I appreciated what Piper said. Of course, Koukl’s article is under debate by some. When Koukl states, “Evil is the absence of good, a privation of good, not a thing in itself,” some begin to shrink back. Koukl—Augustine is equating being with goodness and non-being with evil. Evil is not a thing at all, and complete evil is simply non-existence. However, others claim evil can be known and thus it exists (Gen 3:5, 22). Man was judged for being evil (Gen 6:5) and not just for being neutral in that good was absent in them. They claim, evil really exists. 9-11 was not an illusion and from several perspectives it was an evil set of events. Evil exists! Koukl further looks at, evil as being a privation of good which would mean there would be no such thing as something that is totally evil. If it were totally evil (deprived of all good), it could be nothing, for its existence depends on the very existence of good (the donut hole (—evil) cannot exist without the donut (—good). However, in Koulk’s defense we can say yes, GOOD is here for ever—since God is sovereign, and thus there will never be an ultimate evil, for there is already the ultimate GOOD, which cannot be replaced.

I hope this was clear as mud. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Reformed and Always Reforming,