Is God the Author of Evil?

What you wrote here almost sounds like a riddle or wordplay. Maybe it would help to insert a few commas and different wording, or something. If you will permit me: "Those once dead in sin, but ...in Christ [having died to sin], are alive in Christ and dead to sin; and we will die [temporally]. Those dead in sin, [but still living temporally], and [not] alive in Christ, are not dead to sin; and [these] too will die [temporally] only to die [eternally] again after that. In the end death gets dead."

Haha! Now, I'm scratching my head. "Did I say that right?" Anyhow, it was fun deciphering what you were saying, and I agree with you. One thing is sure: In Christ, Death has been put to death. Yet we don't see it that way as yet. 

Nope ..... 

Nothing is rational about you guys continually re-filing no one can be from a gospel that happened circa 2000 years ago. 

Because of Paul's supposid writtings. 

Now then, please expalin to me how that is sensical.  

Let's take a moment and look at how this thread has turned off-topic. This op asks a fairly plain. simple, and direct question: Is God the author of evil? and this question is asked specifically in the context of Isaiah 45:7 and its real or perceived conflicts with the many, many scriptures clearly stating God and His work(s) is/are good, holy, righteous, perfect, etc. In other words, the question isn't a particularly sectarian inquiry. It is an exegetical inquiry: How are the seemingly disparate verses reconciled?

The overwhelming consensus in Christianity is that God is not the author of evil and there is a valid and veracious means of reconciling verses like Isaiah 45:7 with verses like Genesis 1:31 and that means begins with not proof-texting any single verse. This has been both the majority view and the historical view within Christianity. Those claiming God creates evil (and calls it good) have always been the minority and the outliers.

At this Several posts ago the mention of the word "Israel," prompted some digression. The same has happened with the mention of "Paul." 


Why?


Better yet, since this op is not specifically about Israel or Paul, can we get back on topic and stick to answering the specific singular question asked in this op? Is God the author of evil?




In answer to that question, I say, "No," adding the only reason people take a proof-texted version of verses like Isaiah 45:7 to mean God does create evil is because the post-disobedience context of Genesis 3:6 is forgotten, neglected, or ignored and when that change is remembered we properly understand Isaiah 45:7 in its scripturally declared context: in an already sin adulterated world God can and does create evil and He can do that because He is sovereign over all things, even the existence of evil.

The absence of light is dark. ..Light is, so it cannot create that which it isn't from its own being. How can it be present and absent at the same time?  Can a light source turn on and create a light that causes another light source to shine out darkness?  ??

GOD is both Light and Love - so cannot create that which is the opposite of HIMself from HIMself. Dark is only created when something impedes the light. In theological terms this can only be achieved by a person choosing to reject and rebuke that which is the source of all light and love, ie, GOD, and so impedes HIS light.

Christians who allow their GOD to be defined by the pagans and the other religions of the world miss the mark. Only YHWH is the GOD who is pure Light, pure Love, unsmirched by a desire to do, create, evil in the least.

The Bible metaphors for this reality are found in Matthew 7:16-18
James 3:11-12, Matthew 12:33, Luke 6:43

Is the distinction being made consistent with verse like Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:31, Exodus 31:17, John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Colossians 1:16 (the many verses that speak of all things that were made being made within the first six days)? 

Traditionally, God is held to be the Uncaused First Cause by whom all other causes occur. Christianity does not deny subsequent effects of creation possessing their own causation. Adam caused sin and death to enter the world through his disobedience. Adam caused that, not God. 

How about this: Evil is the absence of good. 

God declared all things good in Genesis 1:31. Specifically, explicitly, literally what he declared was all things He made to be very good but at that point in creation there was nothing existing that He had not made. The disobediences (plural) of the adversary, Eve, and Adam had not occurred, and their disobediences are easily understood as an absence of good, and absence of faith, a missing of the target (a missing, not a hitting of something). 

It is true that the human mind is finite and therefore not capable of understanding all things, but it is equally true that 1) the revelation of God by God was provided specifically and explicitly for the asking of knowing and understanding, 2) God made creation knowable AND 3) God made creatures with the capacity to know the knowable. 

Therefore, appeals to human limits should be used cautiously because God holds us accountable for can be known. To deny something as unknowable runs the risk of another sin. God may not expect humanity individually or collectively to understand everything about Himself, or evil, but He does expect us to know and understand what He has made known and knowable with the expectation it will be learned. 

And yet Isaiah 45:7 clearly states He does. 

Some have split hairs by appealing to various translations or interpretations of the Hebrew, "ra' " but, unless a person subscribes to a strict utilitarian ethic, all the variations still amount to various aspects of evil (or an absence of good). 



However, a point of clarification is in order because the op does not ask if God created evil. It asks if He is the author of evil. The term "author" can mean creator or originator, but it can also mean instigator or promoter. The Hebrew word (bara) can mean either to create (ex nihilo) or to shape (ex materia) . The trouble arises when we ask how the Creator of all that is good could also create the absence of good (and call it good). 




For those with an interest, I recommend Ron Nash's book, "The Concept of God." It's not a big book and covers a lot of territory in a little space.

the only non being is because of the pagan gods (fallen angels, same) and adam working for them 

Is English your native language? Do you have any impairments about which your fellow posters should know? Are you posting from a cell phone or tablet? Are you in a hurry?

These are commonly occurring conditions that commonly lead to things like incomplete sentences, bad syntax, spelling errors, etc. I am NOT insensitive to these conditions but neither do I have much tolerance for those getting defensive over their end of things. Just let me know what's going on because if there is no reason for the incomplete sentences, the incomplete thoughts, the misspellings, the broken syntax, etc., then that's all on you. You let me know - you let us, your fellow BAM members know, and we'll make the needed adjustments. 

Otherwise, those last three posts are just messed up and not worth anyone's time. 





This exchange is a tangent. It began with my commentary about the importance of context and your response, 

No one knows why any of that was posted. No one knows because it has not been explained. Two sentences of my post were emphasized, quoted with a hugely increased font, italicization, and bold face. No one knows why those two sentences were selected and no one knows why they were emphasized, and no one knows why they were quote mined and no one knows how the response is related because you did not provide any explanation, and no one is even remotely suggesting Paul was inconsistent. No one is suggesting all are not dead. No one knows what the incomplete sentence "No one to ever be again..." means. The three words, "Being is dead..." is self-contradictory, no one has said anything about "being" and you're not explaining yourself. No one knows what you mean by "Not being won the day," because it can mean many things and if it means many things and the interpretation is left up to the reader then it means nothing. Since you and e v e are the only two posters even mentioning the word "theology" no one knows what you mean by "Kind of wierd theology." No one knows why there are so many spelling errors in your posts or why more care isn't taken to correct them given the forums auto-correct feature. 

So, either help me and everyone else understand why this mess happened so we can accommodate it or fix it on your own. 






God is not the author of evil. Understanding the post-disobedient context of scripture after Genesis 3:6 is critical to understanding the seeming conflicts between God's good works and God's evil works. Selective proof-texting of individual verses is bad practice. Paul is consistent, and he is consistent both with himself and with the whole of scripture. 

And nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. 
I hope there is no dispute between us on any of those things and if there is then it is incumbent upon you to explain how that is the case. 
Me too.