Is God Responsible for Evil?

[Robert R. Higby]

In the 'rejection of errors' from the Canons of Dort:

SECOND HEAD: PARAGRAPH 1. Who teach: That God the Father has ordained His Son to the death of the cross without a certain and definite decree to save any, so that the necessity, profitableness, and worth of what christ merited by His death might have existed, and might remain in all its parts complete, perfect, and intact, even if the merited redemption had never in fact been applied to any person.
For this doctrine tends to the despising of the wisdom of the Father and of the merits of Jesus Christ, and is contrary to Scripture. For thus says our Savior: "I lay down my life for the sheep ... and I know them. (John 10:15, 27)." And the prophet Isaiah says concerning the Savior: "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand (Isa 53:10)." Finally, this contradicts the article of faith according to which we believe the catholic Christian Church.

I view this as the 'flip side' of the same thing we have been talking about. The confession rejected the infinite worth of Christ's redemption unless it was actually applied to the elect for whom God purposed it. Conversely, by the same logic, we should reject the notion that the infinite worth of Christ's redemption might IN ANY SENSE be applicable to non-elect souls for whom it was not intended. So the infinite value of Christ's atonement is strictly tied to what God purposed to perform by the Divine sacrifice.

Of course, there are many things in the Canons of Dort that I could not in good conscience confess. Most of all:

Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith. The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man.

So I would view a supralapsarianism that could accept this statement as inconsistent and immature.

[wildboar]

But Owen was an infrapalsarian, of course he would interpret it that way--he could not do otherwise!

I still don't see any evidence or any reason that a supralapsarian could not use such language.

If you have a copy of Homer Hoeksema's Voice of our Fathers, please quote for us his exposition of the 'sufficiency' phrase. I do not have the book.

I sold my copy a few months ago. Eileen was quoting from it earlier so I'm assuming she has a copy. As I remember it he spent some time complaining that the article was speculative but grudgingly seemed to agree with it in the end but it's been a while since I read it.

I view this as the 'flip side' of the same thing we have been talking about. The confession rejected the infinite worth of Christ's redemption unless it was actually applied to the elect for whom God purposed it. Conversely, by the same logic, we should reject the notion that the infinite worth of Christ's redemption might IN ANY SENSE be applicable to non-elect souls for whom it was not intended.

But the confessions do not teach that the non-elect actually receive any benefit from the death of Christ. What they are considering in the previous article mentioned is the value of Christ's death--not who receives benefit from it.

Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith. The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man.

So I would view a supralapsarianism that could accept this statement as inconsistent and immature.

The Canons are speaking of proximate cause and probably even authorship. God may ordain sinful activities but he is not the author of sin. Scripture itself places the blame on man. Such statements are not immature but Scriptural.

[Robert R. Higby]

The Canons are speaking of proximate cause and probably even authorship. God may ordain sinful activities but he is not the author of sin. Scripture itself places the blame on man.

I will not debate the issue using Plato's terminology like the confessions do ("Is God the author of sin?"). The Bible never argues in such words.

God is the ultimate cause of sin since He is the creator of it. I believe that God takes the responsibility for the existence of evil (Amos 3:6) but the guilt is always laid upon the creature who loves to perform it. God is responsible but not guilty. He can not incur guilt because He is accountable to no other authority for His actions.

So the word 'blame' can be applied to both God and man in the matter of evil; God takes the blame in the matter of responsibility but man takes the blame in the matter of guilt and indebtedness to his creator.

[lionovjudah]

Of course, there are many things in the Canons of Dort that I could not in good conscience confess. Most of all:

Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith. The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man.

So I would view a supralapsarianism that could accept this statement as inconsistent and immature.

The problem does not lie in a supras beliefs on this rejection, they should give a hearty Amen to it. Man will have no thought of impuning God with blame at the judgement seat Bob. Not one scripture says otherwise.

It would be blasphemous to state:

Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith. The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in man, but in God.

[lionovjudah]

The Canons are speaking of proximate cause and probably even authorship. God may ordain sinful activities but he is not the author of sin. Scripture itself places the blame on man.

I will not debate the issue using Plato's terminology like the confessions do ("Is God the author of sin?"). The Bible never argues in such words.

God is the ultimate cause of sin since He is the creator of it. I believe that God takes the responsibility for the existence of evil (Amos 3:6) but the guilt is always laid upon the creature who loves to perform it. God is responsible but not guilty. He can not incur guilt because He is accountable to no other authority for His actions.

So the word 'blame' can be applied to both God and man in the matter of evil; God takes the blame in the matter of responsibility but man takes the blame in the matter of guilt and indebtedness to his creator.

