- Apr 5, 2007
- 144,404
- 27,057
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.My view is we all die some way at some time, unless Christ comes first.
You act as if God is obligated to do this.Do we know if all the mature adults were provided with the opportunity to accept or reject God's Love in the form of forgiveness? Did a Jonah like prophet go to them prior to their destruction?
Did the innocent go on to heaven?
This seems like a semantic issue being used to paper over a misconstrual of God's nature. Omnibenevolence does not mean God will always seek to benefit the whims of the creature, but that God is not malevolent and capricious towards anyone. Everyone is treated with the same love and justice, with equity and fairness. Wrath and omnibenevolence are not mutually exclusive, because while it may not be pleasant for the individual to be destroyed or to suffer the consequences of their sin it is in their best interest and so God is wrathful towards them for their own sake. Just as a teacher/school administrator who expells a student does not do so out of hatred towards them, and in fact can do so because they believe it is in the best interest of the student that they be removed from the class. So the issue is not that God is not omnibenevolent, but that your definition of omnibenevolence is not how it is understood by those who claim He is.Let me see if I can be clearer, as I admit that I may not have been. My argument has been that God does not have omnibenevolence. Usually when this is brought up, someone will quote something like 1 Timothy 2:4 as proof that I’m wrong. However, this ignores the fact that God does demonstrate wrath, and wrath and omnibenevolence are mutually exclusive. You cannot say that God demonstrated His love on the people He destroyed in the flood.
God's love obligates (compels) God to do all He does. So, what is the most Loving thing for those willing to accept God's Love?You act as if God is obligated to do this.
No, they are not.This seems like a semantic issue being used to paper over a misconstrual of God's nature. Omnibenevolence does not mean God will always seek to benefit the whims of the creature, but that God is not malevolent and capricious towards anyone. Everyone is treated with the same love and justice, with equity and fairness.
Wow! That’s quite the take to know that folks in hell are there for their own sake.Wrath and omnibenevolence are not mutually exclusive, because while it may not be pleasant for the individual to be destroyed or to suffer the consequences of their sin it is in their best interest and so God is wrathful towards them for their own sake.
Or, the best interest of the other students.Just as a teacher/school administrator who expells a student does not do so out of hatred towards them, and in fact can do so because they believe it is in the best interest of the student that they be removed from the class.
Well, based on your post, that a given.So the issue is not that God is not omnibenevolent, but that your definition of omnibenevolence is not how it is understood by those who claim He is.
No, not at all. His love for His sheep means He will save His sheep. He not obligated to love everyone, or to save everyone.God's love obligates (compels) God to do all He does. So, what is the most Loving thing for those willing to accept God's Love?
Proof texting is hardly an argument, anymore than ripping a verse like 1 Tim 2:4 or Romans 5:18 alone show your position to be false. The issue is you seem to have a monstrous and capricious image of God who somehow is glorified by creating people for the sole purpose of torturing them, and rather than trying to defend that monster you prop up a definition of omnibenevolent that no serious participant would employ. For those in hell, it is far better for them to be in hell than to continue to indulge in their sin because receiving God's holiness is a greater blessing than the destruction that sin brings. And while the benefit of other students is at play, that is not to the exclusion of the interests of the individual student either. Inflicting just punishment is not the same as malicious intent, and when someone says God is omnibenevelent it is to say He is without malicious intent.No, they are not.
For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
— Deuteronomy 7:6
Wow! That’s quite the take to know that folks in hell are there for their own sake.
Or, the best interest of the other students.
Well, based on your post, that a given.
While that may be the way you use it, I’ve seen way too many quotes of 1 Timothy 2:4 to know that there are a lot of folks that think differently.Proof texting is hardly an argument, anymore than ripping a verse like 1 Tim 2:4 or Romans 5:18 alone show your position to be false. The issue is you seem to have a monstrous and capricious image of God who somehow is glorified by creating people for the sole purpose of torturing them, and rather than trying to defend that monster you prop up a definition of omnibenevolent that no serious participant would employ. For those in hell, it is far better for them to be in hell than to continue to indulge in their sin because receiving God's holiness is a greater blessing than the destruction that sin brings. And while the benefit of other students is at play, that is not to the exclusion of the interests of the individual student either. Inflicting just punishment is not the same as malicious intent, and when someone says God is omnibenevelent it is to say He is without malicious intent.
My point wasn't in regards to 1 Tim 2:4, but your misuse of Deuteronomy as if a verse ripped out of context demonstrates that God is unjust and a partial judge.While that may be the way you use it, I’ve seen way too many quotes of 1 Timothy 2:4 to know that there are a lot of folks that think differently.
No, not at all. His love for His sheep means He will save His sheep. He not obligated to love everyone, or to save everyone.
God Loves everyone because God is Love. God's Love does not "obligate" God to force His Love/salvation on anyone, that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, which would not be "Loving" on God's part, nor could the person get Godly type Love that way.No, not at all. His love for His sheep means He will save His sheep. He not obligated to love everyone, or to save everyone.
Jer. 18 explains how God can say this and not be obligated to keep that perceived promise, because it is always contingent; Jer. 18:7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.No, they are not.
For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
— Deuteronomy 7:6
I never once stated that God was unjust. You said God loved everyone the same. That whole chapter proves otherwise.My point wasn't in regards to 1 Tim 2:4, but your misuse of Deuteronomy as if a verse ripped out of context demonstrates that God is unjust and a partial judge.
His nature is to love and protect His own.It's not a matter of obligation, but God's nature.
If God loved everyone, He would protect everyone, regardless of how they responded to Him. That’s true love. Your version only had Him protecting those who please Him.God Loves everyone because God is Love. God's Love does not "obligate" God to force His Love/salvation on anyone, that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, which would not be "Loving" on God's part, nor could the person get Godly type Love that way.
What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with that verse, or my post.Jer. 18 explains how God can say this and not be obligated to keep that perceived promise, because it is always contingent; Jer. 18:7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
His nature is to love and protect His own.
Some passages say Christ died for His own, His sheep, His church, but no passage says He died only for these. His death can be provided for all people while only those who believe are actually saved by His death. His death for His own, then, is part of the larger whole in which He died also for the world.His nature is to love and protect His own.
Some passages say Christ died for His own, His sheep, His church, but no passage says He died only for these. His death can be provided for all people while only those who believe are actually saved by His death. His death for His own, then, is part of the larger whole in which He died also for the world.
1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?