Miss-Category and God as
the Author of Evil
Below are experts from a man who acted
like he was somebody in knowing the Bible regarding God and evil. Normally I do not give morons like this the
time of day but I decided to make an example him since I thought it would serve
others. I will give him a fictitious
whether in person or online once you determine a person is not teachable, and
are willfully rejecting the scriptures you must rebuke and leave them for
greener pastures, praying God will have mercy on them with a heart of
repentance. The more the person claims to be somebody spiritually and the more
you find out they do not know the scriptures or believe, it then reveals more
and more they are wolves, snakes and were never part of the fold of God. They
are pretenders with the name Christian so as to make a name for themselves to
feed their belly and desires.
in Matthew 21:27, after realizing the Jewish leaders were making His theology
points relative to how it made them look in the eyes of others—and not relative
to scripture—Jesus turns around kicks the dusts of His feet and moved on: not
even Jesus Christ is able to make a point if something is willfully making
truth relative to how it makes them look.
example; if I am bad at math and so find that math makes me look negative to
others—and if I use the rule to shape truth by making myself look good to
others—then I would redefine math as only for dogs and worthless. But if I actually lived this way I could not
count money or find out how much I have in my bank account, or determine how
many hours are in day, etc. The
stupidity of this is obvious, but this gross level of stupidity is exactly what
the leaders were doing with Jesus’ theology points. Of course these same leaders were not as
crazy to apply this foolishness to their everyday lives, but were willfully
resisting what Jesus was teaching but applying this stupidity to His theology
points. If someone is willfully ignoring
the basic rules of logic that are necessary for intelligence and understanding
then even Jesus cannot teach them, for some are “necessary” for any
intelligence. Sadly, some simply want to
rush their way into hell by sheer stupidity.
are 1001 ways to be as stupid as this (such as affirming the consequent or using induction with theology points) and if a person is willfully
resisting the truth by applying such nonsense to your theology points then you
must follow Jesus words and example and find greener pastures, find people who
will at least try to understand. Do not
be fearful; rather, "Whatever I tell you in the
dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops,”
Jack --"God does not
exhaustively predetermine everything that Satan does."
You are filled unbelief. Your issue is not merely a logical one of
interpreting the scripture, it is a spiritual one. You either do not find God trustworthy, or
worse, you believe what the Bible says about God but you dislike this Person.
The God of scripture is directly
sovereign over all things. Nowhere in
the Bible does it state His is not, nor can it be validly deduced that God does
not exhaustively predetermine everything and everything Satan does. The scriptures proclaim a God of total
active, direct sovereignty over all things.
God and Satan is not eastern paganistic dualism of yin and yang, but a Sovereign God who determines all for His
purpose and goals.
Imagine if some random guy named Bob said to
me in all sincerity, "why is the color
green so fast, and why is the color blue so slow?" And so I turned to Bob explaining to him that
movement and speed does not apply to the idea of color. I explained to him that he is committing the
fallacy of miss-category, that is, Bob is placing the category of speed to
something this category does not belong with. Now image Bob refusing to believe this simple and
obvious truth and so walks away wearing a contorted face, trying to figure out
why blue is so slow. Bob's unbelief
has now turned the simple idea of color into an abyss of complication and
confusion. Many frown at the scriptures saying it is complicated like Bob, but
cannot see it is their unbelief which is the problem.
See, it is not evil for God to (for example)
kill, judge, and take vengeance on people; although, it is for us. The only way it would be evil for God is if
God promised not to and then broke that promise.
There is no morality or standard above
rather than assuming freedom assumes a sovereign over you, but there
is no sovereign over God and so it is a miss-category to say God is evil to kill or to deceive people,
for that would plaque God with being responsible to a standard, it would
place God under authority, but God is the last authority.
In fact, even some who call themselves
Christians (falsely) do not like God and love to say such things precisely because
it does place God under a supposed authority.
