I recently heard Bill Johnson state:
"'Most every believer confesses that God is Good. We have to, it's in the Bible. It's not the conviction of His goodness that threatens us. It's our definition of His goodness that has brought much debate, sometime conflict and turmoil into the family of God. If He is as good as some claim, it will require massive change in how we do life. Instead of creating doctrine that explain away our weakness and anemic faith, we actually have to find out why the "greater works than these" have not been happening in and around our lives. And much like the Pharisees, who saw Jesus as a threat to their positions of power and influence, so many leaders feel threatened over a shift in theological positions that imply we've not been as successful in ministry as we could have been. The fight to protect the sanctity of our history has kept us from a more significant future.'...
There are people, who will actually stay with the deception in their family line, to protect their memory of their family, instead of yielding to Christ to make a difference for following generations. They try to ease something and sometimes we believe things that just simply aren't true. And it can be as extreme as holding to something that is total, absolute deception, anti-scripture. But, people hold to it, because they are trying to protect the memory of their parents, or grandparents, or whatever it might be. And other people will do very similar things with the nature and the character of God. I just want to proclaim to you, I believe the Lord put this on my heart today, because He is releasing a grace to change things. He's releasing and enablement, a grace to change what we've seen to this point."
–Bill Johnson
[source]
Today, I saw a post from a friend on Facebook that spurred me to this writing, showing something in the midwest that has become all too common in New England. A subject, which I have been meaning to write on for some time now...
If people can love darkness, then we can’t say that love is the defining factor.
In the Greek, there are multiple words for love, though "Agape" is the love of God. It is the love that we are commanded toward one another.
Agape love is of a nature that it pulls someone from darkness. Yet, people also love sin. Therefore, the word “love” is not synonymous with the reality of agape, because while "love" can propel people toward darkness, agape would rescue them from it.
Homosexual love is eros, but not agape. Agape is not eros, unless it is in a biblically accurate context (sic, not a homosexual relationship). Agape puts God’s words at the center, then acts outwardly from there, because it's in the best interest of those around them. To deny this in the homosexual context, is to deny God, because His Word is clear on this issue, and He IS agape love.
In other words...if something damns the soul, then one does not agapeo another by keeping them in it.
They might have agape right on every other subject, but if they miss something so clearly damnable, they make themselves like the one who says, “Lord, Lord….”
The wolf is known to be among the sheep. They will look like sheep. The tares will look like wheat. The devil comes as an angel of light. These are the warnings, which Yeshua gave.
A simple (think hermeneutics) reading of the Word renders homosexuality a sin that prevents entrance to the Kingdom.
People can claim that homosexuals can be Christians, but them saying it doesn’t make it so. ...and yes, I've seen their theology...SMH.
People are becoming increasingly onboard with this and it's doing further damage to the sanctity of the church, compromising our position of salt and light to rogue and godless world.
Only by complex deception, have people forsaken truth (2 Thess. 2:10), believing the message of a counterfeit love. A supposed love that lulls the damned to sleep, like a siren in their darkness.
Will not the light bearers carry the light, that it may penetrate the darkness?
—JCF
In the last year or two, there has been an issue that I have been aware of, but have not really addressed much. Recently, I have had some interesting discussions surrounding the balance of God's grace, in light of passages on works. In this article, I want to address this subject.
Now, I know we have been taught that no work is required. This belief is founded on this passage:
"For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life" (Eph. 2:8-10).
Yet, this passage simply doesn't mean what people think it means.
Let's look at the verse again, but I'm going break it apart and accent some key aspects:
8 "For by grace you have been saved THROUGH FAITH, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,"
9 "not of works, lest anyone should boast."
10 "FOR WE ARE HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus FOR GOOD WORKS, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
So, this very verse that people quote to mean that works are not required, also points to the connection of faith and works. Let's look closer at the connections we can infer from the passage.
Salvation is THROUGH FAITH… If you don’t have works, you don’t have faith, because your faith is dependent on your works. So, therefore the faith would be dead. If you don’t have faith, by what faith are you saved?
