Where did evil come from?

Glory Bound & Marcia,

Colossians 1:16 says He created all things, visible and invisible, dominions, principalities and powers. Visible and invisible seems to cover everything.

Choice does not agree with Romans 9. It is according to His will and purpose not according to our will and choices. He created vessels of honor and dishonor for his purpose and glory.

 

Yes, God created all things, but evil is not a thing.

Think about it, what would evil be if God created it? Adultery? Murder? Rebellion against God?

Those are not things, they are behaviors.

 

I posted too soon. I had more to say.

You can't create something (evil) that is a negation or corruption of something (good). Evil does not exist in and of its own; "evil" is the term Christians use for sin. God did not create sin.

 

Swaimj:The question is.Did God create evil?

 

The answer to "Did God create evil?" is No, because he cannot create something that cannot be created.

 

Glorybound, the question on this thread is "where did evil come from"? I do not believe that God created evil as I do not believe (as others have stated on this thread)that evil is a thing. I believe that evil was an inherent possibility in the creation, but not a necessity. Romans is clear: "As by one man sin entered into the world...." Sin entered in as a result of Adam's exercise of his free will.

 

Marcia,

So you don't consider evil as a power? Is it invisible or not?

swaimj,

See Romans 9 which clearly explains the "free will" debate.

 

I consider evil to be sin and it is based on behavior, attitudes and thinking that goes against God, etc.

Is there demonic power? I think so (some Christians don't, they think such power is an illusion and I think sometimes it is but not always), but it exists because it comes from the activity of Satan and demons. It is not a force just as good is not a force.

I think that demonic power results from demons, who are fallen angels. God made angels, some of whom apparently chose to rebel, and they became demons. So anything they do against God comes from them, not God.

 

littlewhitedove asked:
Where did the act of rebellion come from. Not what being showed the act. But who created it to exist. It has to exist before anything could act on it.
=======================================

I think it came from the angels' desire to rebel. I certainly do not think the desire to rebel against God comes from God.

How did the angels have this desire to rebel? I don't think we know. But just because we don't know does not mean we should believe that God created a desire to sin in angels or men. God would have to go against his nature to give someone a desire to rebel against Himself.

 

And Paul quoted some Cretan poet - hello? Are THEY inspired too?

Or the Book of Jasher?

Or that because I just quoted you, that means I agree with you! NO WAY!

Eat the chicken, spit out the bones. Even the most vile writings (like a garbage can) may have something of value in it.

A quotation of one concept does NOT mean unilateral endorsement. Such an argument is indefensible. </font>[/QUOTE]Paul's quote of "some Cretan poet" can not be put on the same level as Jude quoting from the Book of Enoch as Scripture.

The Bible makes no mention of, or illusion to, an Old or New Testament Cannon. The doctrine of an Old and New Testament Canon is, therefore, a doctrine of men rather than a Biblical doctrine. Does that mean that it is a false doctrine? No, not necessarily, but there is no direct Biblical support for it. It is a very widely, but not universally, held convention of the Church—a convention to which I personally hold.

The Book of Enoch is not found in either the Old or the New Testament Canon, but that does not mean that it was not inspired in the same way and manner as the books that are found in the Canon. Jude undoubtedly knew that if he quoted from the Book of Enoch, his doing so would cause the Church to view it as Scripture (and so it was for much of the Church for two or three hundred years), and yet he quoted from it. I believe that Jude considered it to be Scripture, and considering that Jude was a brother of our Lord Jesus, I’ll side with Jude against those who teach that it is not Scripture.

 

I would not add the Book of Enoch to the Bible. Althou I think it is a good book and seems to hold true to God as far as I can tell. It also seems to have refernces to Christ in it as well. It tells the linage from adam to King David thou a vision Enoch has also talks of joseph being sold to the caravan than to the egyptians. Its uses animals in the vision in place of people. The Jews were lambs and the egyptians were wolfes. Althou I think it is a good book and possibly inspired by God It is not needed esentail to the linage and savung Grace of Jesus Christ so it is not necessary for the Saving Grace of Jesus. But I do believe it mentions Christ at one point it says something like Enoch see someone sitting on a throne in front of a Crystal lake and He looked like He was waiting for somethiing and I think He also said He looked like a Lamb. I can not remeber for sure I will have to read it again.

 

The Ethiopian Church has included The Book of Enoch in its canon right up to today.

 

It's interesting to see how many occult and metaphysical groups appeal to the book of Enoch. There are magic books based on it. It seems to have a focus on angels and receiving visions, and gives spurious accounts of things that are not validated. It also has things contrary to Scripture. Just because it was referred to does not make it inspired by God.

 

(It also has things contrary to Scripture)

I am curious what is contray to scripture I would like to know.

 

Good grief, folks, this is easy--the Devil is from California...

 

Interestingly Jesus refers to Himself as "The Son of Man". A Term used throughout the book of Enoch for the Messiah. So it is more than likely that Jesus knew of the book as well as Jude and also Peter who quotes in 2Peter 2:4 that God delivered the fallen angels into the chains of darkness.

The book of Enoch was not included in the Bible because it says that the earth is Sperical, (Round) and of course that could not be true.

The book of Enoch repeats stuff in Genesis and other parts of the Bible. The problem that we have with it, and likely why it cant be included in its current form is that is was found with the dead sea scrolls, yet out of order, hence the order of the chapters is wrong and it tends to jump about all over the place.

Incedently it was also because the References in 2Peter and Jude to the book of Enoch that a case was made against those books to have them excluded from the Canon of Scripture. I read the book of Jude often, I think that it is prophetic for today, sometimes chillingly so. People could do well to consider Jude's words a little more carefully in the church today.

 

Apparently on 2 points -- the rebuking/accusing of angels and having angels marry -- as stated in the excerpt I posted:

Of course some things in Enoch were okay but apparently there was enough questionable stuff there to not include it in the canon.

 

Marcia

The link you left would not work for me. But something I do not understand why couldn't the angels have done that all angels or Sons of God are Males and are able to take on human form as they did with Abraham, Lot and Mary and others.