Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

[bbbbbbb]

Some people believe God in not omnibenevolent and only “Loves” some people (the elect), so those people who worship a limited benevolent God are not worshipping the Christian God, if the Christian God is omnibenevolent.

Actually, the God revealed in the Bible is exceedingly benevolent, but not omnibenevolent.

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent the Fall could never have happened. A truly omnibenevolent God would never allow anyone to die, in any sense of the word, much less for sin and its result to corrupt the perfect world.

 

[childeye 2]

There is a sinful nature that believers need to crucify. This is not done by their own will power alone, but it is done with the free will cooperation with GOD and in asking for His help and in employing His Word in our lives.

As I understand the process, we crucify our flesh when we sacrifice ourselves through the forbearance and forgiveness of those who trespass against us. And we forgive the person on account of sin working a deception in the world, that we have all been deceived by and succumbed to at one time or another. We return good for evil so as to not compound the damage caused by the lie. This to me is the grace that sees sinners as manipulated and deceived, through the faith that had we not been deceived, we would not have sinned. To choose to believe otherwise is not a viable option to me because it condemns one's self.

But we have to take the first step towards GOD. God is not going to force us to believe or have faith in His Word. We need to have faith first in His Word. Without faith, it is impossible to please GOD.

The first step is definitely motivated by faith. But that faith comes by hearing the Truth of the Gospel and understanding it. You speak of 'force'. I'm going to use the term 'coercion' since Love is an Eternal force/power and God is Love. It would not serve God's purpose to coerce anyone into believing, and it's not even possible. The fact is that true worship is drawn out by the object of worship and it is not to be counted as the product of the worshiper's discretion.


When revelation comes, it's like a light turns on in our understanding and suddenly we see. When we do see, we want to believe because it justifies Christ and justifies us. At this stage the powers of darkness in this world come against us and that belief will be challenged. The issue we're talking about is really about blindness, being enabled to see, and persevering in the faith that the Love we see on the cross is Eternal. I believe the more we invest in actions performed out of that Love that would die on a cross for others, the greater our faith becomes. If anyone would truly see, I don't see how they could not want to believe.

Calvinists say that GOD gives us faith. But this is something that is man's responsibility. Sure, GOD can convict a believer of sin (i.e. the breaking of His holy words), but it is up to man to have faith and come to the LORD and seek His forgiveness, and believe in His death, burial, and resurrection. GOD is not going to do that for us. GOD cannot force us to believe.

I don't know exactly what Calvin had to say, and even if I did I couldn't say for sure what he meant when he said it. I only know my own experience.


I understand faith as trusting in the power that created all things. My testimony is that the Holy Spirit is within me, talking to me and testifying to Christ. I never saw Jesus rise from the dead. But I received this Spirit when I understood that the Christ showed a Love that endured great suffering for the sake of others and yet was never compromised, nor was he afraid of death. His words agreed with the Word of God in my heart that I believe we are born with. I reason that if he didn't rise from the dead, then such a love is not eternal, which is something I do not want to believe. And why is this Spirit inside of me testifying to him if he is not alive? Why are his words and his Spirit based on his reasonings, governing my thoughts if I don't live in him and he in me?

GOD is also not going to obey for us if we decide to later keep disobeying and fight against our instructions to obey His Word. Yes, again, GOD moves in our life to do good. For we cannot do any good. For only GOD alone is good. But we need to choose. We need to make that choice to abide in the Lord and His good ways. GOD is not going to force us to be a certain way. GOD is love; And we know that true love is never forced.

I define higher powers as powers that precede us in existence. Accordingly, we react to higher powers, we don't initiate them. Good/evil, Light/darkness, these precede us and we are forced to react to them. We don't get to choose, we have to choose as a matter of circumstance. Evil is deceptive in manipulating the mind by subverting the truth, while the truth is not ever deceptive. I can't comprehend how a will is ever free if it's deceived.

 

[bling]

Actually, the God revealed in the Bible is exceedingly benevolent, but not omnibenevolent.

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent the Fall could never have happened. A truly omnibenevolent God would never allow anyone to die, in any sense of the word, much less for sin and its result to corrupt the perfect world.