Keep in mind that "through faith" doesn’t simply mean “belief,” like we think of it these days. Faith, by biblical definition, requires action.
For belief in God is so much more than we make it out to be. Even the devil believes, but we must believe “unto salvation” (Greek text analysis).
This signals a change in behavior, from glory to glory (2 Cor. 3:18), not merely a change of mind, as some preach.
Next, Ephesians 2 says, “…not of works, lest anyone should boast. FOR [because] WE ARE HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus FOR GOOD WORKS…”
Note the word "for," which can be swapped out with "because," without losing any meaning. This means that the latter part of the verse is a direct effect of the preceding cause. We can reverse the logic flow of the argument and it would look like this:
"We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, therefore salvation is not of our own works, lest anyone should boast."
When we reverse that logical flow, the passage becomes easier to understand as it was meant, which is that our salvation is not of our own works, because we are his workmanship (back to the original logic flow).
So then, this effectively means that we can’t even claim full credit for the works we do, because it flows out of the workmanship of Christ. His workmanship is the reason for our works, and our works could not be complete without that.
To parallel that back to the analogy of the guy lost at sea, God made the man. He made him with giftings and He made him with purpose. His strength to row (or even swim) to shore and his very life were gifts from God, which flowed out of His workmanship. His faith and diligence are also a gift from God.
So, works are required for the very faith we need for salvation. Even so, the works do not save us. This is a very important distinction.
Don't misunderstand me. There’s nothing we could ever do to be saved. Even if our works were more than any mere mortal in history, we would still be unable to save ourselves.
Yet, works alone not being enough to earn salvation, is not synonymous with saying works are not required.
Eph. 2:8-9 is pointing to the first, not the latter. Let's look at why.
The emphasis in the Ephesians passage should be on the word “believe.”
What Is Belief?
If Noah “said” he believed, but didn’t build the ark, did he really believe?
So, if we truly believe that God raised Christ from the dead, then our declaration is not in word only, but also by how we become passionate for the great commission and His purpose for our lives.
Belief itself is not merely a mental exercise. It requires a response, or that belief is merely a philosophy that one has not yet aligned themself to. Re-read that.
God gave me a visual of this grace and works issue. Consider a man lost at sea and God sends to him a boat adrift. Then, the man climbs aboard and paddles to shore. Who saved the man? Did God save him, or did he save himself?
See, by God’s grace he received the boat, but by his works he made it to shore. God saved him, but his works flowed out of that. His works are a byproduct of grace. So, it’s by God’s grace he was able to complete the works.
Such it is with salvation. Without salvation, the works would not be completed. Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Therefore, faith precedes the works, which are made possible by the faith.
The Bible says that faith without works is dead. So, if you don’t have works, you don’t have faith; and if you don’t have faith, you can’t be saved.
In the metaphor, Christ gave him the boat, or better yet, Christ is the boat! The man must believe that the Boat can get him to shore! Yet, he must row, to prove his faith. By proving his faith, his salvation becomes manifest.
That’s scriptural yo!
Faith is not faith without action. It is through our faith, with action, that we are are saved. Even so, our faith with action is useless without Christ's sacrifice.
Therein is the very point I am making! If we could do everything right, we would still not be justified, because of our sinful nature. So, even though we paddle to shore, Christ's sacrifice made it possible. Therefore, even still, no man can boast!
So, at the risk of being slightly redundant, let's look at it in other words. Even though works are a necessary part of our walk and salvation, it's still not because of our works, because the equation doesn't equal salvation without Christ's work on the cross.
Our faith does not merely mean believing with our minds. It means to believe so much that we actually act on our beliefs.
Otherwise, it isn't belief. Therefore, it is actually unbelief. This is why we are given the Parable of the Talents.
If a person has no works, both belief/faith and works are removed from the equation, which leaves the person unsaved.
I remember when I was about 17. I loved reading Proverbs and found everything so interesting. Around that time, God gave me a few logic flows, diagrams, of how different situations worked.
