Or everyone is wrong - in the examples cited - it’s another possible outcome. Anyway, happy holidays. Thanks for initiating the Holy Fools tradition thread.
Just a thought but whether God ordained evil or allows evil what really is the difference? God could intervene and put an end to it and he will in the due course of time but until that time it must serve his purposes to let it continue, just as he did with the Cannanites. James said if a man knows to do good and does not, it is sin so since God could intervene there is only one answer that I see. The greater good is allowing evil for a certain period of time until it plays out because there is something to be learned that outweighs the suffering evil brings.
Merry Christmas to all
Dave B, you are on the right track in understanding the passage.
If God had regarded only the Gentiles to be sinners, then He would have had mercy only on the Gentiles.
If He had regarded only the Jews to be sinners, then He would have had mercy only on the Jews.
The idea of verse 32 is that God included all —regarded both Jews and Gentiles as sinners, so that He would have mercy on all (both Jews and Gentiles).
Perhaps we are NOT asking the right questions. Let me throw out a couple.
https://cdn.andertoons.com/img/toons/cartoon6769.png
What is the ultimate purpose of the wager between God and Satan regarding Job? Why did God allow the catastrophes to proceed and then finally gave Job more then what he had before - to reward him?
Now let’s look at 3 possible solutions to the problem of evil. All are more sound - in my opinion - then God ordained evil.
This idea came to me from my study of the Health and Prosperity gospel movement, new thought Christian movement and Christian Science. All three can claim many health, prosperity and healing miracles from contemplating Good as “all-in-all”, absolute all pervading goodness, declaring God’s victory over all calamities repeatedly, etc. Perhaps this does work as a contemplation and thoughts and feelings do shape out reality. Or the holy angels help when we do these things, as contemporary Catholic mystic, stigmata bearer and healer Tiffany Snow alluded to - from her visions . While evil is “apparently” present (definitely unholy angels influence things), God is waiting for us to do out part - to banish it. Any thoughts?
Let’s look at another possible solution. Does Open theism hold the answer?
There is an article entitled Does Open Theism solve the problem of evil and suffering?. Let’s look at what they say:
Here’s another idea. Let’s take a Christian response to it, that came from the Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy. It’s called Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil. Could it be that evil is how we see things at a lower level of perception? If not - then what is wrong with the author’s ideas?
So I gave you a question on Job and 3 possible solutions to the problem of evil. And it is entirely possible to subscribe to all three views. What do you think and why?
I do not know the answer, RandyLKemp! 
The possibility that God the Father ‘rolled the dice’ and lost? After creating the universe from nothing, and terraforming the earth for us, THEN He messes up? That stretches my credulity to the breaking point.
Evil is not truly understood by us, since we are in a lower level of perception? That is really cold comfort, if comfort it be,e to the refugees, the rape victims, the child being swapped around as a sex slave, etc etc ad nauseam. Those acts are evil at any level of reality, supposing that every level of reality is a level where God the Father is God.
Ach, it makes me head 'urt, it does…
declaring God’s victory over all calamities repeatedly, etc. Perhaps this does work as a contemplation and thoughts and feelings do shape out reality.
Actually this is what Hermano said which is that God has ended evil but only “in Christ.” The Prosperity gospel is actually an interesting topic unto itself. The Open Theism answer IMO doesn’t make sense since it doesn’t answer the natural evil question plus God still can observe evil and intervene and stop it. Job questioned God about evil toward him and God didn’t answer directly but made it seem that Job simply can not see the big picture so I think the best answer is that we see through the glass darkly now and one day we will have clarity, but not yet.
I believe that you are right on!
Well, we might need more choices. Let’s look at an article from the evangelical site Patheos: Suffering and the Problem of Evil. Let’s look at some other solutions the article suggests. You can read the details in the article:
Well, are any of these choices any better then the original three I proposed or what others here have offered? Why or why not?
Toward the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and a Church Father, formulated an theodicy, an argument intended to show that evil is necessary for human moral and spiritual development and is part of God’s purpose.
Another early argument with strong contemporary resonance was advanced by the influential theologian Augustine, born in 354, who became the Bishop of Hippo in north Africa. Augustine proposed that, since God endowed people with free will, we were able to freely choose to do evil as well as good. Simply stated, there is evil in the world because humans choose to do evil things.
Certainly overcoming evil builds spiritual muscles just as overcoming physical resistance builds physical muscles. The free will argument to me doesn’t work because one mans free will to do evil is offset by the victim’s free will being violated because he doesn’t freely wish to be victimized.