They love to put God under an authority; they do not like, they despise
being under God's authority and so secretly try to put God under a standard,
making Him responsible, in an attempt to get back at Him. Satan and our first parents (Adam) did not
like how God was running the show, and they to desire to practice their works. God is evil; Green is fast! Besides from being unbiblical it is irrational.
Jack --"Do not love the world or anything in the
world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For
everything in the world -the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and
the boasting of what he has and does- comes not from the Father but from the
world." (1 John 2:15-16)
John explicitly states that these things do not
come from the Father, but from the world. Yet according to your philosophy,
these things DO come from the Father. Who am I to believe? You, or the Bible?
Acts 2:23 "Him,
being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have
taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death." Jonathan Edwards gave this commentary about
this verse saying: [sins of] "contempt and
disgrace was one thing Christ was to suffer. Therefore, even the free actions
of men are subject to God's disposal."
See, out of "lust of
the eye and pride of life" men killed Jesus Christ with contempt, for
contempt streams from the sin of pride. Yet, it is said God-not allowed-but "determined and purposed" these sins; in
other words, the Father "determined" for certain men to be filled with the
"pride of life" so that from this their contempt of Christ God would cause them
to kill Him in innocence. What does this mean then? Is there a contradiction?
The Father has not given us commandants of lust and
pride; rather, God gives us commandants for humility and worship of Him. Also, in context of 1 John, John is talking
about when a "Christian" is saved they are filled with the Spirit, who empowers
us in righteousness. It is an inductive (invalid nonsense) inference to say from this passage that
what the Father commands and supplies for Christians in the Spirit applies to
what the Father does in His decrees and causality. This passage does not address what God does
in His decrees and causality. To infer such a thing is an abuse of Scripture. It
is also committing the fallacy of miss-category and the fallacy of induction. Because induction
as some information in its conclusion not
contained in the Biblical premises then the conclusion is an unbiblical inference. If people refuse to use deduction when
finding what the Bible infers then they are on the same level of stupidity as
the Jewish leaders making truth relative to what makes them look good.
Decrees and His causality in all things are not the same category as God's commandments and His special activity
with the Saints in the Spirit. It is an invalid
stupid inference that if God commanded man not to kill that He does not decree
it and cause it to happen for in Acts 2:23 this precisely the case.
if I were to place God under the same standard that man is under-being under
God's commandments-then God would be guilty of initiating, orchestrating and
causing evil. If God never promised that
what He commands man (do not murder), that he will not do, then it is perfect
holiness for God to kill and murder all He wants. The only way God would be "responsible" or "guilty" of evil in this is if God Himself is under authority, (for
responsibility and being guilty assumes being under an authority), but God is
not under authority so that God being responsible or guilty of being evil is
simply illogical, it is the fallacy of miss-category: green is fast. To say God is evil is as stupid as saying:
blue is slow. It is an implausible
category. Yet, sadly many so-called Christians
speak in such nonsense.
Jack -"If God loathes hearts that devise wickedness
(Proverbs 6:16-19), then it's ridiculous to conclude that He Himself is
ultimately the deviser of all wickedness."
is evil for man to take vengeance, but for God this act is an act of holiness.
It is evil for man to do so because God "commanded man" not to take
vengeance. Commandments given to man do not apply to God.
Evil for man is to break God's commands.
Being evil for man is not about some nasty feeling or thought in the
heart; rather, nasty emotions and thoughts are evil because they break God's
commands. In fact the Bible defines sin
and evil precisely this way for man; 1 John 3:4, "Whoever
commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." Lawlessness is to break the Law of God
commanded to man to obey. It is obvious
why there is problem if this Biblical definition of sin and evil is applied to
God, because God has no law over Him and so the term God and sin (as defined for man by the Bible) are
implausible together and unintelligent. God and sin are categories that cannot be put
together intelligently. Wet dryness?
if man thought of a plan to take vengeance, according to Prov. 6 God would
despise this man for sinning: lawlessness. But it is impossible for God to despise
Himself for the same act of thinking because-vengeance as a sin-is a category
that does not apply to God: sinning and being evil (lawlessness) are categories that are
incompatible with God. If God thought of
a plan to take vengeance on a man, it is not evil; rather, it would be the
reverse; it would be holiness for God to do so. Therefore, your reference of Proverbs and your
conclusion, more than being unbiblical and inductive is simply irrational: green
is fast. Moron!
is impossible for God to devise evil plans because nothing is holding God
responsible and so this idea of God having evil thoughts or plans is completely
irrationality when applied to God in this way.
There is no law for God to break and so the category of God having
sinful and evil (lawless) thoughts is implausible. The only way for God to have an evil thought
or plan is if you make yourself a Judge over God and try to hold Him
accountable to you and this so-called high morality.
Now, let us go
over another example of this.
Jeremiah 7:31 "[
Wicked Israel] built the high places of
Tophet, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not
command, nor did it come into My heart."
This passage tells us
that God did not command Israel to kill their baby sons with fire; that is, it
never entered into any command of Moses or any prophet from God to tell Israel
to do this. It cannot mean it was a new
thought for God, for this would contradict the scriptures teaching on God's
Deuteronomy 32:4, "All His ways are justice." - by definition. This means whatever God does is always just. Since
what God commands man does not apply to Himself we know what is good and just
for God by what He actually does. So
that if God decided to deceive people or murder them or whatever it is by
definition "just." Therefore, it is impossible for God to sin, for all He does
This why when God ordered the genocide of certain
people groups in the book of Joshua that although God was the author of this
choice it is "just" for Him, but if any human would have authored such a choice
it would have been sin (lawlessness).
Joshua 11:20, "For
it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel
in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy
them, as the LORD had commanded Moses."
Here it did enter into God's mind to kill the babies and sons of these
nations with the sword and fire.
Therefore, God hardened their hearts so that this desire of His could be
fulfilled. Although it was by Joshua's
sword, yet, Joshua as a secondary cause, was created by God, commanded by God
and (prov.21:1) is moved secretly by God (Prov.20:24); and therefore, God says,
"I destroyed them." (Josh.24:8)
This for any man would be evil, and so from the "human perspective" God is the author if
evil-if evil is defined as bad things
happening to humans, to their comfort and peace (etc.). But even this is a little misleading in
the sense that what God does by definition is Just, even genocide.
You might be wondering why I redefined evil when applied
to God. I did this precisely because
evil-if defined as breaking God's commandments-is not applicable to God. Thus,
whether you say God is or is not the author or evil you must redefine "evil" in
a way that would actually be intelligible when relative to God.
God is the
author of evil in these 3 senses: (1) bringing harm to people, (2) being
the first (as He is in all things) to
conceive and then also to orchestrated and plan out this harm, (3) being the
metaphysical power making this evil to happen.
Now on to point 2 and 3 consider:
Both the story of David taking a
census and of Job, God in both places is ascribed with the credit -(in the sense of being
the mastermind and initiating) for why the event took place. Although the
Devil was the secondary or direct means for why both David sinned and why the
evil happened to Job, yet God claims credit for the events.
2 Samuel 24:1, "Again the
anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against
them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."" (Also Chronicles
21:1) Job 42:11, "Then all his brothers, all his sisters... comforted
[Job] for all the adversity that the LORD
had brought upon him.."
God claims authorship of this evil for the
reason of initiating and orchestrating this out. In the case of Job God started the whole
thing by asking the Devil about Job! Many miss this! It was God who "first" asked the Devil about
Job! This means the idea to cause Job evil (i.e. harm) in order to show the
glory of His mercy (Jam. 5:11) was by God, not Satan. God enticed the Devil into harming Job by
being the first one to bring up Job in the conversation, God knowing how Satan loves
to destroy people. Although the evil was
produced by other secondary means, Yet it was God who initiated and designed
the event to happen.
42:11, "They consoled Job him for all the
adversity (evil) that the LORD had brought upon him." This Hebrew word for "adversity"
is mostly translated as "evil " in
other passages. In this light, God is the author of evil! Not the devil, God is credited for being the
author of the evil done to Job, because God is the one who initiated this,
planned it, enticed the Devil to do it, and made sure it happened, for even the
Devil is upheld by the God's power. It was God therefore, who came up with the
idea to harm Job first, and not Satan.
Only after enticing Satan with the idea of destroying Job, did Satan
voice up the idea of destroying him.
because this whole affair was truly started by God, and not by Satan which God allowed, but because it was
from the beginning all by God's design, God demands all the Glory and praise
for the good and mercy produced by the
God gave the dreams to Joseph, which was the tipping point of his brothers
wanting to kill him (Genesis 37:5,8). They were not mad enough to kill him. But
God needed them to be, for He had a plan to save many through Joseph. The
dreams were the thing to bring this about and God gave the dreams. Proverbs 20:24, "A man's steps are of the LORD; How then can a man understand his own way?"
God, in this light, does not merely use things
in motion, but rather, from the first initiation causes and orchestrates them
into being and finishes them.
can in some measure be illustrated when a person hires a hit man to take
some one out, or hires a prostitute to seduces another person. The hiring
person takes authorship for the action since, without their initiative or
designing the evil act would have never taken place. If the human way of guilt is irrationally applied to God, then God is guilty,
but again this is not applicable to God who is not under any authority to be
guilty of anything.
Moreover, King David taking a census, was sin
by David's part, it is said: 2 Samuel 24:1,
"Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah.""
(Also Chronicles 21:1.) We read later in
Chronicles 21:2 that God moved David by Satan, but like the story of Job the
scriptures credits God with "God moved
David" even though the direct cause
because the idea of David sinning was first conceived by God and then God
orchestrates this out thought manipulated the Devil. Of course David was not
going to take the census! This is why we
have this long passage of scripture showing why God went through all this
effort to moved David to make this sinful choice through enticing the prince of
Demons to harm David in this way. Think
about that? Initially David was not
going to sin. The actions of men are at
God's disposal. Even though God decreed
and caused and moved David to sin, David is still held "responsible," because
responsibility assumes a Sovereign over you not freedom, as so many wrongly
In 1 Kings 22:19-23 God did not merely allow or use a lying
spirit, which happened to be on its way to King Ahab. God first made a
plan and decreed for Ahab to die in battle. God told Ahab through His prophet
and Judah's king, not to go to war, for if Ahab did it would be a losing effect
with much death. Therefore, as King of
God's people going to this war was a sin!
Yet, Ahab though much pleading by the King of Judah actually and
initially chose to obey God and decided not to war! Many miss this! He actually made the right
choice! If Ahab did not, then why did
God go through the trouble to send a lying spirit? But God reached a
boiling point with Ahab and wanted to kill him and so planned and decreed
for Ahab to sin by going to war so that God could kill him in battle.
Therefore, God requested for an evil spirit to be the secondly
means to persuade Ahab to sin by going to war (which was sin on Ahab's
part). I say this to point out how many persons falsely describe God's
workings as merely allowing or using things already in motion.
Here, God did not allow an evil spirit or king Ahab to go through what
they were already doing, but He
planned then worked this plan into existence. Ahab already chose to obey God,
but God wanted to kill him and so God needed a reversal of things already in
motion. This is as far from
permission and allowing as it gets; a
total reversal of things in motion! When people speak of God's
sovereignty as mere permission they might as well be speaking about pink
dragons and purple care-bears. So, God decree
Ahab to make this evil choice to go to war, that He might judge and kill
NLT 1 Kings 22:19-23, "I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with
all the armies of heaven around him, on his right and on his left. And the LORD
said, 'Who can entice Ahab to go into battle against Ramoth-gilead so that he
can be killed there?' There were many suggestions, until finally a spirit
approached the LORD and said, 'I can do it!' " 'How will you do this?' the
LORD asked. "And the spirit replied, 'I will go out and inspire all Ahab's
prophets to speak lies.'" 'You will succeed,' said the LORD. 'Go ahead and
do it.' "So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of your
prophets. For the LORD has determined disaster for you."