For years, I didn't do many of these, until the last couple of years.
This is a logic flow God gave me, concerning the balance of faith and works:
Let's look at the scripture for these aspects.
The Bible produces faith (faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God, Rom. 10:17).
Faith causes belief and action, of which Hebrews 11 shows multiple examples.
Faith without works is dead (Js. 2:26). So, logically works substantiate one's faith. ...and it's back to faith again!
People argue, "but, we're saved by grace alone!" No, we're saved by grace, through faith. Active faith includes works, or the faith is dead. Therefore, the biblical definition of faith includes works. It's baked right into real faith.
Think of our initial work of belief like the starting of a car, where the starter gives fire to the spark plugs.
God's Spirit is the starter, because He calls us, and our faith is the plugs.
If the plugs are not working, we have everything we need to have faith, but the faith doesn't work.
If we don't have works, we have faith, or dead plugs.
When God fixes our plugs and believe, our spiritual car starts and our journey toward God begins. However, we still need ongoing fire, which is why we have the warning of the lukewarm church in Revelations (Rev. 3:14-22).
The gas is the Holy Spirit, which tells us what works we are to burn through, bringing power and hope to our lives in Christ (Rom. 15:13).
So, our continual works fuel our faith in an ongoing basis.
It seems that most people have a lofty idea of what a work MUST be. While these lofty things CAN be works, simpler things can also be works.
I've had posed the argument, "what about the guy on the cross, next to Jesus?"
My answer to that is, he did everything he could. That’s actually the point.
The thief's only work was to believe on Jesus. This is every Christian's first, and most important work.
However, this is where many Christians believe the works may be permissibly halted, but the works don't stop there, without risking the quality of our faith. We eat meat, we grow spiritually, and God calls us to other works. From our belief in God, we do His work. In this, our faith is substantiated, because we are then walking in our purpose.
Perhaps a second work is to get baptized. Or, to be a witness....or, to bring a meal to someone.
So, for the seasoned Christian, works would look very different from the guy on the cross next to Jesus.
While this may seem daunting, consider this question:
Will God give you the grace to do His work? If you answered no, then check your faith, because His Word says He prepared those works beforehand, that we may walk in them (Eph. 2:10). Plus, He also said that he would not put any temptation above that which you are able to bear…that includes the temptation to pull a Jonah and run from your calling.
The Bible says, we "have been" saved (2 Tim. 1:9), are "being" saved (1 Cor. 1:18), and "will be" saved (Rom. 5:9-10).
Therefore, it is necessary for our faith to be active/valid throughout our lives, at least onward from conversion.
It's in this light that we need to approach our faith and works.
If our faith is dead, because of our works, then our faith is of no effect any longer. Then, by what are we "being" saved?
So, in the beginning, a work is believing in Christ. After that, our works are to be increasingly geared around what the Holy Spirit is telling us to do.
It really comes down to whether or not we are following Christ. If we are, then the Spirit will guide us into truth and reveal to us our call.
Your works are your calling. As the verse says, we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Is this not the very definition of God's calling?
Think of these works like stepping stones to salvation, by His grace.
God Bless!
–JCF
In terms of our origins and this debate of Creation vs. Evolution, at the end of the day, it comes down to the beginning, which is why the iconic intro to Genesis begins with answering the very question of “the beginning.” Our understanding of the very existence of God is intrinsically tied to this issue of our origins.
In this article, I’ll look at a few arguments concerning cosmology and the logical end of their sums.
Some Evolutionists reject the idea that there was “nothing” in the beginning, but that matter always existed:
“The logical conclusion is that at some point, all matter started from a single point a few millimetres across before exploding outward.” [source]
Others say that the universe expands and contracts in a never-ending cycle, known as the cyclic model of the universe.
The glaring reality here is that even if this were true, this still relies on there being “something” to begin with.
Both theories presupposes pre-existing matter:
“Essentially, what was once a tiny, packed-together universe expanded out rapidly…” [source]
Even if the whole of creation contracts into the space of a grain of sand, it’s still SOMETHING!