The issue is the mindless evil that exists, that apparently serves no purpose, that apparently can’t be overcome. That’s the seeing through the glass darkly part of the equation.
In the parable of the Wheat and Tares the angels offer to uproot the tares but are told not to by the Master because it would impact the Wheat so perhaps stopping some evil would have a ripple effect we can’t see and impact everything.
I’m concerned about the waffling around the terms ‘evil’ and ‘suffering’. Yum,waffles…
That God the Father, since the Fall, has providentially used suffering as a soul-making excercise - is one thing, and we have various scriptures to illustrate that, as well as personal experiences.
Far different is the theory that He ordains EVIL. Yes, we can parse the word, define it speculatively - great fun - but evil(s), I submit, are different than suffering. The proof is left as an excercise for the student. 
I strongly reject the thesis that God is the author of evil.
I subscribe to the belief that the evil propagated by man, such as murder, torture and rape of little girls, mental torture, etc. arises entirely from fallen man. God created man with the ability to choose, whether good acts, evil acts, or morally neutral acts. Did you commit or cause any such acts? If not, can you be blamed for them? God did not cause those acts, any more than you. Therefore He cannot be blamed. But He created man, you say, and so He is responsible. Well you created (or pro-created) your children. Does that make you responsible for their choices?
However, not all evil has its origin in man. What about “natural” evil, such as earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, etc.? It may be that God did not create the earth in a way such that these evils would ensue. Perhaps all of nature fell from their initial state, just as man did. Thinking about this year ago, I speculated that perhaps the mosquitoes that God created didn’t bite people and animals and suck their blood to produce their young. I guessed that they may have sucked the juices of plants to produce their young. Less than a week after I had these thoughts, I read in a science book that an experiment was done in which mosquitoes were isolated in a sealed building where they had no access to people or animals. They sucked the juices of the plants in that sealed building and produced their young just the same!
As for open theism, I held that view concerning God’s knowledge long before I had ever heard of open theism. I expressed my view on another forum, and one of the participants suggested that I sounded like an open theist. I looked up the term on the internet and discovered Greg Boyd, who seems to believe as I do, but who expressed his beliefs more fully.
Those who say that open theists do not believe in God’s omniscience, are mistaken. They do. It’s just that they believe that future choices that people will make, cannot be known NOW because those choices have not yet been made, and so there is nothing to know.
I don’t think evil choices made by man have taken God by surprise. I think He knew all of the possible choices that free-will agents might make. But He still considered it worthwhile to make man, because He knew He would do everything possible to facilitate man’s free choice to submit to Him and thus be delivered from evil, and become regenerated with completely different thoughts, desires, aspirations, and emotions. And this will happen, sooner or later, for every human being who has ever lived.
Dude!! Most excellent post!!
Actually, Paidion is correct. There is an article entitled Closing the Door on Open Theism. Especially look at the section Open Theism’s Assault on God’s Attributes.
Please read the rest of that section. In the context of this article, I also embrace open theism. And I extend it to universalism, which is why I am a hopeful universalist.
Now let me fix a soup of my solutions to the problem of evil, starting with the open theism ingredient:
I also buy into these ideas:
Here’s another idea. Let’s take a Christian response to it, that came from the Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy. It’s called Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil. It explains philosophically and theologically why - as Steve puts it in Biblical terms - we see through a glass darkly.
If I were to expand on the author’s thesis, it would be along the lines of Platonic philosophy, with the Critic of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant thrown in, for how we know things in this present reality.
Let’s look at an article from the evangelical site Patheos: Suffering and the Problem of Evil.
And on another thread, it was asked if I embraced the health and prosperity gospel. Yes, but not for the reasons given by traditional health and prosperity gospel ministers and theologians. Nor for the reason New Thought Christianity and Christian Science state. It’s because of a reason given earlier, which TV evangelist Joe Osteen seems to pick up on:
This idea came to me from my study of the Health and Prosperity gospel movement, new thought Christian movement and Christian Science. All three can claim many health, prosperity and healing miracles from contemplating Good as “all-in-all”, absolute all pervading goodness, declaring God’s victory over all calamities repeatedly, etc. Perhaps this does work as a contemplation and thoughts and feelings do shape out reality. Or the holy angels help when we do these things, as contemporary Catholic mystic, stigmata bearer and healer Tiffany Snow alluded to - from her visions . While evil is “apparently” present (definitely unholy angels influence things), God is waiting for us to do out part - to banish it.
