unwilling to use my own moral sense as a guide to truth. One could argue God gave us our conscience, yet Scripture also tells us our nature does not put God first but is fallen. At this point I am just blind and am forced to trust and accept what Scripture says as revelation, that is truth I could never perceive or discover through logic or effort, but only as a gift of divine help. I have no answer, but Scripture says it's so. One reason being that we were in Adam. There seems to be a connectedness this race shares in different ways, in families and nations. The fact is, Christ could stand in behalf of an entire group of creatures. Why is the death of God required for our redemption? Why does a good God allow evil? I won't turn to divine determinism, for although this may seemingly bring security, this inevitably puts evil into the heart of God.

[darinhouston]

dizerner, this is a little off topic so I'll start another thread -- I'll leave the question of "whether" and "to what extent" God actually died on the cross to the Trinitarian threads, but putting that aside your question makes a common assumption that our sin actually REQUIRED God to die. I'll start a thread on atonement for that question.

Robbie, I re-read your post -- I don't see how one might read it any other way than to assume you meant that this Isaiah passage actually supports the proposition that God clearly and unambiguously created what we typically call "Evil" as a created "thing." I thought Steve's response (as usual) was spot on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk