Perhaps I’ll wait and see if Eusebius answers that, since it was his comment. I’m sure he is more than capable.
Re our previous discussion re rape, you never answered my query, could God/Love Omnipotent not have stopped it?
Evidently you didn’t consider not only the omnipresence but the obviously implied Omnipotence (besides obviously the Benevolence of God’s love in Eusebius’ previous posts in this thread re God as the Saviour & Reconciler of all).
Sorry - I went back and edited the attribution to Eusebius.
The reason I did not answer you on your original post is that, as you very well know, the question is extremely loaded no matter which way we choose to answer it. And the reasonings involved are extensive and eventually lead to metaphysics and language analysis.
A forum is a good place to throw bricks at one another, but not so good for arguments that turn on nuance and analysis.
I say a pox upon both extremes - libertarian freedom AND determinism. I’m not certain however what ‘pox’’ is.
Evidently not. Implied Omnipotence? Obviously implied??
Enough sniping? I think all of us here have great breadth of mind, laser-like focus, depths of compassion that cannot be measured (maybe overstated)- and we’re sniping. Forums are just not good at some things; they are good for brick-throwing.
I’ll try not to snipe but it will be difficult.
i quote from Eusebius:
“God could easily stop all the evil acts in an instant.”
I wonder how you define Jesus the Christ.
Is He not God the Word [John 1:1], the Lord speaking through all of the inspired inerrant Old Testament Scriptures?
Is He not God the Word, the Lord, who spoke through all the inspired inerrant New Testament Scriptures?
As i take it you do not believe it was He who spoke in the OT via the author [Moses?] who spoke re God bringing death/evil via the flood in Noah’s day. What about He who brought evil upon Job, Jonah, etc? Do you believe the entire OT is a lie?
You ask, “Did Jesus ever paint His Heavenly Father in this way?” He certainly is Omnipotent & could have easily stopped such acts…therefore, via sin of ommission, which is equal to sin of commission, He is just as guilty as those who committed such acts, unless He has a righteously just excuse for watching while it happened & doing nothing. You, a freewillist, say that is freewill. A determinist has other just excuses for allowing or causing such to happen. So, bottom line, who has the better excuse or reason for it, and why?
I’m sorry, I did not see that you answered the question. Did you?
Like i said above to Paidon:
I wonder how you define Jesus the Christ.
Is He not God the Word [John 1:1], the Lord speaking through all of the inspired inerrant Old Testament Scriptures?
Is He not God the Word, the Lord, who spoke through all the inspired inerrant New Testament Scriptures?
As i take it you do not believe it was He who spoke in the OT via the author [Moses?] who spoke re God bringing death/evil via the flood in Noah’s day. What about He who brought evil upon Job, Jonah, etc? Do you believe the entire OT is a lie?
You ask, “Did Jesus ever paint His Heavenly Father in this way?” He certainly is Omnipotent & could have easily stopped such acts…therefore, via sin of ommission, which is equal to sin of commission, He is just as guilty as those who committed such acts, unless He has a righteously just excuse for watching while it happened & doing nothing. You, a freewillist, say that is freewill. A determinist has other just excuses for allowing or causing such to happen. So, bottom line, who has the better excuse or reason for it, and why?
" But to be fair, this same determinism view is shared by Islam - which has over 1 billion worldwide followers."
Really? I didn’t see any evidence to support that view? Would it matter in view of Sola Scriptura?
In any case, we know the RCC ECT view of the dark ages of churchdum, full of inquisitions, darkness, crusades,
ignorance galore, for 1000 to 1500 years, more or less, was dominated by ECT free willy-ism.
1 Like
Perhaps this bears repeating, for those who missed it:
"Live as if It All Depends on You
Q: To what extent is our free will? God chooses us and gives us belief. Do we make any choices at all? When I used to wup my brother on the basketball court, was that talent and free will?
A: There is no such thing as free will. Nobody makes any decision at any time that is not ultimately dictated by God.
Now, forget I just said that and live your life. Live as if you have all the free will in the world. This is how God wants us to live. We are to live like we have control, but we are to believe the truth that we have no control. The two are not mutually exclusive. One is the relative perspective (our day-to-day life as we relate with other people and ourselves), and the other is the absolute perspective. The relative is not absolutely true. Only the absolute is absolutely true. And the absolute is: we have no free will in anything. Nothing. Zip.
The talent that caused you to wup your brother in basketball was a gift of God. Everything you have and do is a gift of God. God GAVE all these things to you, and He continues to give them. As Paul writes, “What do we have that we have not obtained?” You have not originated anything, but have merely obtained it. "
Jeff, I apologize for misquoting you earlier. Origen’s post happened to be just below yours. 
I double checked this time to make sure I’ve got it right. 
