Theodicy

[steve7150]

Wouldn't it be simpler to accept John's description of God as pure LOVE, or Jesus' instruction to love our enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return, for in so doing we will be sons of the Most High who is kind to unthankful and evil people? (Luke 6:35 ) If we can do that, we won't have to believe in a schizophrenic God.

Paidion



We may not precisely know what love is from God's perspective. I think he wants the best for us but has told us we must be overcomers, but overcomers of what? Maybe we are meant to overcome evil and to accomplish this, evil must exist.
So if evil exists does it mean God doesn't love us? Many people feel this way, in fact i think it is the number one reason people don't believe or care about God.
However the way we learn the best is by overcoming and to do that we must experience it. So i don't think evil exists because of man's free will or because of God's justice but because God knows through the pain of evil it will in the eternal scheme of things benefit us.

[Homer]

I think I must agree with Doug.

Matt wrote:

But I think love, rightly understand, may be a able to account for all things God does.

And Paidion wrote:

Wouldn't it be simpler to accept John's description of God as pure LOVE

Recently on another thread Steve stated that God is omnibenevolent. When I asked for a definition about what this term meant Steve replied as follows:

"Omni" and "benevolence" are familiar words, I should think. Put them together and their meaning is rather plain. I am not familiar with many creeds, but the Bible states that "God is love." If He is only loving to some, but unloving to an equal or larger number, then the statement is meaningless. It does not say, "God has love...for some," but "God is love." The form of the sentence is the same as the statements "God is Spirit," and "God is Light" (all three statements are found in John's writings). These statements describe God's essence, not His policies. If God is love, and God is infinite, then we have the doctrine of omnibenevolence.

But the meaning is not at all plain and I still do not know what the term means. I have since been doing much digging regarding omnibenevolence. It is not easy to find reference work on the subject. There is no listing for the subject in the Interpreter's Dictionary, the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Catholic Encyclopedia, or the Zondervan Bible Encyclopedia, although the Zondervan Encyclopedia does have listed as subjects God's omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. The term is not in the bible, any creeds I know of; it seems to be rather obscure. Perhaps someone knows of it being used in the statement of faith of certain groups?

I did come across information that it is a favored term of two disparate groups: universalists and atheists. The universalists make obvious use of the term, arguing that since God (they claim) is omnibenevolent, annihilation and eternal punishment can not be true. On the other hand atheists are said to use it as a strawman, claiming omnibenevolence is a Christian doctrine and then attacking the concept of God as false because of all the suffering in the world and in the bible, with God described as the cause, thus dismantling a tenent that never existed.

It seems to me those who use the term "omnibenevolence" could mean one of the following:

1. Every action of God, active or passive (allowing events), is for the betterment of the individual obect(s) of the action.

2. God is "maximally" benevolent, i.e. He brings about the best He can for the individual though He may be constrained by other considerations such as free will, or by helping one person He simultaneously and unavoidably harms another.

3. God is always disposed to doing only good.

4. God is infinitely loving (but what would that mean?).

5. God's actions are universally and always benevolent toward every person.

6. Other suggestions? Perhaps you can word the concept better than I.

Which brings up the following questions:

1. Was God omnibenevolent to Herod when he was struck by an angel of the Lord, eaten by worms, and died? (Acts 12:19-23)

2. Is it loving of God to refuse to hear the prayers of certain persons? (1 Peter 3:12)

3. Is God omnibenevolent if He has mercy on some and not others? (Romans 9:14-15)

4. Was it loving of God to harden the hearts of certain people so that they could not believe? (John 12:39-40)

5. If God decreed, giving ample warning, that He has fixed a time when He will judge every person who ever lived and at that time He will punish and annihilate the wicked who never repented, would God not be "love" if He kept His word and some people are in fact then punished and annihilated?

I will leave out the plethora of incidents for now from the OT that could be cited. Otherwise we could be here a very long time.

[Paidion]

But the meaning is not at all plain and I still do not know what the term means. I have since been doing much digging regarding omnibenevolence. It is not easy to find reference work on the subject. There is no listing for the subject in the Interpreter's Dictionary, the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Catholic Encyclopedia, or the Zondervan Bible Encyclopedia, although the Zondervan Encyclopedia does have listed as subjects God's omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

Try Wictionary and Wikipedia. They affirm that "omnibenevolence" means "all-good." Do you have a problem with that? Or do you think that God is not only good, but also bad?

The term is not in the bible, any creeds I know of; it seems to be rather obscure.

Are any of the terms "omnipotence, omnipresence, or omniscience" in the Bible? Or in the creeds? (I haven't searched the creeds for it).

[Homer]

They affirm that "omnibenevolence" means "all-good." Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, breaking the word up into its constituent parts does not provide a definition.

Wikipedia also went on to say:

the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred because of the difficulties in defining what exactly constitutes 'infinite benevolence'.