Why not change it from a theology to a contemplation or reflection of God’s omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence? Perhaps we can combine the contemplation of new thought Christianity’s Emmet Fox Golden Key with Brother Lawrence Practicing the Presence of God. It depends on when we consider God becomes “all in all”. Now or sometime in the future. If we take this approach, is it possible to have spiritual healing results similar to authors Mary Baker Eddy, Emma Curtis Hopkins, Agnes Sanford, Joel Goldsmith and Emmet Fox?
Let’s take the Golden Key of Emmet Fox at The Golden Key To Prayer by Emmet Fox:
There’s an interesting book I enjoy called Psychic Gifts in the Christian Life: Tools to Connect by Tiffany Snow.
Now let me add 2 things. The bible says we are created in the image and likeness of God. So it brings up 2 points:
The contemplation is only as good as our faith and our growth in Christ (i.e. whether we know it or not). This growth is deemed sanctification in Anglican thought and theosis in Eastern Orthodox thought.
I believe that God’s knowledge of possibilities in open theism only applies to human, angelic and demonic . Not to nature, animals or the universe in general - except where demons and humans might effect it (since holy angels obey God’s commands).
While evil is “apparently” present (definitely unholy angels influence things), God is waiting for us to do out part - to banish it.
Re this element of God waiting for us to do our part, the question is when we see in the gospels instances of folks being healed or miracles happening Jesus connects these things to their faith, “daughter your faith has healed you” or “be it done to you according to your faith.” The same with authority over Satan “you resist the devil and he will FLEE from you”, so the issue is whether this applies to us or whether this only was applicable during Jesus ministry.
Re “apparent” evil, Paul called this age, “this present evil age”. that sounds pretty real to me.
Re “Open Theism” it’s possible but I don’t see what difference it makes in that God being omniscient can predict what will happen or intervene and make things happen.
Re: God ordaining evil or just allowing it, I still see no difference because if evil is something God doesn’t want it seems to me based on what James said, then God is obligated to stop it if stopping it is “doing good.” James said if you know to do good and don’t it is sin, a Sin of omission.
Let me briefly respond to these points:
Based upon the workings of saints in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches… the healing and miracles in Pentecostal churches… even what TV ministers like Joel Osteen mention - miracles are part of this present reality also. One Protestant evangelist said the reason he witnessed so many miracles in third world countries, is that people still believe they are possible.
.
When I use the word apparent, it doesn’t mean it’s NOT real. It just dissolves by a higher reality. It’s like having a disease. It’s real. The doctors say so. The medical tests say so. But it disappears - perhaps because many people pray for you… or you go to a Pentecostal healing service … or ask an Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic saint to interview, by also praying…Or you or someone else, follows the contemplation I’ve mentioned previously. Then it’s no longer a disease. Now I’m not saying one should NOT use science and medicine. Do it. But use prayer and spiritual healing also.
I would say that since God depends on free choices of man - and miracles still happen, depending on how mankind believes and responds - part of God’s response depends on us. Perhaps you can benefit by reading the articles on open theism:
Open theism
Closing the Door on Open Theism
Why open theism doesn’t even matter (very much)
And the last link says this (which relates to my answer):
I agree, Paidon.
My view is that God commits no evil and tempts no man with evil, and does not bind our wills to sin.
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust and enticed.(James 1)
This issue is a mystery, and hard to understand- at least I think so, because I dont fully understand it, but I have a few thoughts…
And now you know what controls, that he may be revealed in his time. 7The mystery of evil has even now begun to work within, only if that which now controls will be taken from the midst; 8And then that Evil One will be revealed, whom Our Lord Yeshua will consume with a breath of his mouth, and will destroy him by the revelation of his coming. 9For the coming of that one is in the activity of Satan in all power, signs and false wonders, 10And in all the error of evil which is in the perishing, because they did not receive the love of the truth in which they would have Life. 11Because of this, God sent them the activity of delusion that they would believe lies. 12And all those who believed not the truth, but chose evil, will be judged.(2 Thess 2 Aramaic Bible in Plain English))
My take on the mystery of evil is a little fuzzy round the edges but…
God created chaos and set us within in it. Gave us the keys to unleash it upon ourselves, and gave us the keys to be released from it.
But if we dont turn those keys, we are futile, slaves of corruption, and out of that corruption comes evil, and wickedness, and altho God has forgiven us, we cannot be released until we forgive, and we cannot understand forgiveness until we see wickedness as our own choice- because who needs to be forgiven for that which they did not conceive?