I am responding to what you say here: “First since the nature of man is sinful, mankind cannot change his own nature. We are not sinners because 100% of all human beings just happened to sin or chose to sin by our supposed “free” will. Love of sin, selfishness, and hatred of God is woven into the firstborn nature of every human being.”
I disagree with this. I see it totally opposite. We are not animals and sinners by nature. I do not believe that we evolved from apes. According to Genesis, God made man in His own image. Jesus ( the Spirit of God-love, compassion, forgiveness) is the firstborn nature of man. John 1 says this: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” The fall comes afterward when we choose to eat of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, or in other words, we choose to go against the Godly nature that we are first born with as babies and children. As we start to grow up, the world gets a hold of us and we go astray. It is at this point, we must be re-born.
Further to the question:
"If God is an all-knowing being, why does one need to pray?
Of course, you can substitute other language words. Instead of “If God is an all-knowing being” , substitute something like “If God determines everything”, etc"
Why do Christians need to pray to Christ? So they might become more Christ-like?
Who causes this? God Who works in you to will & to do of His good pleasure (Phil.2:13; Eph.2:8-10; Jn.1:12-13)?
I suppose if one wants to follow the Pope as God or worship Mary, they have the free will to do so.
Hi DaveB,
No, I’m not pulling any legs. I believe it does logically follow that since God is everywhere and since He could stop all the evil in the world if He wanted to, and since He does not, it must be something He deems necessary for now in His universe.
For instance, let’s suppose a girl was grabbed by a gang of thugs and a fully armed police officer pulls up, gets out of his car and watches the raping of the girl ensue. By-standers are asking “Why isn’t the policeman doing anything about this!!!???” I’m sure it would be in the news that that policeman ALLOWED the crime to occur and did nothing to stop it. I’m also sure he would lose his job.
You see Dave, God is not only everywhere, He is all powerful as well. John’s Revelation points this out when God finally does put a stop to the evil. It is just not the right time yet. And we have the written word to vouchsafe this when it states:
Dan_4:35 All abiding on the earth are reckoned as naught: According to His will is He doing in the army of the heavens and with those abiding on the earth. And no one will actually clap with his hands and say to Him, "What doest Thou?
I wonder why none of the free-willers will condemn those of us who say God is responsible and not only decreed the sacrifice of His own Son but He is said to have sacrificed His own Son to death. And He used humans to do it. Why don’t you accuse us of blasphemy by degrading God’s character for that?
Ah, because you see all the good that is going to come out of that act. The problem is you don’t see the good that will eventuate from the other evil acts man does.
1 Like
Have you studied Islam? Have you read the Koran? I have. They are very fatalistic. See, for example, this New York Times article:
I’ll be happy to provide additional links - if you like.
You know what is amusing to me? Many folks here are as zealous of presenting a particular universalism viewpoint, as their counterparts are for presenting theirs - in the outside world. For me, I don’t really care. We are all the blind men and women, trying to describe the elephant.
Here’s my take. Want my version? Fine. In a nutshell, it’s:
The Anglican church Framework, coupled with some Eastern Orthodox theological elements
The Roman Catholic teaching of purgatory, coupled with the Protestant teaching of Conditional Immortality - with a hopeful universalist outlook.
The Health and Prosperity Gospel teaching, of TV evangelist Joel Osteen.
Embracing the Wisdom Tradition, which Wiki says is " a synonym for Perennialism, the idea that there is a perennial or mystic inner core to all religious or spiritual traditions, without the trappings, doctrinal literalism, sectarianism, and power structures that are associated with institutionalized religion."
Folks here don’t like mine? Fine. Pick one of the ones floating around here - on the forum. Or pick a traditional Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant offering. Or one presented by your local community or Bible Church, or your favorite TV evangelist.
And one can even take a traditional or non-traditional rendering and roll their own. I can easily agree with everything Eusebius and Origen has said and present the traditional view of John Calvin - on steroids. Or create a Frankenstein monster. Take everything that Eusebius and Origen has said, but show that God has predestined all folks to hell, regardless of Christ’s sacrifice and redemption (essentially John Calvin - on super steroids - what a depressing thought that is. 
).
As far as free will vs determinism, Dave hit upon an important point:
Dave has some interesting things to say - in that quote (regarding free will and determinism), regarding “metaphysics and language analysis”. Actually, there have been many threads on this topic - here on this forum. And I have participated deeply - in some of them. But I don’t feel like recycling material, when someone opens a new thread - regarding an old topic. Unless that person has something new and interesting to say. In a “past life” (i.e. past phase of my life), I rose to the ranks of Bishop, in the Independent Catholic movement. I’m no longer in that movement. And I used to debate topics like this, on Protestant and other related forums. So I rarely see anything new under the sun.