Both of these fail to answer (or even tackle) the question of how the visible universe got here to begin with! Although, that isn’t really surprising, given the lack of logical answers outside of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal God; something evolutionists avoid like the plague, against all reason.
The lack of a logical explanation for how everything got here, particularly something that can be observed in the natural world, is in itself a strong case for the source of everything being outside the visible, natural world. More on this later.
Additionally, we don’t see something coming from nothing in the natural world.
To compound matters, these days, they’re saying that instead of something impossible happening once (Big Bang, matter from nothing), it allegedly happened multiple times (multiple Big Bangs) across the universe… 🙄
This is without even bringing the intelligent design arguments to bear on the subject. When you bring in the arguments for intelligent design, the already floundering Big Bang (and related) theories take a sharp nose dive.
Also, concerning the cyclic model, the “no beginning, no end” part not-so-mysteriously describes the very nature of God! Imagine that!
But the evolutionist is like, “oh no! We can’t say that!”
I have a big smile on my face! 😆
It’s like God embedded His fingerprint into the very logic of the universe to confound the unbelievers, while simultaneously enamoring and mystifying the elect He has called.
Let’s be clear, the Bible doesn’t say there was nothing in the beginning, but rather that there was God (Genesis 1:1-5 & John 1:1-2). So, when I refer to nothingness, I refer to it in the physical sense.
I’m saying that everything came from nothing in the physical realm, but I’m also saying that everything came from something in the spiritual realm.
Saying that God created everything is also saying that something came from something, but the difference is that we don’t see matter coming from nothing normatively in the natural world. Moreover, we don’t see unintelligent things generating new things or bringing order to chaos.
Given that the alleged bent of the atheist is the use of science as a means of proof, one would assume they would demand of themselves actual observation of the things they allege.
Instead, they are basically saying that something came from something in the physical realm, or that it always was. Both of these phenomenon are not scientifically unobserved and therefore violates the very scientific method atheistic evolutionists purport to validate their views.
Again, I’m saying that everything came from nothing in the physical realm, yet everything came from something in the spiritual realm.
Because we don’t know much about the spiritual realm (potentially quantum realm or other dimensions), this leaves this in the realm of the unknown.
You could potentially claim the same thing about the quantum realm randomly generating matter, but the difference comes down to intelligent design.
Additionally, some may say it’s not necessary that there was “nothing” to begin with, but that matter could always have existed. That notion undermines the entire point. The point is about “something”…specifically where that something came from. The origins of the visible universe.
So, at this point, the level of faith required to believe in either is about the same. Faith in God or faith in everything having already existed…um, somehow…randomly…magically…
I’ve also had people ask, “then who made God?” or “where did God come from?” …as if they have me with these questions.
First, this argument is shortsighted.
If one asks that question, they have to ask where the next one came from, then on and on.
This is the fallacy of infinite regress.
That proposition is an invalid line of reasoning. So no, asking “who made God” is not what we should be asking, because it’s impossible to get an answer from that line of questioning.
Some may also allege that the existence of God is an infinite regress, but the argument for God is a bit different, because we know that matter doesn’t appear out of thin air and we know that we can’t repeatedly ask the infinitive question of “who made God.“
However, it is entirely possible for us to not fully understand God’s infinitive nature, but it still be so. In fact, our ignorance and finite perspective is the most likely common denominator, which I’ll cover later in greater detail.
Furthermore, we know that there must be an answer to where everything came from, whether we know it or not, or whether we are or are not capable of understanding it.
Atheists have proven on my social threads that they can’t give a logically plausible answer for how there was a spec of matter that expanded into everything, or where matter itself even came from.
Second, it takes faith to believe in both God and everything already existing, because we can’t physically observe either, at least not in an empirical manner.
Yet, they demand empirical proof of God, but don’t have so much as a rational theory on how even matter and the visible universe came into being. That notion is indelibly preposterous.