If only Scripture supported this thought, you may have a point.

[wildboar]

God is the ultimate cause of sin since He is the creator of it. I believe that God takes the responsibility for the existence of evil (Amos 3:6) but the guilt is always laid upon the creature who loves to perform it. God is responsible but not guilty. He can not incur guilt because He is accountable to no other authority for His actions.

So the word 'blame' can be applied to both God and man in the matter of evil; God takes the blame in the matter of responsibility but man takes the blame in the matter of guilt and indebtedness to his creator.

God never says, "You sinned and it's all my fault." It just doesn't happen.

[wildboar]

Amos 3:6 if taken in context is referring to disaster, not ethical evil.

Amos 3:6 If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid? If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?

The verse is speaking of God executing judgment for the purpose of sanctification and because of the covenant breaking that had taken place. The purpose of the verse is not to present us with some bizarre abstract doctrine that God is the doer of all evil in every city. I suppose if we go that route we could then conclude that he has nothing to do with evil in rural areas. Then perhaps the real message would be that Christians should move out to the country (not a bad idea).

[lionovjudah]

The Canons are speaking of proximate cause and probably even authorship. God may ordain sinful activities but he is not the author of sin. Scripture itself places the blame on man.

I will not debate the issue using Plato's terminology like the confessions do ("Is God the author of sin?"). The Bible never argues in such words.

God is the ultimate cause of sin since He is the creator of it. I believe that God takes the responsibility for the existence of evil (Amos 3:6) but the guilt is always laid upon the creature who loves to perform it. God is responsible but not guilty. He can not incur guilt because He is accountable to no other authority for His actions.

So the word 'blame' can be applied to both God and man in the matter of evil; God takes the blame in the matter of responsibility but man takes the blame in the matter of guilt and indebtedness to his creator.

Bob, will any reprobate be able to say what you believe here at the judgement seat? Will anyone found guilty be able to even utter "God you made me this way?"

[Robert R. Higby]

We have already had many threads on the subject of whether God creates evil and is responsible for sin, the correct translation of the Hebrew RA in Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7, and other verses. Before further discussion I recommend that all review those past discussions.

--Bob

[Forester07]

I wanted to address this.

God never says, "You sinned and it's all my fault." It just doesn't happen.

True God never does say those exact words, but He does through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit say the equivalent. Here are just two examples out of many many verses. I'm sure you already know these and all the others so I don't understand your reason behind your above statement.

Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.


Act 4:26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'--
Act 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
Act 4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

It is clear God is taking the responsibility for the Crucifixion of Jesus but the people who actually performed the sinful acts of murdering Christ are held guilty. What is so confusing about this. It is all throughout scripture. I guess your point is to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Will anyone found guilty be able to even utter "God you made me this way?"

Nope...


[Rom 9:18-20] "... So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

[lionovjudah]

I wanted to address this.



True God never does say those exact words, but He does through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit say the equivalent. Here are just two examples out of many many verses. I'm sure you already know these and all the others so I don't understand your reason behind your above statement.

Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.


Act 4:26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'--
Act 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
Act 4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

It is clear God is taking the responsibility for the Crucifixion of Jesus but the people who actually performed the sinful acts of murdering Christ are held guilty. What is so confusing about this. It is all throughout scripture. I guess your point is to argue for the sake of arguing.

Exactly. Yet bob in disagreeing with the wording of Dort imports that we can blame God for our sin. Never is this the case. Again I ask can one use this excuse at the judgement seat?

[Highlyfavored]

Exactly. Yet bob in disagreeing with the wording of Dort imports that we can blame God for our sin. Never is this the case.

We participate in the sin that God preordained for his good pleasure and the good of the elect.

God being the cause agent does on some level does make him responsible for the injection of the act into reality, it does not however make God a sinner.

Again I ask can one use this excuse at the judgement seat?

This is not an excuse for man, it is simply the fact and I'm quite sure God understands the depths of this much more than any of us do.

20: For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21: that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

In what post did anyone say that God's act absolves man of responsibility? Please answer this Joe.

[Robert R. Higby]

Joe: Again I ask can one use this excuse at the judgement seat?

Joe, if you are elect and redeemed by the right-doing and blood atonement of Jesus Christ, you do not NEED an excuse at the judgment seat!! That is the good news of the gospel! I will deal with the other issues over time but that is the most BASIC one possible!

[lionovjudah]

Nope...


[Rom 9:18-20] "... So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

Amen, becasue the blame lies within them..