This passage shows that God did hold a meeting with some
demons, (among the other host of Heaven) enticed them, picked one particular
convincing lying spirit and gave it His divine pronouncement of success. God
did not allow this, because it was
God who first voiced up with the
idea of wanting Ahab to sin by going to war when God told Ahab not to: "'Who can entice Ahab to go into battle so that he can be
killed ." In this light, with demons who love to harm
people and lie, God "enticed" them by telling them of His plan of destroying
Ahab: but demons love to destroy people!
If there was ever a situation where the definition of enticed belonged,
it is here. It was not a demon who first
said, let us help Ahab sin by going to
war so that God will have even more reason to kill him: this was God's
initiative. God merely picked out one particularly zealous demon after enticing
it with His original idea. "All
that God does is just." -by definition
Again, secondary causes (like lying spirits) are created
by God, first enticed by God, are sustained by God, directed by God and even
have their own hearts and feet secretly directed by God, for all things in creation move live and have their being in God. It is not in man or demons to direct their
steps, God does; with or without them knowing it! In the since of metaphysical(causality) and
orchestrating God is the author of evil.
When the scripture do go behind the
scenes and show what is happening, it always shows God in this level of
absolute sovereign control. This is the
Sovereign God of Scripture, anything less is paganism.
Because God is the author of evil in the sense of
initiating, and orchestrating and being in control of the metaphysical, it was
not said that the LORD allowed a
lying Spirit to be in the mouth, but that "the LORD
has put a lying spirit in the mouth."
Jack--"This is the message which we have heard from
Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at
all." (1 John 1:5)
Yet a doctrine that portrays God as the author of sin
is effectively saying that everything dark and wicked originates within Him--
Since "all that God does is just," and only God "is
good," then it is impossible and inapplicable to say darkness is in God no
matter what God does. You speak in
unceasing nonsense. Is this how you win
most of your arguments, by bullying and beating people mentally unconscious
It was God
himself who designed the torture and
horror of Hell, although deserved by the recipients. Does this mean darkness is in God, because
God thought up of horrible ways to cause pain and suffering? Of course Not! All God does is just, which is light and
righteousness: when righteousness is understood as God being true to the
worth and value and love of Himself.
God desiring to be faithful to His highest goal of loving His Son, if He
considers all things and then concludes that by initiating, causing and
decreeing men to sin will uplift His Son's public supremacy best, then all such
actions on God's part is righteousness and light, for in such actions God is
making Himself His first goal, which
is the most righteous, light and pure thing God can do since there is no other
worth in the universe other than God.
"Although evil is negative, God's purpose, which is his own
glory, is positive. God is the only one who possesses intrinsic worth, and if
he decides that the existence of evil serves to glorify him, then the decree is
by definition good and justified - because he thinks it is good and
justified. Anyone who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and
suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and
humanity. A creature's worth is conferred by his creator, according to the
purpose for which the creator made him. Since God is the sole standard of
measurement, if he thinks that something is justified, then it is by definition
justified. Christians should have no trouble with this, and those who find it
difficult to accept what the Bible teaches should examine their spiritual
condition, to see if they are indeed in the faith."
Lastly, God cannot tempt anyone
directly. If God told me to do
something, no matter what it is then it is no longer a temptation but a command
that I must obey. This is why the idea
of temptation is not applicable to God in this sense. God does lead people into tests, but also God
leads them into temptation, for the Holy Spirit lead Jesus Christ to be tempted
by Satan in the wilderness. This goes to show you cannot read a verse such as in
James 1:13 that says God does not tempt anyone and then stupidly induce that
God does not lead us into temptation, when the Bible shows us that He
does. This is why we pray "do not lead us into temptation," for we
weak and God does lead us wherever He wishes, even temptation: this is why we
pray for mercy and grace. This same
passage also says God cannot be tempted by Evil. In case some might abuse this let us examine
what this means.