We experience time linearly. God's infinite nature is admittedly very difficult to comprehend, given our finite linear perspective.
But an all-knowing God would already know every thought He ever thought or would ever think, all in the same exact moment.
Except that one moment is no different than the next moment. Then the moment after that is no different than any other moment, because nothing is new.
I’m giving the example in a moment by moment format, because of our limited understanding, but the infinitive nature of God is like one moment or state of being that is outside of time. Nothing can be added to it, because He is all-powerful and all-knowing.
If you already know everything, you have already experienced everything. You would have a map of it in your head and you would already know every thought and feeling that you had about everything that ever happened.
He's not in the flow of time. He's outside of it!
We are bound by time’s linear nature, but logically speaking, if there is a God (which, of course, I believe there is), His omniscient nature would preclude that He isn’t bound by the linear nature of time.
If that’s the case, we can say God primarily exists in something like a single moment outside of time, because when everything is known there is nothing to experience.
Events cannot unfold for Him. Nothing can surprise Him. Nothing is ever different for Him.
He just IS.
Time is an expression…a creation…a dimension He sets up, quite outside of the state of His original nature.
When I say that He exists "primarily" outside of His creation, I'm talking about the very NATURE of God, His original state, not just His manifest form. He can appear anywhere at any time. Given that He knows every event and detail, He is simultaneously connected to every location throughout space and time.
He can weave into one time and place, then weave out of it and into another, much like a needle and thread weaves in and out of fabric. Except that because He is omnipotent, He can do that in every time and space all at the same exact time. In a sense, I would say that His omnipresent nature is a latent byproduct of His omnipotence and omniscience. His omnipotent nature necessitates His omniscient nature. How could He be all-powerful if He couldn't be everywhere at once?
So, because He is omnipresent, it's entirely possible for Him to be both outside of time and space, yet still be inside of it too.
The cosmos we live in has a bearing on our perception. Outside of this cosmos, other perceptions can exist; other rules and other realities.
You might compare it like this: On Earth, we can’t float around, because we are affected by gravity. But when we go into space, we can float. The rules haven’t changed, but the effect of them has. Gravity still exists, but the effects of gravity are not felt.
The reason those rules have not changed, is because the person on Earth and the person in space are still in the same cosmos.
What Christians believe is that the cosmos itself is a creation of God and therefore He is beyond it, which means that everything we think we know about what is possible is confined to the limited perception possible from within that cosmos.
Once outside of that cosmos, the rules change. It’s like the theory (and mathematics) of multiple dimensions.
In this widely recognized video, a high school student gives an explanation of how the 4th dimension would appear:
In the video, he gives an explanation of what a two-dimensional being would perceive and how the two-dimensional perspective obviously isn’t correct from a three-dimensional perspective.
During this explanation, he states, “since we can actually see it from the three-dimensional world, and perceive things to be in two dimensions, we can see things for how they actually are.”
Now, let’s parallel this with God being outside of our cosmos and possibly on a completely different dimensional plane.
In this case, God would see things as they really are and we would be limited to our three-dimensional existence.
Mathematically, dimensions beyond our own do work, even up to 21 dimensions. It's possible that God exists on a dimension higher than ours.
Now, I'm hypothesizing at this point, of course. But, if this is the case, then it makes for an interesting point.
A two-dimensional being would exist on the first and second dimensions, but not on the third dimension. Yet, a three-dimensional being exists on all three. Therefore, if God exists on a higher dimension, then He would also exist on every other dimension under it. Given that God is omnipotent, we could then conclude that He would exist on the highest possible dimension.
Yet, we would not understand that dimension or what is possible within and from that dimension.
Regardless of whether or not He exists on some higher dimensional realm, His omniscient nature precludes that He doesn't experience time like we do. This aspect of His nature indefinitely makes Him separate and distinct from any other being. He is completely unique. In that regard, He always has that part of Himself that is completely separated from everything.
There is none like Him.
