Randy,
First, taking away man’s free will in order to make him into a subhuman thing does negate gods omnibenevolence. Even if you argue that it does not negate it for the man in question, it certainly negates it for those who love the man in question. In a “heaven” in which all men obey the Father perfectly, all men will love their neighbor as themselves and all men will love their enemy as themselves. We are commanded to do this that we may be LIKE our Father in heaven. If then we truly do love our enemies, we MUST love those who are God’s enemies, for who are our enemies, if not the enemies of our Father? And since we are one in Christ, who is one with God, we are one with God. If we are one with God, His enemies are certainly our enemies. If these lost persons I only pray that God will not love ME in such a way force God to punish them with subhuman status, does that not show that they at least are His enemies whether or not He is theirs? Therefore, God must love these lost, since they are his enemies and we are commanded to love or enemies that we may be like our Father in heaven. I only pray that God will not love ME in such a way, nor anyone whom I love. Because we love our enemies and God loves his enemies (who are one and the same), we could never be happy and blissful without a care and without tears wiped away in paradise knowing that these whom we love dearly suffer horrendously or have become subhuman things.
Love never fails. You can read the rest of the description of love in First Corinthians 13. This description can only describe God’s love, since none of us are capable of such love. If God loves his enemies and love never fails how can God fail to reconcile his enemies? The writer is willing to postulate that God may remove the free will of these enemies. I do not think that God would do such a thing; I think that God is in the business of MAKING men free, not of making them unfree. Nevertheless, going with the writer’s supposition, why would God then not infringe upon their free will in a manner that would be of benefit not only to them but also to all those who love them, including Himself?
I will never be a professional theologian. I will never “make my mark.” I am completely okay with that. So I will stop here, rather than address the remaining objections the writer puts forth, I think that’s more than adequate in any case, since his whole argument seems to ride upon this proposition: that is to say that God would be willing to remove the free will (or suffer the removal of same) of those he deems unworthy. I realize there’s no way that my little laymen’s explanation would get through to this writer or possibly to you either, Randy, and that’s okay. Nevertheless, I do not find him at all persuasive. I don’t even know how he persuades himself, except that perhaps he persuades himself of something that he believes he is obligated to believe, to wit: that God is in fact not good in the sense that we call good. Yet if God is not that which we recognize as good, what is that but to say in slightly different words that God may possibly not be good?
Blessings, Cindy