God is an
infinite being who possess every good thing in infinity; and therefore, He is
never tempted to hurt or mistreat His creature to get something, for He has it
all. We are tempted to do evil for 2 reasons. (1) We are evil
ourselves, or darkness. Ephesians 5:8, "For you were once darkness." But God is light and has no
shadow of turning. Darkness is not produced by light; light produces
light. And so God is the Father of lights. (2) We lack and so we
steal, lust, hurt and kill to get what we want. God possess infinity.
He possess infinite blessedness, happiness, value and beauty. There is
nothing good which God does not already have. We have nothing for which
God would want to hurt us in order to get something, since He already has
Therefore, it is impossible for
the Infinite Existence to even be tempted to do evil, let alone do evil, since
evil is law-breaking it is inapplicable to God.
Jack -"You simply assert that my conclusions from the scriptures are invalid.
Why? Why are they "abusive"?
would recommend my book on Christian philosophy called, The Undefeatable Worldview, for a more in-depth look into the
basics of deductive and inductive reasoning.
I cannot make-up right here and now your inadequacy in this basic
understanding. Since you seem to claim
to be somebody in understanding the Bible this is actually an indictment on
your part given by Jesus Christ. You ought to know these things!
is not new manufactured information, nor is it a best sum estimate of the
premise(s). Instead, a deductive conclusion is information already
contained in the original premise(s). The conclusion is necessarily
inferred from the premise. It merely points out and makes explicit
information already contain in the premise(s). Whereas induction has information
in its conclusion that is more than what the original premises give,
information which it cannot accounted for.
Mathematically speaking it is about probability with a numerator and a
For example here is a little
passage from my book:
which has historically been known (and still is) as formal logic, and that
induction is a formal fallacy. What is formal logic you might ask?
Formal logic is concerned with a logical form or structure that is usually seen
in syllogistic form. Formal logic with the use of forms
shows true inferences from a premise(s) to a conclusion. Induction is a
formal fallacy because when following this form of this logic it can never
insure the conclusion is a necessary inference of its premise(s).
In order to
have good hermeneutics one must properly understand what deduction is and then
rightly use it. Jesus Christ gives us many examples how He embarrassed
the Jewish leaders when they did not use deduction, and thus, He showed that
their interpretation of the O.T. was flat out wrong and unbiblical! This
is no light issue, for according to Jesus if you cannot deduce consistently and
correctly then you will be "greatly mistaken" about what the Bible says.
For example; Jesus in Mark 12:24-27 "Jesus
answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do
not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? "For when they rise
from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like
angels in heaven. "But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you
not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to
him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob'? "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.
You are therefore greatly mistaken."
premise is this, "I am the God of Abraham...." The Hebrew, "I AM", for
Yahweh means, I Exist or I Be, in the present-future tense.
Therefore, contained in the premise, "I am the God of Abraham...," is the explicit
information that God is presently the God of Abraham. That is to
say "The Infinite Existence" is the God of Abraham right now: this is said to Moses when Abraham was dead for over
400 years. Conclusion, if God is presently the Existence of Abraham, even
after his physical death, then there is therefore, a resurrection; physical
death is not the end. Jesus rebukes these teachers and preachers of the
O.T. for not using basic biblical hermeneutics of deduction. The
conclusion that Abraham is a live is not a best sum estimate or new
information, but rather, information that is already contained in the Biblical
premise, Matthew 12:24-27, which Jesus merely points out and makes explicit for
us to understand, believe and obey."
teachers this was a great misunderstanding and embarrassment. Basic
deduction was one skill that as teachers they ought to have been professionals
at. I find this fault also with many teachers today. Because induction's conclusion has
information that the original Biblical premises do not contain then this holds
a huge problem with preaching; when preaching is rightly understood as a
messenger heralding what the King decreed: in the Christians case, heralding
the gospel decrees that our King gave us. If we were to use induction then we would be
heralding, at least, some information not given to us by the King, which cannot
be accounted for as coming from our King.