That is your personal way of defining “omnibenevolent”.

Is being benevolent glorious, praise worthy, honorable, righteous, holy and God like?

What could possibly keep God from being “omnibenevolent”?

All that I see throughout history, in scripture and in this world displaces an omnibenevolent God, but you do have to keep the objective in mind.

I see God allowing and doing everything to help willing individuals in their fulfillment of their earthly objective.

God’s sack becomes for the sack of others.

Has God given man a mission statement? (this is always good to have)

You can take any command in scripture and have Biblical support for calling that command “Man’s Objective” and have Biblical support for saying that, but there are two overriding commands all other commands are bases on.

Would “Loving God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy” be our Mission statement?

God is Love, but how do we define this Love and measure this Love?

This Godly type Love is defined by Jesus’ words and deeds (you can also use 1 Cor 13 and 1 John 4), so what is that?

Can we measure the “love” one being has for another being by the amount the first being is willing to unselfishly sacrifice for the other being?

Is God this ultimate Lover? Would that “Love” compel even God to make beings that could Love like He Loves (this “Love of God” is totally unselfish [a measure of pure Love] and thus is not for God’s sake at all, but is totally for the sake of others)?

So if God is not doing anything for His own sake and everything for the sake of others, would He be expecting or needing anything from man or would God just be trying to give the greatest gift He could give to man?

The reason this “Love” is the most powerful force in all universes is because it compels even God. So to have this Love would make us like God Himself, so why does God not just make us with this Love and place us in heaven?

Are there something God just cannot do: like make another Christ, since Christ was never made but always existed?

Could God place this Godly type Love in a person at his/her creation (an instinctive love) or would an instinctive love be like a robotic love and not like God’s Love?

Could God just force His Love on man against the “will” of man or would that be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?

What does man need that he does not have instinctively in order for man to fulfill this Mission?

Man’s objective seems to be to obtain and grow this Godly type Love to fulfill the mission (statement) of Love God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.

Our “objective” while here on earth is to just accept God’s gift as it was given as pure charity.

God is not trying to get you to do something, but is trying to give you something.

The problem is not sin (unforgiven sin is a huge problem), because God will forgive our sins which helps us to Love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much….) God hates sin, but does allow it so we can more easily accept His Love (in the form of forgiveness the easiest way for us to accept His charity). The problem is always our fulfilling our objective.

You say: “If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent the Fall could never have happened.”

But you are missing one of the great lessons in the Adam and Eve story. The Garden is a lousy (impossible) place for humans to fulfill their earthly objective and we can thank Adam and Eve for going through that example and providing us and them with that knowledge.

Sin is not only inevitable, but it unfortunately is necessary for humans.

The easiest way for humans to accept God’s charity (Love) is out of a huge need and that need is the relief from the burden of hurting others in the past (sin). By accepting God’s forgiveness we accept God’s Love (mercy/grace/charity) and thus we will Love much since Jesus has taught us (we also see this in our own lives) “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Luke 7: 36-50.

You said: A truly omnibenevolent God would never allow anyone to die, in any sense of the word, much less for sin and its result to corrupt the perfect world.

This world is “very good”, but not “perfect” like heaven is perfect and does not have the same purpose as heaven. This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

Death is not “bad” in and of itself, but the way good people go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.

It is truly tragic and unfortunate that Christ had to be tortured, humiliated and murdered in order to help willing humans in their fulfilling of their objective, but God is willing to make huge sacrifices to help willing individuals. It is also very sad other humans who had the opportunity to fulfill their primary earthly objective continued to refuse God’s charity to the point they would never of their own free will accepted God’s charity. These God Loved individuals will thus go to their death and destruction as a help to some other humans who have not refused God’s help to the point of never accepting His help.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That is your personal way of defining “omnibenevolent”.

Is being benevolent glorious, praise worthy, honorable, righteous, holy and God like?

What could possibly keep God from being “omnibenevolent”?

All that I see throughout history, in scripture and in this world displaces an omnibenevolent God, but you do have to keep the objective in mind.

I see God allowing and doing everything to help willing individuals in their fulfillment of their earthly objective.

God’s sack becomes for the sack of others.