Yet, simultaneously He has built everything around Himself. This is proof that God desires relationship with His creation. He is high above His creation (speaking of stature), but He is with His creation also, because of His desire for relationship.
What appears to the atheist to be impossible, may very well be completely possible, but the perception of mankind is limited.
So, then why should an atheist believe in a dimensional perspective of a God they can’t directly see or scientifically quantify?
The answer is in the fact that, despite all of their desperate extrapolations, they still cannot answer where everything came from. Nor will they ever in any scientific sense.
The atheist wants an answer within the realm of their understanding, but that does not exist.
Their hypotheses of matter always existing...or everything suddenly coming into being with all of the laws of the universe somehow all being consistent across time and space...these theses are not logically possible.
In the absence of a rational, material explanation…one cannot hold to these things. The logic points to another dimension, where an intelligent designer exists by laws that we cannot fully understand.
This question of God and the origins of everything extends beyond our abilities of comprehension. But, it is in the incomprehensibility of the subject, that we see God staring at us, as if to say, “here I am.”
The unknown and unexplainable aspect...the inexplicability of our origins, from a naturalistic perspective demands one look outside of our known understanding for the truth.
Logic precludes that the arguments made by evolutionists are not rationally possible. Yet the argument that God’s infinitive nature is beyond our comprehension is completely possible.
As I stated in the beginning (of this article, of course), at the end of the day, it comes down to the beginning (of our origins, of course).
Regardless of which view you hold, something essentially came from nothing or always was; either God, or matter.
There is nothing in the natural world that gives rise to believe that matter came from nothing.
Therefore, it’s more logical to be open to the possibility of there being an answer in the spiritual (perhaps quantum) realm.
Given that the argument for an Intelligent Creator is more logically plausible, the burden of proof is on the atheist; and it’s a burden that their illogical extrapolations have not began to accomplish.
As mysterious as it is, an all-powerful, pre-existent, eternal God is the best answer out there that even tackles all of the aspects of the question, “where did everything we see come from.”
-JCF
It has been proposed that evil has not always existed and won’t exist in the future, because there won’t be evil in the eternal new heavens and earth.
This assumes that these are the only places that will exist. But hell and the lake of fire will also exist.
So, I ask you, is hell full of goodness or evil? Gnashing of teeth...eternal torment...for eternity...etc.
The beings in hell will have chosen to be there, because they will have chosen the darkness and chosen evil.
Yes, God created a perfectly good world with no evil, but that doesn't mean that evil did not exist outside of the world. Does the Bible not say that "sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Rom. 5:12)?
If sin and death are evil, then that would also connote the entrance of evil into the world.
Satan had the opportunity to become evil, even though he was in heaven with God. This substantiates three very relevant and important points.
Finally:
It’s been proposed that God “created a creation that allowed for evil to come into existence as a result of His creations rebellion to His commands.”
If this were true, then it would mean that God created evil, by choice, because the evil would be a byproduct of His creation, rather than a polarity of Himself. This is not the case.
More to the point, the juxtaposition between good and evil is a continuum. If there is no evil, by what metric is good even defined?
Now, it's possible for a being to be created good, but it's impossible for God to not understand the opposite of Himself (what makes Him good), because He is omniscient.
The very fact that He is aware of it means it exists, even if there were no observable amount of evil in any corner of the universe.
Good and evil are not tangible. They are concepts. So, even if they only exist in the infinite understanding of God, they still exist...regardless of whether there is any evidence of evil in the universe or not.
The knowledge of good and evil has always existed, because God has always existed. One defines the other, by it's juxtaposition. They are a polarity.
This is actually more of a beautiful thing, because without the propensity for evil, God would not have a choice to be good. Then He would not be God, because He would not be omnipotent. As it is, God is good by choice, which means He understands the choice, which means He understands evil...and in order for Him to understand it, it has to exist.
Without the presence of good's opposite, there is no context and the term good has no intrinsic definition.
In closing, I don't think there are any scriptures that exclusively and definitively show that good exists without evil. After writing this, I'm even more certain of that, because it would violate so many things we already know to be true of God.
