Author of Evil?

I have some questions that I was hoping to get a non-reformed perspective on. It seems that a common objection to reformed soteriology is with regards to God being the author of evil under a reformed perspective. It seems that this contention stems from God making decisions or taking actions that necessarily bring about evil, particularly in people's specific actions or their choice (or lack thereof) with regards to salvation. Hopefully that is an accurate, albeit succinct, representation of the objection.

For those who have used and consider this objection to be reasonable, how do you avoid the inherent implications?

When I consider this objection, I run into aspects of it that I find difficult to reconcile. Let's, for a moment, presume that it is right to think that if a decision or action of God's necessarily brings about evil, that makes Him the author of that evil. Let's also presume that God knows the future decisions and actions of future people (evidenced by prophecy). Even if people are afforded libertarian free will, how does God avoid culpability considering He knows the evil someone will enact (though freely) if they are created and yet, in spite of this certainty, nevertheless creates them?

Disclaimer: In case it wasn't obvious, I'm sure most would consider me reformed or "Calvinist". I hope this does not dissuade participation or stifle dialog. I am not looking to spark an argument. I am, though, looking to understand other perspectives better. I also don't consider myself a particularly bright individual so I'm sure this question has been asked and answered before. I apologize if it has. I just couldn't find it anywhere else. Finally, I apologize if anyone doesn't like the term "non-reformed" but I know there are many positions that fall into this category (Arminianism, Provisionism, Traditionalist, etc.) and I don't know of a better term to encapsulate as many of them as possible.

...but there are certain things He did not expect to happen

For clarity, I recognize that there are many different arguments for and against the reformed perspective. But I often find, and this isn't isolated to a specific side, that people talk past one another and these conversations get tangled in a web of differing, sometimes incompatible rationales. My intention here is to follow this specific thread of rationale as closely as possible so that I better understand how other thought processes align with or differ from my own. If I don't respond to you specifically, please don't take that as a comment on the quality of your response but rather my feeble attempt to maintain focus on better understanding the position and line of reasoning behind this specific objection.

God allowing men to perpetuate evil does not mean God has made them do it. That is
my take on it, whereas those who say God ordains all things makes it sound like He makes
people do the things they do. I acknowledge God's will to be sovereign, but also permissive
alongside moral, meaning, we know right from wrong according to the commandments
(God's moral will) for starters, but choose to do wrong regardless, and God allows it.

This is an excellent clarification. I had some thoughts along these lines that give me pause. Please bear with me on this thought exercise.

There's a movie series called Saw wherein someone (John) abducts people and puts them in elaborate contraptions or scenarios. They are then forced to make a choice of life or death. The choice of life requires some sort of sacrifice but they have the freedom to choose. Suppose at least one of his victims chooses death (ie. they would rather die than do what is necessary to choose life). Now imagine the police catch this John fellow and you are on the jury in his trial.

There are two charges on the table, kidnapping and murder. The defense concedes to the kidnapping charge so there is no debate on that. However they state that John is not guilty of murder because the victims were the ones that chose death instead of life. John wanted them to choose life and provided a way out. John didn't "pull the trigger" or make the choice that directly resulted in their death, they did. Because of this, they contest, John should not be held to account for the decision that the victim freely chose. Do you consider John guilty of murder?

Whereas when God creates someone, His motives are righteous.

I don't want it to seem like I am trying to "trap" anyone into a "gotcha" situation so let me introduce a bit of my own rationale here. Would it be fair to say that there is a distinction between the intentionality of John as compared to God? That is to say that when John orchestrates his plan, he is seeking to hurt. Whereas when God creates someone, His motives are righteous. Is that fair?

If this is the case, then this is where I get lost in the line of reasoning. In the original objection against the reformed perspective, when God causes someone to do something which results in evil, there seems to be no consideration for the fact that God may have a righteous purpose or intention. Take for example the murder of Jesus. If God unavoidably causes the people to condemn and murder Jesus with the bigger picture of salvation in mind, were not His intentions and motives still righteous?