[MCoving]

Hmm.. my thoughts on this. First I don't think that what Bob is saying is wrong at all, I would agree with him. Just Joe and others I think is twisting his words around a bit. Just because God is to blame for the ultimate cause of sin in the world, doesn't mean we are not held responsible for doing the sins that we do. I do believe that God's Word explains that God is the cause of sin being created, and I do believe that God's Word explains that we are held 100% responsible for our sin. Thus, I dont think Bob is saying we are not all to blame for our sin or we are not responsible. Its just the first cause of sin entering this world was GOD NOT MAN. That's the main issue.

If God created sin, and He was the first cause of it being in this world (not that He Himself sinned He used other means to have sin come into the world) then you can say He is ultimately to blame for it. God could have never have created sin, never have caused Adam to sin, determined that humans would fall and Christ would be the Savior.. He could have kept everything pure if He so desired. But He didn't. Blame doesn't mean that His people are not HELD RESPONSIBLE! Not at all.. just as much as words like author, creator, etc. Ultimately one must admit that God is the CREATOR OF ALL THINGS. If not then creation goes to man, and I just dont see Gods Word saying that man created sin, or this world, etc.

Here are some verses where I get my thoughts from:Oh and in response to calamity or evil in Amos 3 I believe its evil.. ra is the word I think? So the original language seems to support evil more, plus KJV is right on in that doctrine..

Ephesians 3:9 (NASB) and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;
Col 1:6 (NASB) For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Psalm 38:4, (NASB), When he falls, he will not be hurled headlong, Because the Lord is the One who holds his hand
Isaiah 45:7, (KJV), I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Lamentations 3:31,32, (NASB), For the Lord will not reject forever, For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion
Lamentations 3:38, (KJV), Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
Amos 3:6, (KJV), Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
2 Corinthians 3:4,5, (NASB), Such confidence we have through Christ toward God, Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves.

[wildboar]

It is clear God is taking the responsibility for the Crucifixion of Jesus but the people who actually performed the sinful acts of murdering Christ are held guilty. What is so confusing about this. It is all throughout scripture. I guess your point is to argue for the sake of arguing.

My purpose is to argue for the Biblical position--we have a sovereign God who has decreed all things. However Scripture makes it very clear that man is responsible for his actions and cannot blame God for his actions. Fate is not the true God. God predestined in ways that we cannot comprehend that Christ would be crucified. However He did not author sin. Sin is a desire to rob glory from God which is the antithesis of all that God does and is.

[Robert R. Higby]

Mary,

You've got it right on all aspects of this topic! I thank you for taking the time to post your most pertinent response to this issue!

The Hebrew RA is a compound word that encompasses both wickedness and disaster, sin and calamity, spiritual evil and physical tragedy, etc. In no way does it EVER refer to only one aspect or the other of Latin and Greek concepts of BAD. It always encompasses BOTH, therefore, the notion of a RANGE OF MEANINGS like we have with Greek or Latin words is completely nonsensical. The meaning and force of the semitic languages is very far removed from the Latin, Greek, and European languages in terms of prominent sense! The words DO NOT have a wide range of meanings. The meaning of RA in Gen. 6:5 is NOT far removed from its meaning in Amos 3:6. There may be a slight difference in emphasis but that is all. ANY use of RA means both SPIRITUAL and MATERIAL tragedy or darkness.

--Bob

[Robert R. Higby]

WB: Fate is not the true God.
WHAT??? No one here has EVER argued for FATALISM or that FATE IS GOD!!! Why do you make such an irrelevant point? Fatalism is a heathen concept that denies God's personal involvement in the affairs of mankind ENTIRELY.

WB: Scripture makes it very clear that man is responsible for his actions and cannot blame God for his actions.

The elect will NEVER blame God for their actions; all of their sin is erased by the perfect life and atoning sacrifice/death of Jesus Christ! The non-elect are not DISCERNING enough to blame God for their actions, even though their unmitigated love for evil is ordained of God and is vindication of their condemntation to wrath. Their minds are hopelessly clouded by their absolute and incurable LOVE OF SIN that God has purposed unto His glory. So what is the point here? Is it that God is somehow UNFAIR for causing the reprobate to unchangeably love evil so much? That is what I see in some of the objections voiced here.

[lionovjudah]

Joe: Again I ask can one use this excuse at the judgement seat?

Joe, if you are elect and redeemed by the right-doing and blood atonement of Jesus Christ, you do not NEED an excuse at the judgment seat!! That is the good news of the gospel! I will deal with the other issues over time but that is the most BASIC one possible!

I agree Bob, I am strictly talking about those who die in their sins. They will be left with no excuse except themselves. No pointing fingers at anyone else, and not pointing a finger at God.