Free Willism or God's Soeveignty in Salvation of All

[Eusebius]

“The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4).
“Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor,” (Hab. 1:13).
We can see that the Bible teaches that God is pure and does not approve of evil, that the word rah (evil) in Hebrew can mean many things, and that contextually the verse is speaking of calamity and distress. Therefore, God does not create evil in the moral sense, but in the sense of disaster or calamity.

Here is Habakkuk 1:13 in the Concordant Literal Old Testament:
Hab 1:13 You are of cleaner eyes than to see evil, and to look at misery You are not able. Why are You looking at the treacherous, are silent when the wicked swallow one up more righteous than he?

It is one thing to see evil and quite another to create evil as God said He did. Sure it pains God’s heart to see humans going through evil events but He knows it is for their good. No father really likes to discipline their child but knows it is for their best.

Gen_8:21 And smelling is Yahweh Elohim a restful smell. And saying is Yahweh Elohim to His heart, "Not any more will I slight further the ground for the sake of humanity, for the form of the human heart is evil from its youth. Neither again will I smite further all living flesh, as I have done.

I think it is improper to assume that the human hart’s evilness is only pertaining to earthly catastrophic events.

[Eusebius]

It would be interesting to see what the free-willy-ists here or elsewhere [as in Arminianists] have to say about KIng Neb. So far, though, not a peep out of them here.

Yes, I wonder why that is too.

Likewise my comment re God bringing “evil” upon Job. And you saw how Noah’s flood was answered - Moses was wrong. Also ditto for several other scripture passages you have brought to their attention. I expect Arminianist Christians would try to explain away these things in accord with Sola Scriptura, but perhaps we are seeing something different here from some Christian URists, no?

I think no human, no matter what view they hold to, don’t like to be told they are wrong. The wise man will love correction however.

But as far as minority vs majority is concerned, if majority is the will of God [or the will of the RCC/EOC] this is a lost cause. LOL ;
After all, all the extant (existing) writings of the early church fathers are clearly against us, no? ;

Well, lucky for us, many of the early church fathers contradict each other over the years. So it’s not a slam dunk for them. For instance, some early church fathers, when commenting on “On this rock I will build My church” is that the rock was Peter’s declaration that Jesus was the Christ. But some other church fathers say the rock was Peter.

However, bottom line, or most important, the brothers here are with us on the efficacy of Christ, Him crucified for ALL, [not some and ECT for the most] and what that ultimately means. Yes?

Yep!

[anon12438761]

Here is a pretty good discussion of the hermeneutics of the ‘Evil’ that God supposedly created in Is 45.7.

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q … saiah-45-7

There are a great many shades of meaning of the Hebrew word, it turns out, and the translation “calamity” instead of “evil” seems to fit the context of the verse much better.

Which would fit into my contention that ‘evil’ is a multivocal term, which needs to be parsed depending on the context in which it is used.

[Eusebius]

Here is a pretty good discussion of the hermeneutics of the ‘Evil’ that God supposedly created in Is 45.7.

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q … saiah-45-7

There are a great many shades of meaning of the Hebrew word, it turns out, and the translation “calamity” instead of “evil” seems to fit the context of the verse much better.

Which would fit into my contention that ‘evil’ is a multivocal term, which needs to be parsed depending on the context in which it is used.

Here is one too.
concordant.org/expositions/problem-evil-judgments-god-contents/part-one-1-evil-sin/
It is part of the book The Problem of Evil and The Judgments of God.

The author states the definitive meaning of Evil is “break” or “shatter,” “pulverize.”

Some translations give many disparate meanings for the Hebrew word which make it hard to pin down its basic meaning. The Author also states that God did not sin in creating evil.

I say He did not miss the mark. God hit the target perfectly in creating evil.
Calamity is not the opposite of good. It was not the tree of the knowledge of good and calamity. Man’s hearts are not filled with calamity from their youth. There is no such thing as “moral evil” in the bible. That is just some theologian’s verbiage to excuse God from creating evil.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@DaveB

Here is a pretty good discussion of the hermeneutics of the ‘Evil’ that God supposedly created in Is 45.7.

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q … saiah-45-7

There are a great many shades of meaning of the Hebrew word, it turns out, and the translation “calamity” instead of “evil” seems to fit the context of the verse much better.

Which would fit into my contention that ‘evil’ is a multivocal term, which needs to be parsed depending on the context in which it is used.

@Eusebius

Here is one too.
concordant.org/expositions/problem-evil-judgments-god-contents/part-one-1-evil-sin/
It is part of the book The Problem of Evil and The Judgments of God.

The author states the definitive meaning of Evil is “break” or “shatter,” “pulverize.”

Some translations give many disparate meanings for the Hebrew word which make it hard to pin down its basic meaning. The Author also states that God did not sin in creating evil.

I say He did not miss the mark. God hit the target perfectly in creating evil.
Calamity is not the opposite of good. It was not the tree of the knowledge of good and calamity. Man’s hearts are not filled with calamity from their youth. There is no such thing as “moral evil” in the bible. That is just some theologian’s verbiage to excuse God from creating evil.

Me gets so confused, Eusebius and Dave. This is what the Protestant Site, Got Questions says. Can someone un-confuse this Holy Fool theologian and P-Zombie philosopher, so I can help this determinism stuff out?

Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil?

Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” How does Isaiah 45:7 agree with the view that God did not create evil? There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV). The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.

(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.

https://cdn.andertoons.com/img/toons/cartoon6547.png

And it all started by me becoming confused, with the CARM article:

Does God create evil?

Can someone straighten me out here?

But I did learn this from Wiki. Eusebius was a Roman historian.

[Eusebius]

Here is a pretty good discussion of the hermeneutics of the ‘Evil’ that God supposedly created in Is 45.7.

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q … saiah-45-7

There are a great many shades of meaning of the Hebrew word, it turns out, and the translation “calamity” instead of “evil” seems to fit the context of the verse much better.

Concerning the linked article above, who said we have to decide whether the evil is moral evil or not in Isaiah 45:7? Does the Bible tell us God did not create evil as the article states? No, it says He did. Since the Scriptures define evil as “breaking” or “smashing” it is just that whether it is moral or not. We have to just get over it. God did not sin in creating evil, WHATEVER EVIL IS! The same “evil” in 45:7 is the same evil spoken of in Job:

“Shall we receive good from God and not evil? In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” Yes, the evil Job received was calamitous. It was smashing. It was breaking. God had the Sabeans come and murder and loot. Even God had a hand in it by sending fire from the heavens. Job’s kids were killed. Job’s servants were killed. Yes, God created evil. God’s so-called "P.R. men try to shield God by saying “it’s not moral evil!!!” If one believes in eternal torment one is compelled to shield God. They must give man free will to make lack of salvation all man’s fault. They must make evil just something of natural causes. We just can’t have a God creating evil and sending people to hell for eternity they think. God does not sin in creating evil NO MATTER WHAT EVIL IS YOU THINK IT IS! Since God’s overarching goal is GOOD for all mankind and evil is only temporary, God is still good, righteous and perfect.

So let’s just say, for the sake of argument, the Hebrew for “rah” means “calamity” and not “evil.” In receiving calamity from God, did not Job receive evil? Of course he did. The calamity, the murdering, thievery, stealing of what he had, killing of his children were evil. Sorry but there is just no way to make evil all cuddly and cute. God is not evil in creating evil.

Okay, maybe a little too much drama?

[LLC]

Eusebious, You mention that God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, Genesis 2:9 says this:" And out of the ground God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." This verse mentions only that the two trees were present. It does not specify who created them. I don’t believe God creates evil. God created man and has given us the ability to create as well. I would say that man creates evil through his own thoughts, decisions and actions. Someone also bought up the subject of Nebuchadnezzar. I don’t think that God literally turned him into an animal. He became like an animal in nature, or in other words simply lost his mind because he refused to listen to the voice of God.

[Eusebius]

LLC,
This is the inspired account:

Gen 2:8 And planting is Yahweh Elohim a garden in Eden, in the east, and He is placing there the human whom He forms.
Gen 2:9 And furthermore sprouting is Yahweh Elohim from the ground every tree coveted by the sight and good for food, and the tree of the living in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

1st it says God planted a garden. In that garden God sprouted every tree including the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Bible also tells us “all is out of God.” Therefore the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had its source in God.

Concerning Nebuchadnezzar, it is best to stick with the Scriptures than what we think:

All this came upon king Nebuchadnezzar when, at the end of twelve months, he is going about on the royal palace of Babylon." Responding is the king to all this by saying, “Is not this Babylon great that I have built to be the house of the kingdom within the might of my safeguarding walls, for the esteem of my honor!” While the matter is still in the mouth of the king, a voice falls from the heavens, “To you are they saying, King Nebuchadnezzar: The kingdom passes away from you. From mortals are they shoving you, and with the animals of the field is your abode. Herbage will they feed to you, as oxen. Thus seven seasons shall pass on over you till you shall know that the Supreme is in authority in the kingdom of mortals and to whom He is willing He is giving it.” In the same hour the declaration gathered on Nebuchadnezzar: From mortals is he shoved, herbage is he eating, as oxen, and the night mist of the heavens is streaking his frame, till his hair increased as vultures’ feathers and his claws are as those of birds."
Nebuchadnezzar restored:
And at the end of the days, I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to the heavens, and my knowledge is returning to me. Then I blessed the Supreme, and I lauded and honored Him Who is living for the eon, seeing that His jurisdiction is an eonian jurisdiction, and His kingdom is with generation after generation. 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?”
(Dan 4:28-35)

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14141595_1061507587290164_8652244634074435296_n.jpg?oh=127d46ba1d978b12945c054ca0da563a&oe=584E0500

[jeff]

[anon12438761]

A group of Isis thugs rape and kill an 8 year old girl in front of her parents, then do the same to the wife, making sure they tape the husband’s eyes open so he has to watch.

Just so I’m clear - how is the heavenly Father responsible for this?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@DaveB

A group of Isis thugs rape and kill an 8 year old girl in front of her parents, then do the same to the wife, making sure they tape the husband’s eyes open so he has to watch.

Just so I’m clear - how is the heavenly Father responsible for this?

https://cdn.andertoons.com/img/toons/cartoon6319.png

Let me add to this. I found this on Yahoo Answers, when trying to find material to help what I call the “Puppet on a String” view at What are the objections to hard determinism?. Perhaps Eusebius and Oregin can help me to understand how to counter these (i.e. best answer), so I can help them to promote this viewpoint. I’m here to help them, but I need to know how to handle these objections.

Determinism is self-defeating. A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But “ought to change” implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism.

Determinism is irrational. C.S. Lewis argued that naturalistic, complete determinism is irrational. For determinism to be true, there would have to be a rational basis for their thought. But if determinism is true, then there is no rational basis for thought, since all is determined by non-rational forces. So, if determinism claims to be true, then it must be false.

Determinism destroys human responsibility. If God is the cause of all human actions, then human beings are not morally responsible. One is only responsible for a choice if there was free will to avoid making it. All responsibility implies the ability to respond, either on one’s own or by God’s grace. Ought implies can. But if God caused the action, then we could not have avoided it. Hence, we are not responsible.

Determinism renders praise and blame meaningless. Similarly, if God causes all human actions, then it makes no sense to praise human beings for doing good, nor to blame them for doing evil. For if the courageous really had no choice other than to show courage, why reward it? If the evil had no choice but to commit their crime, why punish them? Rewards and punishment for moral behavior makes sense only if the actions were not caused by another.

Determinism leads to fatalism. If everything is determined beyond our control, then why do good and avoid evil? Indeed, if determinism is right, evil is unavoidable. Determinism destroys the very motive to do good and shun evil.

[davo]

Determinism is self-defeating. A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But “ought to change” implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism.

That’s it in a nutshell.

Why would a determinist want to save someone from Hell whom God has apparently already predestined to Hell? – such would be nothing short of a challenge to God’s “sovereignty”. And any universalist excuse that “well they don’t stay in hell” is still no reasonable rationale against such logic.

[Origen]

A group of Isis thugs rape and kill an 8 year old girl in front of her parents, then do the same to the wife, making sure they tape the husband’s eyes open so he has to watch.

Just so I’m clear - how is the heavenly Father responsible for this?

In the same way God loosed His pitbulls, Satan, to do evil to Job & his family.

Job said the Lord gives & the Lord takes away. Then we are told that in saying this Job spoke truthfully.

[anon12438761]

Wow. The story of Job is what - a tale from 4K years ago, and not meant to be taken literally? And Isis rapes are on TV now and are very literal?

I think the comparison lacks substance

Saying God is responsible - or, more pointedly, that He decreed the rapes, or caused them to happen - I mean, really? Are we willing to go that far ?

[Origen]

Why would a determinist want to save someone from Hell whom God has apparently already predestined to Hell? – such would be nothing short of a challenge to God’s “sovereignty”. And any universalist excuse that “well they don’t stay in hell” is still no reasonable rationale against such logic.

I suppose a determinist might, first of all, acknowledge that he can’t save anyone from “hell”, since that is God’s job, via Christ crucified. Christ is the Saviour of the world, not man. To Him be ALL the glory, not half & half with humans, imaginary human freewill or idolators. OTOH if freewillers feel it is their duty to save themselves & save others, that’ may be putting heavy burdens on people, likely accompanied by many fears as well.

Re those “predestined to Hell”, or rather corrective chastening or punishment, nobody knows who they are & even if we (freewillers or determinists) want them saved from such, God clearly knows better, and in any case there is nothing either of us could do about it.

As for “hell” itself, i suppose it may be much worse in the freewill than determinist view of universalism. To some freewillists it may take many ages of tortures before the wicked finally choose God of their own freewill. The deterministic God has no such problem as freewill to deal with.

Additionally, the free-willy God has a problem keeping all saved, if He can ever get all saved [which is certainly questionable]. For if they still have freewill, is He going to take freewill away from them to keep them saved, or is He going to let them still have freewill to choose to be lost?

Per the determinists’ motivation to preach the good news of the gospel - from the merely human, or relative perspective - it is because
of some of the common usual reasons one hears, that it is commanded, it is the will of God, because one is called for this purpose, because you love Christ & love to proclaim His glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

OTOH there is the divine and absolute perspective, which is the love of Christ constrains us & works in us to will & to do of His good pleasure (Phil.2:13). One being chosen by God to this ministry is, like our salvation, not of ourselves, but a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast (Eph.2:8-10). For it is not of the will of the flesh, nor of the WILL OF MAN, but of God (Jn.1:12-13).

[Origen]

Wow. The story of Job is what - a tale from 4K years ago, and not meant to be taken literally? And Isis rapes are on TV now and are very literal?

I think the comparison lacks substance

Saying God is responsible - or, more pointedly, that He decreed the rapes, or caused them to happen - I mean, really? Are we willing to go that far ?

Are you saying God couldn’t have stopped the rapes?

It’s not just the account of Job. The scriptures are full of similar examples, from Genesis to Revelation.

BTW all this has already been covered earlier in the thread.

[maintenanceman]

Origen said:

It’s not just the account of Job. The scriptures are full of similar examples, from Genesis to Revelation.

BTW all this has already been covered earlier in the thread.

Yea but, it is interesting to talk about

It’s what we do

[Origen]

“Determinism leads to fatalism. If everything is determined beyond our control, then why do good and avoid evil? Indeed, if determinism is right, evil is unavoidable. Determinism destroys the very motive to do good and shun evil.”

Re the last sentence, not true. Determinists probably do good for many or most, if not all, the same reasons freewillyists do.

[jeff]

Daniel 9:14 might shed some light to earlier questions.

The Lord did not hesitate to bring the disaster on us, for the Lord our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him.

[Origen]

1. Determinism is self-defeating. A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But “ought to change” implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism.

2. Determinism is irrational. C.S. Lewis argued that naturalistic, complete determinism is irrational. For determinism to be true, there would have to be a rational basis for their thought. But if determinism is true, then there is no rational basis for thought, since all is determined by non-rational forces. So, if determinism claims to be true, then it must be false.

3. Determinism destroys human responsibility. If God is the cause of all human actions, then human beings are not morally responsible. One is only responsible for a choice if there was free will to avoid making it. All responsibility implies the ability to respond, either on one’s own or by God’s grace. Ought implies can. But if God caused the action, then we could not have avoided it. Hence, we are not responsible.

4. Determinism renders praise and blame meaningless. Similarly, if God causes all human actions, then it makes no sense to praise human beings for doing good, nor to blame them for doing evil. For if the courageous really had no choice other than to show courage, why reward it? If the evil had no choice but to commit their crime, why punish them? Rewards and punishment for moral behavior makes sense only if the actions were not caused by another.

1. This confuses the relative vs absolute viewpoints. See previous posts addressing that topic.

Did God in giving the law imply man “ought” to keep the law, has freewill and also could keep the law through his freewill alone ? No.

2. Not true. All is not caused by “non-rational forces”.

3. Correct, from the absolute perspective. See 1. above.

4. Incorrect. Nothing that God determines is “meaningless”. God is able to, and therefore shall, work all things together for good.

BTW perhaps point 4 is much the same objection to God the Potter & man His clay that Paul answers in Romans 9-11.

Just because some people can’t understand what is beyond their comprehension does not make what God determines “meaningless”. Can you understand what is beyond the end of the universe or an endless or expanding universe? Can you comprehend why there is anything & not nothing? Now we see through a glass darkly & know in part.