But with deduction since all it does is make explicit information
already contained within the original premise then such an inference is what
the King infers.
Yet here is an example you
wrote to me:
Jack -- "... He was a murderer from the beginning and has always hated the truth.
There is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character;
for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44b)
Applying the term ‘father of lies' to Satan would be
little more than inaccurate pejorative if God were the author of
sin, as the
real source of all the deceit he spreads would in fact be God Himself."
reasoning is fallacious and stupid because it inductive. Let us look at this in syllogistic form.
X - "Satan was a murderer and liar from
the beginning and the father of lies."
Conclusion: If God originally decrees Satan to be the
father of lies then God is the father of lies.
see it? Your conclusion has information
that your passage cannot account for; it has new manufactured information not
contained in your Biblical premise.
Thus, your conclusion is invalid.
Your conclusion has information the Bible does not contain and so it
Bible does have premises that tell us God gives us public truth through His
Divine Revelation called Scripture, and not lies, and so God is the Father of
public truth, "All his precepts are trustworthy." (Psalm 111:7 NIV)
John 6:32, "Jesus said to them,
"I tell you the truth." Zechariah 8:8, "I will be their God, In truth."
And so God gives truth. For His Children He causes them to know and
believe the truth (Ezekiel 36:37, John 6:45), yet for the non-elect God has
predestined and causes them not to believe the truth. In fact God causes them to actively stumble
and disbelieve the truth. (Matt. 13:11, 14-15, 1 Peter 2:8, 2 Thessalonians
And so God actively helps
people to be deceived by lies and causes this to happen secretly through the
metaphysical. All God does is just and good by definition, but if you need
further instruction then Romans 3:7 explains how God causing some to believe
and speaks lies makes Him the God of truth: "the truth of God has increased through my lie."
The scriptures affirm that God decreeing Satan to
be the father of lies does not induce that God is a bigger father of lies as
you so stupidly inferred; rather, the scriptures affirm the lies increase His truth and glory of His
Son's public Preeminence. This just goes
to show there is a reason why inductive conclusions are called fallacious and
invalid; because it has information not accounted for by the premise(s) (Bible)
it is an unbiblical inference: What if
God, wanting to show His wrath
and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of
wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His
glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the
Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9)
For My Glory
I could have quoted the
scripture that says, "all God does is
just," and for any mature Christian who finds the Bible trustworthy this
would be enough. For some their emotions
rule them more than they ought; rather than God's truth and Spirit ruling over
them; others are just not saved at all which is why they do not submit to God's
revelation. And so to help honest struggling
Christians with more of "why" God would decree evil here is Jonathan Edwards to
help answer this:
Glory should shine forth
10.] It is a proper and excellent
thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper
that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all
parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionally
shinning forth, so that the beholder may have a correct notion of God. It is not appropriate that one glory should
be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. In this case, the shinning forth of God's
glory would not answer its true reality.
For the same reason it is not proper that one should be manifested
exceedingly, and another but very little.
It is highly proper that the shining forth of God's glory should answer
his real Excellency; that the splendor should be answerable to the real and
essential glory, for the same reason that it is proper and excellent for God to
glorify himself at all. Thus, it is
necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness,
justice, and holiness, should be manifested.
But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so
that the shining forth of God's glory would be very incomplete, both because
these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also
the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; no,
they could scarcely shine forth at all.
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin,
there could be no manifestation of God's holiness in hatred of sin, or in
showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. If there were no sin to be pardoned and no
misery to be saved from, then there would be no manifestation of God's grace or
true goodness. However much happiness he
gave, his goodness would not be as prized and admired, and the sense of it not
so great, to the degree as we have elsewhere shown. We little consider how much the sense of good
is heightened by the sense of evil, both moral and natural. Furthermore, it is essential that there
should be evil, because the display of the glory of God would be imperfect and
incomplete without it, so evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness
of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which
he made the world. Accordingly, the
creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his
love. Moreover, if the knowledge of him
were inadequate, the happiness of the creature must be proportionally lacking;
and the happiness of the creature would be lacking upon another account also;
for, as we have said, the sense of good is comparatively dull and flat, without
the knowledge of evil.
