The problem of evil.

[37818]

Yes the provision of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in accordance with God's "good" purpose, but the capacity of Adam to choose not to do as God had indicated was innate in God's creation of Adam, again as a necessity to fulfill God's purpose!!

To Adam before woman was made.
Genesis 2:17, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:1, Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

[Van]

To Adam before woman was made.
Genesis 2:17, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:1, Now the serpent was more shewd than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Yes the provision of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in accordance with God's "good" purpose, but the capacity of Adam to choose not to do as God had indicated was innate in God's creation of Adam, again as a necessity to fulfill God's purpose!!

 

[37818]

. . . was innate in God's creation of Adam, again as a necessity to fulfill God's purpose!!

Do you have a passage in the written word of God you think should corroborated this understanding?

 

[Van]

Do you have a passage in the written word of God you think should corroborated this understanding?

It is obvious. Adam sinned. Before his sin, sin had not "entered the world." Therefore his capacity to sin was innate.

 

[Silverhair]

First you ask for me to substantiate my view, then you dismiss the substantiation as "opinion"

That gives me a pretty hard row to hoe.

Lets start (as Deacon did) with the assertion that God is Omnibenevolent. First we need to define the term. How about God is always good, and His goodness is unlimited. Say your family is in the path of a tornado, and your home and loved ones are destroyed. Now would you say God is good when some of His provisions allow calamity to impact our lives. God has mercy on whom He has mercy, yet does not have mercy on all. Those that do not receive His mercy, would they say that action was good?
Would Judas say God was Omnibenevolent when God chose Judas to be the "betrayer?" Good in that it served God's purpose, utilitarian goodness, but not for those sacrificed.​

1) Provided a definition of Omnibenevolent. No challenge was offered such as Omnibenevolent does not mean God is always good, or that His goodness is limited.

2) God causes calamity or disaster, and those impacted would not consider the circumstance "good" for them. (2 Kings 22:16)

3) God chose Judas to be the "betrayer." (John 13:18)

So you disagree the "God is love"? The fact that God is Omnibenevolent does not require that He only does good.

You seem to have taken "that is just your opinion" as a challenge to your view. Which it is just to be clear.

He is all-loving, or infinitely good but to say because He is then nothing bad can happen is illogical.

 

[Van]

So you disagree the "God is love"? The fact that God is Omnibenevolent does not require that He only does good.
You seem to have taken "that is just your opinion" as a challenge to your view. Which it is just to be clear.
He is all-loving, or infinitely good but to say because He is then nothing bad can happen is illogical.

Dear Sir, I do not know if you kidding, but your position is absurd.

1) To imply I do not believe God is Love seems an effort to change the subject.

2) Omnibenevolent does mean God does only good, as His goodness if infinite and unlimited. But goodness is in the eye of the beholder. When God condemns someone to Hades for unbelief, that is perfectly "good" in that it is according to His purpose, but the action would not be seen as kind or merciful by the person suffering torment in Hades.

3) There the premise of Omnibenevolent behavior is false, He is merciful to some but not to all.

4) I have provided support that cannot be disputed, only ignored.

5) I did not say, and have never said, nothing bad can happen. So a strawman agrument

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for his deeds done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad. ​

6) God is love, but He condemns unbelievers. He created man with the innate capacity to sin for His "good" purpose.

 

[Silverhair]

Dear Sir, I do not know if you kidding, but your position is absurd.

1) To imply I do not believe God is Love seems an effort to change the subject.

2) Omnibenevolent does mean God does only good, as His goodness if infinite and unlimited. But goodness is in the eye of the beholder. When God condemns someone to Hades for unbelief, that is perfectly "good" in that it is according to His purpose, but the action would not be seen as kind or merciful by the person suffering torment in Hades.

3) There the premise of Omnibenevolent behavior is false, He is merciful to some but not to all.

4) I have provided support that cannot be disputed, only ignored.

5) I did not say, and have never said, nothing bad can happen. So a strawman agrument

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for his deeds done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad. ​

6) God is love, but He condemns unbelievers. He created man with the innate capacity to sin for His "good" purpose.

Omnibenevolence is a attribute of God. Whether the person in hell thinks his being in hell is good is not relevant.

Your ability to misread what someone posts and/or to take everything as a personal attack is well know. As I said before you provide your opinion. When you can not even get the meaning of Omnibenevolent correct you are off to a bad start.

 

[Van]

Omnibenevolence is a attribute of God. Whether the person in hell thinks his being in hell is good is not relevant.

Your ability to misread what someone posts and/or to take everything as a personal attack is well know. As I said before you provide your opinion. When you can not even get the meaning of Omnibenevolent correct you are off to a bad start.