Has God given man a mission statement? (this is always good to have)

You can take any command in scripture and have Biblical support for calling that command “Man’s Objective” and have Biblical support for saying that, but there are two overriding commands all other commands are bases on.

Would “Loving God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy” be our Mission statement?

God is Love, but how do we define this Love and measure this Love?

This Godly type Love is defined by Jesus’ words and deeds (you can also use 1 Cor 13 and 1 John 4), so what is that?

Can we measure the “love” one being has for another being by the amount the first being is willing to unselfishly sacrifice for the other being?

Is God this ultimate Lover? Would that “Love” compel even God to make beings that could Love like He Loves (this “Love of God” is totally unselfish [a measure of pure Love] and thus is not for God’s sake at all, but is totally for the sake of others)?

So if God is not doing anything for His own sake and everything for the sake of others, would He be expecting or needing anything from man or would God just be trying to give the greatest gift He could give to man?

The reason this “Love” is the most powerful force in all universes is because it compels even God. So to have this Love would make us like God Himself, so why does God not just make us with this Love and place us in heaven?

Are there something God just cannot do: like make another Christ, since Christ was never made but always existed?

Could God place this Godly type Love in a person at his/her creation (an instinctive love) or would an instinctive love be like a robotic love and not like God’s Love?

Could God just force His Love on man against the “will” of man or would that be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?

What does man need that he does not have instinctively in order for man to fulfill this Mission?

Man’s objective seems to be to obtain and grow this Godly type Love to fulfill the mission (statement) of Love God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.

Our “objective” while here on earth is to just accept God’s gift as it was given as pure charity.

God is not trying to get you to do something, but is trying to give you something.

The problem is not sin (unforgiven sin is a huge problem), because God will forgive our sins which helps us to Love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much….) God hates sin, but does allow it so we can more easily accept His Love (in the form of forgiveness the easiest way for us to accept His charity). The problem is always our fulfilling our objective.

You say: “If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent the Fall could never have happened.”

But you are missing one of the great lessons in the Adam and Eve story. The Garden is a lousy (impossible) place for humans to fulfill their earthly objective and we can thank Adam and Eve for going through that example and providing us and them with that knowledge.

Sin is not only inevitable, but it unfortunately is necessary for humans.

The easiest way for humans to accept God’s charity (Love) is out of a huge need and that need is the relief from the burden of hurting others in the past (sin). By accepting God’s forgiveness we accept God’s Love (mercy/grace/charity) and thus we will Love much since Jesus has taught us (we also see this in our own lives) “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Luke 7: 36-50.

You said: A truly omnibenevolent God would never allow anyone to die, in any sense of the word, much less for sin and its result to corrupt the perfect world.

This world is “very good”, but not “perfect” like heaven is perfect and does not have the same purpose as heaven. This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

Death is not “bad” in and of itself, but the way good people go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.

It is truly tragic and unfortunate that Christ had to be tortured, humiliated and murdered in order to help willing humans in their fulfilling of their objective, but God is willing to make huge sacrifices to help willing individuals. It is also very sad other humans who had the opportunity to fulfill their primary earthly objective continued to refuse God’s charity to the point they would never of their own free will accepted God’s charity. These God Loved individuals will thus go to their death and destruction as a help to some other humans who have not refused God’s help to the point of never accepting His help.

Omnibenevolent is being kind everywhere and and at all times and never permitting or knowingly allowing harm to come to the objects of one's benevolence.

Omniscience is knowing all things at all times.

Omnipotence is having absolute, unlimited power.

If God is merely omnibenevolent and not omniscient or omnipotent then He is utterly incapable of exercising His omnibenevolence except in mere extending kind thoughts to all the objects of His omnibenevolence. As a result, mankind could never know whether or not God is actually omnibenevolent.

 

[bling]

Omnibenevolent is being kind everywhere and and at all times and never permitting or knowingly allowing harm to come to the objects of one's benevolence.

Omniscience is knowing all things at all times.

Omnipotence is having absolute, unlimited power.

If God is merely omnibenevolent and not omniscient or omnipotent then He is utterly incapable of exercising His omnibenevolence except in mere extending kind thoughts to all the objects of His omnibenevolence. As a result, mankind could never know whether or not God is actually omnibenevolent.