[§ 59.]...Yet it would not
be evil, but good, even in a creature, to will that evil should come to pass,
if he had wisdom sufficient to see certainly that good would come of it, or
that more good would come to pass in that way than in any other. The only reason why it would not be lawful
for a creature to permit evil to come to pass, and that it would not be wise,
or good in him so to do, is for this reason: that he does no have perfect
wisdom and sufficiency, so as to make it right that such an affair should be trusted
with him. In so doing, he goes beyond
his line; he goes out of his province; he meddles with things too high for
him. It is every one's duty to do things
right for him in his sphere, and appropriate to his power. God never entrusted this providence in the
hands of creatures of finite understandings, nor is it proper that he should.
a prince were of perfect and all-comprehensive wisdom and foresight, and he
should see that an act of treason would be for the great advancement of the
welfare of his kingdom, it might be wise and good in him to will that such act
of treason should come to pass. It would
be foolish and wrong; if he did not; and, it would be prudent and wise in him
not to restrain the traitor, but to let him alone to go in the way he chose. Yet he might hate the treason at the same
time, and he might properly also give forth laws at the same time, forbidding
it upon pain of death, and might hold these laws in force against this traitor.
If the sum total
that has evil in it, when the evil is subtracted, has yet the greatest good in
it, then it is the best sum total, better than the other sum total that has no
evil in it. But if, all things
considered, it really is the best, how can it be otherwise than that it should
be chosen by an infinitely wise and good being, whose holiness and goodness
consists in always choosing what is best?
Which does it argue most, wisdom or folly, a good disposition or an evil
one, when two things are set before a being, the one better and the other
worse, to choose the worse, and refuse the better?"
I did a little background
looking and found that Jack believed in synergism regarding the doctrine of
salvation. After seeing this, then it
became apparent why he believed in a synergism in the metaphysical and with
evil: with evil being split between God allowing (not decreeing in the natural
sense of designing out an original plan) and Satan causing.
I go into detail in my book, The First Importance of the Gospel,
regarding that if one answers the question, "what did Jesus do when He died,"
with, "He did everything to saves us and bring us to Him in Heaven by His own
actions," then if you follow this naturally you must to be a Calvinist and
affirm God's total sovereignty in all things. And so as it is in most cases the central
issue is the death of Jesus Christ, if God is not sovereign there, in man's
salvation, then surly He will not be so over such emotional issues as evil. A lack in affirming God's sovereignty over
evil exposes more than anything else a disbelief of God's sovereignty over the
salvation of man in the death of Jesus Christ at a definite place and time.
To end this I would like to move your thoughts to worship. Upon
considering this Sovereign God who defines what is just for Himself by what He
does, since there is no standard, let us then considered what He did "do" for
so many worthless sinners. Consider Him
who is above the law so much so that sin and evil do not even apply to God
intelligibly. Consider that He send His
Son to suffer "under the Law" to "fulfill" this human law in the "form of sinful flesh." He did this so that we "do not
have a High Priest who cannot sympathize
with our weaknesses, but was in all points
tempted as we are, yet without
sin." If the wonder of His humiliation was not
apparent, may it be now with worship and love to Him who gave it to so many
2 and 3 are more like sub points to the first.
Vincent Cheung, The Problem of Evil, 2012, page 11. www.vincentcheugn.com
Oshea Davis, The First Importance of the Gospel and Redefining Calvinism, 2011
 For more insight on this section, read John
Piper's sermon titled, "Is God less Glorious because He ordained that evil
Copyright 1998, John Piper.
Jonathan Edwards, Concerning the Decrees
in General and Election in Particular, as quoted from my Book: The Divine
Decrees, 2007, Oshea Davis, page 20, 56.