Every man sins when he is drawn away by the lust of his own heart and lust conceives sin and sin conceives death. And death is its own reward.
In Isaiah 45 and a few other scriptures where God says, “I create evil” or “I will bring evil”, he is not speaking of evil as wickedness, He is speaking of evil event, negative events, judgments.
The evil He brought upon them was the fruit of their own thoughts and deeds(Jer 6:19). In this context “evil” is judgment - not wickedness, or anything to do with temptation. He is contrasting evil with peace- saying, “I can create peace for you if you yield to me, or I can bring chaos and destruction upon you- as the fruit of your own deeds and thoughts”. But there is no place in the scriptures that even hints that God does, or tempts anyone with, wickedness- neither is He saying that he creates wickedness, or tempts anyone with it…
The prophets are all speaking about God bringing judgment on Israel for their wickedness, not God Himself doing evil in any sense of wickedness.
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5
This topic was active recently on tentmaker and a member posted this, about the difference between evil and wickedness, in Hebrew
Thanks Eaglesway.
Your distinction between evil רע and wicked רשע is good טוב!
Quite a different take on it from a Hebraic perspective taken by Jeff A. Benner:
Very few sermons in our Western synagogues and churches would include the passage " I [God] form the light and create darkness, I make peace and I create evil, I am the LORD who does all of these " (Isaiah 45:7) as our Western mind sees these two forces as opposing opposites. However, the Eastern mind sees them both as equals and necessary for perfect balance. In the Western mind, God is only good and therefore unable to create evil. The Eastern mind sees God as a perfect balance of all things including good ( tov in Hebrew, Strong’s #2896 ) and evil ( ra in Hebrew, Strong’s #7451 ).
It should be noted that the English word “evil” has no Ancient Hebrew equivelant, while most English translations will use the word “evil,” it is usually the Hebrew word ra , which is also often translated as “bad.” In the Ancient Hebrew mind there is no such thing as an “evil” person or thing. To understand the words “good” and “bad” from a more Hebraic understanding, these words should be understood as “functional” and “dysfunctional”. God is both functional (such as seen in the Creation story of Genesis one) as well as dysfunctional (such as seen with the destruction of the flood).
Our western mind classifies all things in two categories, either it is “good” or it is “bad”. One is to be sought, cherished and protected, the other is to be rejected, spurned and discarded. Let us take light and darkness as an example. We see light as good and darkness as bad. The idea of light brings to mind such things as God, truth and love. Darkness on the other hand invokes Satan, lies and hate. To the Orientals, including the Hebrews, both are equally necessary as one cannot exist without the other. In the Bible God is seen as a God of light as well as darkness " And the people stood at a distance and Moses approached the heavy darkness where God was. " (Exodus 20:21). If you stare at the sun, which is pure light, what happens? You become blind. If you are standing in a sealed room with no light, what happens? You are again blind. Therefore, both light and darkness are bad and yet, both are good. In order to see we must block out some of the light as well as some of the darkness.
The two poles of a magnet are north and south. These two poles create balance, they are not morally good or bad, but necessary ingredients of physics that compliment each other. Good and bad are more like the north and south poles of a magnet than our Western conception of good and bad.
Can good exist without the bad? Absolutely not, how could you judge something to be good if you cannot compare it to something bad? The same is true for all other concepts. Cold cannot exist without heat, or short without tall, far without near, or large without small. Our western mind usually ignores these extremes and seeks to always find the “good” or the “bad”. The Eastern mind is continually seeking both the “good” and the “bad” in order to find the balance between the two. Even Solomon recognized this when he said " Do not be overly righteous " (Ecclesiastes 7:16).
Throughout the scriptures this search for balance is found, yet ignored by Westerners who do not understand the significance of balance.
Do you guys think that there could be an interplay of good and evil as a necessity in life?
Hi mik… on what basis is this above constituted as “a Hebraic perspective” or mindset, as in, how do you know this qualifies as such. Certainly it reads to me to be little more than baptised and religionised yin yang — just asking.
Hey there davo,
I would say it’s a hebraic perspective based on the inclusion of using scripture (OT) to form the viewpoint. Was also looking online about it, and it seems that the more common view from Jews is that God does create light and dark (Isaiah 45:7), yet is also inherently made of Love.
We do definitely see it in other cultures, which I would say take a more naturalistic view of looking at it. Which is totally ok.
Personally just trying to see if all this coincides with the rest of scripture.
Does that answer your question?