As sizzle and no steak. Omnibenevolence is a false doctrine. Full Stop.

1) God is good
2) God is love
3) God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
4) God created man with the innate capacity to sin.
5) The problem of evil is a fiction pushed by the biblically ignorant.

 

[Silverhair]

As sizzle and no steak. Omnibenevolence is a false doctrine. Full Stop.

1) God is good
2) God is love
3) God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
4) God created man with the innate capacity to sin.
5) The problem of evil is a fiction pushed by the biblically ignorant.

That is your opinion and as always you have the right to be wrong.

 

[Van]

That is your opinion and as always you have the right to be wrong.

Omnibenevolence is a false doctrine. Full Stop.

1) God is good
2) God is love
3) God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
4) God created man with the innate capacity to sin because Adam sinned before the Fall in his uncorrupted state.

The taint so posts with no support are a wast of time. Each of the four points above are straight outta scripture, not just my opinion.

 

[Silverhair]

Omnibenevolence is a false doctrine. Full Stop.

1) God is good
2) God is love
3) God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
4) God created man with the innate capacity to sin because Adam sinned before the Fall in his uncorrupted state.

The taint so posts with no support are a wast of time. Each of the four points above are straight outta scripture, not just my opinion.

If God were simply omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful), but not omnibenevolent (infinitely good and all-loving), then we would have reason to be frightened. Then whatever He did would simply be called “good” even if it were hateful.

I only need one verse to disprove your position.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Joh 3:16

But just in case you do not like that one here is a second one for you.
Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So @Van Omnibenevolence is not a false doctrine. Full Stop.

 

[37818]

Therefore his capacity to sin was innate.

That implication would be God created man to become sinful, so not actually very good per Genesis 1:31?

 

[37818]

Only an infinite God can both be omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

 

[Van]

If God were simply omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful), but not omnibenevolent (infinitely good and all-loving), then we would have reason to be frightened. Then whatever He did would simply be called “good” even if it were hateful.

I only need one verse to disprove your position.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Joh 3:16

But just in case you do not like that one here is a second one for you.
Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So @Van Omnibenevolence is not a false doctrine. Full Stop.

1) Did I claim what God did would be called "good?" Noipe I say those on the receiving end of condemnation or calamity will call the circumstance not good.

2) Is God good. Yes. Is God "infinite?" He is beyond our understanding. Beyond our ability to measure. The Greek word "mispār" (H4557) is translated as "infinite" (Psalm 147:5 KJV). The NASB also translates the word as "infinite" but footnotes the meaning as "innumerable" thus beyond measure.

3) Of course God loves humanity (John 3:16) yet even while still sinners. That in no way disproves the Omnibenevolence is false doctrine. God"s agapeo love (sacrificial love) does not preclude God from condemning sinners to Hades, or hardening the hearts of Jews to facilitate spreading the gospel to Gentiles.

4) Yes God desires all humans to be saved according to His redemption plan. He does not desire unbelieving humans to be saved, but condemns them for unbelief. Our job is to witness to the lost such that they have the opportunity to believe!!

 

[Van]

That implication would be God created man to become sinful, so not actually very good per Genesis 1:31?

Again God's creation was very "good" in that it facilitated His purpose of creation, to choose a people for His own possession. However, His redemption plan, formulated before creation, was to redeem those who choose to believe in God the Son. And that required their ability to choose otherwise, the capacity to sin.

 

[37818]

.

It is obvious. Adam sinned. Before his sin, sin had not "entered the world." Therefore his capacity to sin was innate.

Do you have a passage in the written word of God you think should corroborated this understanding?

 

[37818]

. . . . choose to believe in God the Son.

[An extra Biblical title. Not even in Hebrews 1:8 where God calls His Son God uses that title, "God the Son." But explicitly the Son of God is both the Son and God.]

 

[Van]

[An extra Biblical title. Not even in Hebrews 1:8 where God calls His Son God uses that title. Explicitly the Son of God is both the Son and God.]

You know who God the Son refers to! No need to find off topic nitpicks to digress from the topic. We choose to believe in Him, to love Him, to follow Him and the Him is Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God, God the Son.

 

[37818]

. . . . God the Son.

You believe that extra Biblical title to be necessary.

 

[Van]

You believe that extra Biblical title to be necessary.

Stop trying to change the subject from the topic. You know that God the Son is the Second Person of the Trinity. Just because something like the Persons of our Triune God are vaguely described in scripture, does not mean we cannot use clear, plain and unambiguous names to designate who we are talking about.