For example. We see “will” tossed around here. But there’s actually a Faculties Model, a Hierarchical Model and a Reasons-Responsive View. For example, there’s an interesting development a few decades back, covered at:
Or more specific to Dave’s comments, we get into ethics, epistemology and metaphysics:
But I do “test the waters” on forum topics a bit, to see what they have to say.
Let me dedicate the next short song, to Eusebius and Origen 
or
The apostle Paul must have taught that God does evil that good may come.
He was falsely accused of saying that therefore WE can do evil that good may come as well:
Rom_3:8 and why not say, according as we are calumniated and according as some are averring
that we are saying, that “We should be doing evil that good may be coming”? - whose judgment is fair."
But the problem is we are fallible humans and are not God. We can’t know for sure that if we do an evil act
that good will come of it, relatively speaking.
Will good come out of God putting His own Son to death? Yes!
Did good come out of God having Joseph’s brothers sell him into Egypt? Yes. Joseph told them “you meant it for evil but God meant it for good (Gen.50:20).”
So God does evil that good will come. And yet God is not sinning in so doing. He never misses the mark.
One more point:
God has subjected the universe to vanity. Now why would God do that? What possible good could come of Him subjecting the universe to that evil? And He says the universe did not volunteer for that. He did it with a goal of good in view. Here, you can read about it here:
“For to vanity was the creation subjected, not voluntarily, but because of Him Who subjects it, in expectation that the creation itself, also, shall be freed from the slavery of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” (Rom 8:20-21)
Wow! What blasphemy! 
1 Like
No. John 1:1 does not affirm that. It affirms that the Word was with THE God (in the sense that He was of one mind with the God). Then it affirms that the Word’s essences was God (not THE God). If the Word were “THE God”, then the first phrase would affirm that He was with Himself. The Word’s essence was God because the God begat Him as the first of His acts, and so He was of divine essence as was His Father. A human being is man, because Adam (which means “man”) was THE man, the first man, and he begat children so that all people are in essence “man”.
Adam, THE man, begat offspring and they were man, man in essence, that is, they were human. But none of his offspring was Adam himself. Yahweh, THE God begat one offspring (the only-begotten Son) and He was God, God in essence, that is, He was divine. But He was not THE GOD Himself.
The Son of God addressed the Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3).
I’m not sure if they agree or disagree with Paidion and the original poster (Hey. What if I was the original poster 
This would be so embarrassing 
. I’m a busy, multi-tasking person. I don’t devote my time to just posting here and reading posts ). Here’s the Protestant site Got Questions take on it:
“What do John 1:1,14 mean when they declare that Jesus is the Word of God?”
Paidion, I agree that since the word was with God the word cannot be that God. In the Greek it is “The word was toward God.” From that we could understand the word was facing God and representing God. But then it says “and God was the Logos.”
Often the Greeks would leave our “was” and “is” unless they were using those terms for a figure of speech. Please see the commentary below on this.
Jesus said He has a God. Therefore one who has a God cannot be that God. But Jesus can be an image of God as far was being something or someone representational of another.
Here is something interesting from the Concordant Commentary on John 1:1-2:
"As God always was, there is no absolute beginning brought before us in the Scriptures. Both here and in Gen 11 the article the is lacking in the originals, showing that it refers to the commencement of the subject in hand. In Genesis it is the beginning of creation. Here it is the beginning of revelation. The phrase might be rendered idiomatically, “To begin with”.
“The Logos, or Saying, or Expression, or Word, brings before us the revelation of God through sound, which appeals to the ears of His creatures. It is inferior to and in contrast with the revelation in which Christ is presented to sight, as the Image of God. Paul was saved by a sight of His transcendent glory. John was called by His word. Sound is slow and confined to the earth. Sight is swift and searches the heavens. This suggests the limited sphere of John’s ministry.
“With” suggests two Greek words neither of which is used here. hence for accuracy’s sake it is best to translate literally “toward”. “With God” has no cogency in this connection. “Toward” indicates that the revealed Word pointed the creature in the direction of God. Take every “thus saith the Lord” in the Hebrew Scriptures and they all point us to God, and reveal some attribute of the divine character.
It is impossible for the mind to entertain the two thoughts that the Word was toward (or with) God, and the Word was God. Nothing which is toward (or with) an object can actually be that object. The difficulty lies in the difference between English and Greek idiom. “Was” and “is” are usually omitted in Greek, unless they are used in a figurative sense. Thus “This is my body” does not mean that the bread of the communion actually is the Lord’s body but represents it. As the bread stands for the Lord’s body, so the Word took the place of God. The God of the Hebrew Scriptures spoke: it was an oral revelation. He was revealed as Elohim, Jehovah, Adonai, etc., by means of utterances which came to the fathers through the prophets. while His essence was concealed. As at Sinai, His voice was heard, but He was hid.” (end of quote)