You might say the same about a definitive statement showing that evil has always existed, but I would argue two points:
In light of these two aspects, if there is no definitive scriptural precedent to show otherwise, then hermeneutically speaking the exegetical and systematic approach would be to side with the normative aspects shown clearly in scripture.
Good and evil; light and dark. These are compared in scripture for a reason, because without each other, they have no individual meaning.
-JCF
The very existence of God brings about a certain polarity of opposites, namely good and evil.
If there is goodness, there must also be evil. If not, then how can there be goodness?
These two things are a continuum. They must either come into existence simultaneously or have always been in existence. They cannot exist independently of each other.
People blame God for evil, but His very existence as a good God necessitates that evil exists, because it is the opposite of who He is (Exodus 34:6, James 1:17).
Without God, maybe there wouldn’t be any evil, but then there wouldn’t be any goodness either. There would only be utter nothingness (Genesis 1:2, John 1:3)
However, it isn’t God who is to blame, because it’s only as people move away from Him, the light, that they encounter the darkness. A choice God has given mankind.
Good and evil are foundational laws of the cosmos. Even those who choose to ignore God’s existence cannot escape the realities of good and evil.
Almost invariably, society chooses the darkness…greed, injustice, malice, selfishness, etc.
These things are contrary to the way of love (1 Cor. 13:4-7) and they also bring disorder and imbalance to society (James 3:16, Proverbs 14:34, Proverbs 15:27). Chaos and darkness go together.
It’s only by choosing evil over good that people go away from the light. Not only that, but they become a part of the darkness (Ephesians 6:12).
Now in the case of creation, God did not make a corrupted mankind (Genesis 1:31). He made us good and we did not know evil whatsoever (Genesis 2:16-17 & Genesis 3:22).
However, God would not be a loving God without allowing us the free will to choose to disobey, and to choose whether we pursued light or darkness.
We had to have the option, or He could not say that He loved us. Plus, He cannot act in a way that is inconsistent with His character (Malachi 3:6), which is love (1 John 4:8).
Now you might make the case of whether someone leaving a child near a hot stove would be a loving thing to do. However, Adam was not a child. To some degree he had adequate understanding and knew he was doing the opposite of what God had said.
Now, he didn’t understand good and evil, but that’s the point. God put them in the garden in the BEST STATE POSSIBLE.
Here’s why: If they understood good and evil, they would be accountable to it. They would not be as carefree as they were.
But alas, Adam chose to ruin that (Adam was accountable, because He is the one that God instructed to not eat of the tree).
Now, with that foundation, let’s look at the flood…
By the time the flood came upon the earth, mankind had very much chosen the evil on a mass scale and had rejected goodness entirely (Genesis 6:5).
God, being omniscient, looked out into the future and saw the unborn generations. He also saw the current and past generations (1 Peter 3:18-20), who had not yet received atonement. Christ’s work covered past generations also, temple sacrifices only covered sin, it didn’t remove it (Hebrews 10:4-11).
At this point, God had a choice to make. He could let all of mankind be utterly destroyed, for they were so enveloped in darkness that they would have likely destroyed themselves anyways. Or, he could cut off the evil and start over (Genesis 6:17-18), with the plan of giving a lifeboat (Jesus, John 1:1-2 & Luke 19:10) to those who did not reject the way of the light.
Now I ask you: What kind of person, having a conscience, lets everyone die, rather than letting a lesser number die and saving many?
In war, men are given medals for saving many, even if their brothers don’t make it out. How much more honorable to save billions of lives throughout the eons?
Yes, He created us, even though we would disobey. But had He not, many would not have the opportunity to choose Him, to choose life, and to choose it eternally (Colossians 1:13).
After Job lost everything, toward the end of the book, God spoke to Job, and at that point Job saw how infinitely complex the universe is (Job ch. 38-42). God basically asks him if he has enough understanding to even be aware of everything that happens in the universe, then basically asks him if he himself is capable of managing such complexity.
-JCF