You said: “…knowingly allowing harm to come to the objects of one's benevolence.” Yet, God Loves Jesus more then anyone else could, and allowed Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, so your “statement” is not correct.

God knowingly allowed His son to go through what the son personally did not want to go through (this we know from His pray in the garden), but allowed this because of God’s great Love of humans.

For the same motive God allowed Christ to suffer, God allows some of His other children to suffer, who will never accept His help.

Omnipotence does not mean the power to do that which cannot be done, like God cannot make clones of Christ since Christ is not a created being.

I see what God has done and allowed and see an omnibenevolent God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You said: “…knowingly allowing harm to come to the objects of one's benevolence.” Yet, God Loves Jesus more then anyone else could, and allowed Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, so your “statement” is not correct.

God knowingly allowed His son to go through what the son personally did not want to go through (this we know from His pray in the garden), but allowed this because of God’s great Love of humans.

For the same motive God allowed Christ to suffer, God allows some of His other children to suffer, who will never accept His help.

Omnipotence does not mean the power to do that which cannot be done, like God cannot make clones of Christ since Christ is not a created being.

I see what God has done and allowed and see an omnibenevolent God.

Quite correct. God is not at all omnibenevolent. The fact is that God is very benevolent, but definitely is not omnibenevolent.

It appears that you do not believe that God is omnipotent.

In that case, God could be omnibenevolent, but it would merely result in kindly thoughts from Him and not much more. God would be impotent to exercise true omnibenevolence.

 

[bling]

Quite correct. God is not at all omnibenevolent. The fact is that God is very benevolent, but definitely is not omnibenevolent.

It appears that you do not believe that God is omnipotent.

In that case, God could be omnibenevolent, but it would merely result in kindly thoughts from Him and not much more. God would be impotent to exercise true omnibenevolence.

I do not understand how you are getting God is not omnipotent from what I said? All I am saying God cannot do is what cannot be done, like make another Christ since Christ was not made?

Do you believe if God cannot do that which cannot be done, He is not omnipotent?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do not understand how you are getting God is not omnipotent from what I said? All I am saying God cannot do is what cannot be done, like make another Christ since Christ was not made?

Do you believe if God cannot do that which cannot be done, He is not omnipotent?

Okay, please allows me to present an analogy. If I were omnibenevolent and loved each and every person on the face of this earth passionately and had the power to deliver them from all misery and death, but willfully chose to do it for some of them, but not all of them, what does that make me? Am I really omnibenevolent?

 

[Philip_B]

omnibenevolent?

There is perhaps a fine line between omnibenevolent and pan-benevolent. I am not sure of the worth of a theology of omnibenevolence and wonder what it says about the value of God as Omniscient.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But what you continue to propose in this thread is this notion of God allowing freedom of people’s fate underneath an umbrella of predetermination of people’s fate.

Sorry. I don't even know what that means: "...this notion of God allowing freedom of people’s fate underneath an umbrella of predetermination of people’s fate." Nor do I remember proposing such a thing. What words did I use?

That doesn't sound like something I would say.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If it never entered his mind, in your deterministic universe, it could never happen. Because that's the whole basis of theistic determinism. Everything is predestined to happen by God. It's not just that he knows it will, we all agree he knows what will occur, but in Calvinism, he planned and rendered it certain to happen. If I planned the entire future it would be a lie for me to say something about that future never entered my mind.

You seem to have missed what I said --it does not only say "it never entered my mind". You are cutting the quote short. He is specific about what didn't enter his mind. And it isn't "them doing that". At the closest I can see it resembling what you want it to say, it could mean, "it never entered my mind that they SHOULD do such a thing", not, "it never entered my mind that they WOULD do such a thing.

As far as your claims concerning Calvinism's logic, once again, you confuse "his command" with "his decree." Our sin is disobedience, not ignorance. We know a little about his decree --his plan-- but it happens by way of many things, --of all things, actually-- including our obedience and disobedience of his will (command).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Some people believe God in not omnibenevolent and only “Loves” some people (the elect), so those people who worship a limited benevolent God are not worshipping the Christian God, if the Christian God is omnibenevolent.