If this is the case, then this is where I get lost in the line of reasoning. In the original objection against the reformed perspective, when God causes someone to do something which results in evil, there seems to be no consideration for the fact that God may have a righteous purpose or intention. Take for example the murder of Jesus. If God unavoidably causes the people to condemn and murder Jesus with the bigger picture of salvation in mind, were not His intentions and motives still righteous?

Now, stepping into a reformed perspective, we don't always know or see the righteous motives and intentions (thinking of horrific cases like rape and murder). This also leaves the questions of whether or not it is moral for God to punish someone for something they couldn't necessarily have avoided doing unanswered. But, again, sticking with the original objection, why is it ok to absolve God of culpability because of His righteous motives and intentions in non-reformed perspectives but not OK to do the same from a reformed perspective? If a parent "ordains" the stabbing of a child, the child may be unable to see what, if any, good can be in such an action. But to the parent injecting their diabetic child with insulin, it is a good thing.

Perhaps one is beginning with too small an understanding of God. What is it like to be infinite? We have a working definition of infinity but we have never done anything infinitely.
So we begin with what God has revealed. We know He is righteous. We also know that God never acts outside of who He is. So I don't think God can do something unrighteous to accomplish greater righteousness. The ends don't justify the means with God.
It is not inconsistent that God can purpose something that finds its fruition in the free choices of men. That only requires omniscience on the part of God.
In the example you use, Peter , in fact, says both are involved in the death of Jesus in Acts 2.

That is an excellent point and I absolutely agree that our limited understanding certainly affects our abilities to reconcile some of these perspectives. I'm also not saying that if someone cannot come up with an answer to this that they're wrong. Again, my intention here is to understand the line of reasoning upon which objections to my position are built. Much ink has been spilt talking past one another. But if I'm going to be spiritually and intellectually honest to God, myself, and others, I think I need to be respectful enough explore even the opposing perspectives rather than putting myself in an echo chamber of like-minded people.

"So I don't think God can do something unrighteous to accomplish greater righteousness."
This is not necessarily what I'm advocating for. Just as in the example of the parent and child. From one perspective, the stab is wrong. But from another perspective it is good. In other words, we might say the murder of Christ was an evil action. But from God's perspective, the exact same thing is righteous. And it's not righteous just because He's bringing about salvation from it. It's righteous for so many other reasons. It demonstrates and reveals God's character. It shows us not only that God is loving and merciful but also that He is righteous in judgement for He did not waive the wages of sin being death, even when Jesus was suffering on the cross.

That is an excellent point and I absolutely agree that our limited understanding certainly affects our abilities to reconcile some of these perspectives. I'm also not saying that if someone cannot come up with an answer to this that they're wrong. Again, my intention here is to understand the line of reasoning upon which objections to my position are built. Much ink has been spilt talking past one another. But if I'm going to be spiritually and intellectually honest to God, myself, and others, I think I need to be respectful enough explore even the opposing perspectives rather than putting myself in an echo chamber of like-minded people.

"So I don't think God can do something unrighteous to accomplish greater righteousness."
This is not necessarily what I'm advocating for. Just as in the example of the parent and child. From one perspective, the stab is wrong. But from another perspective it is good. In other words, we might say the murder of Christ was an evil action. But from God's perspective, the exact same thing is righteous. And it's not righteous just because He's bringing about salvation from it. It's righteous for so many other reasons. It demonstrates and reveals God's character. It shows us not only that God is loving and merciful but also that He is righteous in judgement for He did not waive the wages of sin being death, even when Jesus was suffering on the cross.

That is an excellent point and I absolutely agree that our limited understanding certainly affects our abilities to reconcile some of these perspectives.

You can think of it as God doing righteous things at the right time and place in the face of terrible human mistakes.

I applaud your effort at understanding the reasoning from other perspectives.

I agree with your assertion that God can use unrighteousness to work righteousness. That's the idea behind Romans 8:28. It's also linked to Romans 8:37 and a means God uses to make us more than conquerors.

Where I have missed your purpose, my sincerest apologies.