I wrote:

Which brings up the following questions:

1. Was God omnibenevolent to Herod when he was struck by an angel of the Lord, eaten by worms, and died? (Acts 12:19-23)

2. Is it loving of God to refuse to hear the prayers of certain persons? (1 Peter 3:12)

3. Is God omnibenevolent if He has mercy on some and not others? (Romans 9:14-15)

4. Was it loving of God to harden the hearts of certain people so that they could not believe? (John 12:39-40)

5. If God decreed, giving ample warning, that He has fixed a time when He will judge every person who ever lived and at that time He will punish and annihilate the wicked who never repented, would God not be "love" if He kept His word and some people are in fact then punished and annihilated?

How about answering the five?

And here is an additional one for consideration:

Suppose in a country there existed a city that was very wicked and was a danger to the inhabitants of other cities. God saw that the wicked city must be destroyed lest the other cities be influenced to follow the ways of the wicked city. So God brought about the destruction of the wicked city and all the inhabitants died. Was God in this case omnibenevolent? God is love. Does this require that he be loving at all times to every individual?

Making statements such as God is omnibenevolent isn't very helpful if you can not show what this means in practical terms.

[dwilkins]

Or,

Say that this city was a people who'd made a pact with God. But, over time they violated the pact and flagrantly sinned. God says that he is going to destroy them for their rebellion. He saves the few in the faithful remnant out of the city and then has an army come in and destroy the apostate city. The army, which does demonstrably evil things (like disemboweling those who flee in the hopes of recovering money they were possibly smuggling in their stomachs), but God declares them to be his instrument in this punishment. Is he showing love to that city and its apostate inhabitants?

Doug

[mattrose]

If I were to refer to God as omni-benevolent (or a similar word), it would not necessarily mean that every act of God is for the betterment of every individual person (ie... Pharaoh or Herod). God's core characteristic IS love. God is love. His vengeance may indeed be interpreted under the umbrella of this most important truth. But God's love is for creation, especially humanity. If, for the sake of humanity, God sees fit to harden someone (like Pharaoh) or bring some other individual to his wicked end (like Herod)... that needn't be considered a switch to some other attribute or characteristic. When God hardened Pharaoh it was to show the Egyptians who he was. It was to teach the Israelites about their God. It was to make an initial impression on the Canaanites as well.

I would be very careful about watering down the basic truth that God is love by saying that love is just 1 thing that God often does. Everything God does is because He loves someone or some group.

[Homer]

Matt,

In reconciling "God is love", as you understand it, would you reason that God, in annihilating a wicked person, would be doing what is best for them?

[Singalphile]

I've appreciated all of your posts.

That familiar syllogism seems to define "all-loving" as unwilling and refusing that anything unpleasant should ever happen to anyone.

That definition of "all-loving" doesn't describe God. He judges, punishes, disciplines, and allows atrocities to happen: (Proverbs 3:12/Hebrews 12:6, Romans 12:19, Romans 2:5-8, Luke 13:1-5).

I would probably avoid using the words "all-loving" or "omnibenevolent" since they aren't Biblical words, afaik, and could just add confusion, imo. God isn't all-loving such that love is all that He consists of or is characterized by, imo.

Yes, John tells us that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). He also tells us that "God is light" (1 John 1:5-10). In both cases, I think he goes on to help explain the truth of his statements.

1 John 4:8-10 (NASB)
8 ..., for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Of course there's a lot more of that definition/explanation of God's love:
John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world...."
Romans 5:8 - "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Ephesians 4:32 - "Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you."
Ephesians 5:1-2 - "...and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God...."
1 John 3:16 - "We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us;"

In addition to Christ's death even for sinners/enemies, God demonstrates His love for sinners simply by the fact that "He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matthew 5:43-48). Of course we (Christians, like me) do also attest to the special salvation from sin, peace, etc. that God gives to those who believe and are His.

I think that's all proof enough that "God is love" and that his "core characteristic IS love". It defines His relationship with us. God does not owe us more (e.g., no temporary pain). Also, of course, everything is His.
And yet people mock, slander, and blaspheme God and Christ. Such a shame.

[mattrose]

Matt,

In reconciling "God is love", as you understand it, would you reason that God, in annihilating a wicked person, would be doing what is best for them?

I don't think that what some people refer to as 'annihilation*' requires any activity on God's part. People are mortal. God lovingly attempts to connect people to deity, one result of such a connection being shared immortality. When someone rejects connection with God long enough, they eventually cease to be.

I think the entire time they rejected that connection God continued to love them by attempting to connect with them.

* This is one of the reasons I don't prefer the term annihilation. It seems to have a connotation of an active role on God's part in extinguishing the (otherwise immortal?) humans.

[Bud]

Hi Matthew, you wrote,

"I don't think that what some people refer to as 'annihilation*' requires any activity on God's part. People are mortal. God lovingly attempts to connect people to deity, one result of such a connection being shared immortality. When someone rejects connection with God long enough, they eventually cease to be."

. This is a new concept For ME to consider as I wrestle with the whole, "Hell" issue. Thank you for posting it, I think its very worthy of consideration. I wish there was a term for it!

Peace in Christ,