You said "are worshiping", in which I see you left out the "not".

I think I understand, now. But your logic is faulty. Omnibenevolent does not love what is unloveable. What ends up in the Lake of Fire is not what we see now as human and loveable. They will be stripped of all virtue, God having completely abandoned and rejected them. The empty wraith, a husk, that is left has no redeeming qualities. If it helps to understand the point, though, the Omni to which he is benevolent, does not qualify this temporal existence with the same worth as the next, in which the redeemed are placed higher than even the angels, (and conversely, most likely, I think, the lost are placed lower and more of a horror than even the demons.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

1. Does God have the power to provide very limited first cause ability to humans in the form of allowing them the make an autonomous free will choice?

2. If God does not have this power, why does He not have this power?

It is not a power --i.e. like the notion of God having the power to make a stone too big for him to pick up, it is a self-contradictory item. You want first cause status to be limited. First Cause is causeless, not a little bit causeless.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is perhaps a fine line between omnibenevolent and pan-benevolent. I am not sure of the worth of a theology of omnibenevolence and wonder what it says about the value of God as Omniscient.

Thank you for shedding this light on what was becoming an impasse.

 

[renniks]

As far as your claims concerning Calvinism's logic, once again, you confuse "his command" with "his decree." Our sin is disobedience, not ignorance. We know a little about his decree --his plan-- but it happens by way of many things, --of all things, actually-- including our obedience and disobedience of his will (command)

"While the hand he holds behind his back keeps the truth from those he is deceiving."
Ahh, the old secret decree nonsense!
The god playing both sides of the board... because he isn't strong enough to play fair. Not the God of scripture, but the god of islam and Hindus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry. I don't even know what that means: "...this notion of God allowing freedom of people’s fate underneath an umbrella of predetermination of people’s fate." Nor do I remember proposing such a thing. What words did I use?

That doesn't sound like something I would say.

Do you believe in all five points of Calvinism?
Do you believe in Unconditional Election?
If you believe in Unconditional Election, you basically believe in Determinism, unless you can help explain to us how your version of Unconditional Election is different from other Calvinists.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Do you believe in all five points of Calvinism?
Do you believe in Unconditional Election?
If you believe in Unconditional Election, you basically believe in Determinism, unless you can help explain to us how your version of Unconditional Election is different from other Calvinists.

In truth, there is no such thing as Unconditional Election. The reality is that election, being limited to some and not all, has conditions. The question then becomes one of who establishes and fulfills the conditions. For synergists the conditions are established by God and fulfilled by God, but with necessary human cooperation. For monergists the conditions are established by God and fulfilled by God.

 

[childeye 2]

In truth, there is no such thing as Unconditional Election. The reality is that election, being limited to some and not all, has conditions. The question then becomes one of who establishes and fulfills the conditions. For synergists the conditions are established by God and fulfilled by God, but with necessary human cooperation. For monergists the conditions are established by God and fulfilled by God.

This looks like an issue of semantics. There could be a such thing as unconditional election in that there are no conditions based on human behavioral differences. To rephrase, unconditional election could mean elected according to a circumstance of events which could be called conditions.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This looks like an issue of semantics. There could be a such thing as unconditional election in that there are no conditions based on human behavioral differences. To rephrase, unconditional election could mean elected according to a circumstance of events which could be called conditions.

I agree that it could be a situation of semantics. Most Calvinists understand "unconditional" to mean no conditions (works) required by God for human salvation. Another way of understanding it is that the Mosaic Covenant was a conditional covenant, with detailed works and sacrifices for God's covenant people, Israel, but, by contrast, the New Covenant through the person and work of Jesus Christ, is an unconditional covenant without detailed works or other sacrifices for God's covenant people, the Church.

 

[childeye 2]

I agree that it could be a situation of semantics. Most Calvinists understand "unconditional" to mean no conditions (works) required by God for human salvation. Another way of understanding it is that the Mosaic Covenant was a conditional covenant, with detailed works and sacrifices for God's covenant people, Israel, but, by contrast, the New Covenant through the person and work of Jesus Christ, is an unconditional covenant without detailed works or other sacrifices for God's covenant people, the Church.

1 Corinthians 1:26-31
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.