(posted 2026/01/23)
I believe a Calvinist can simply "bite the bullet" and say that the Calvinistic God is not omnibenevolent. However, I don't think a Calvinist needs to do so. The modern conception of omnibenevolence seems to be a recent philosophical construct based on perfect being theology, rather than being attenuated by Biblical teaching. The project of perfect being theology is often infected by finite human reasoning rather than being informed by Biblical revelation.There's this claim by some:
QUOTE //As I've mentioned before the 'omnibenevolence' leg of the stool has no real existence prior to the nineteenth century; nobody attributes the term "omnibenevolence" to God prior to that. Indeed, even in the nineteenth century, the term 'omnibenevolence' is usually used in ways that are too weak to formulate any sort of problem of evil, since the term originally seems to have meant merely, 'wishing everyone well' with all the vagueness and flexibility that can have, and which is, in any case, hardly a distinctively divine attribute.//END QUOTE
https://branemrys.blogspot.com/2011/07/omnibenevolence.html
I don't know if the claim is true or not. But I don't think omnibenevolence should be understood in the way it's often nowadays interpreted and used. Namely, to mean omnibeneficient. The Latin roots being "omnis" (all, every); "bene" (well, good); "volens" (willing, wishing); "facere" (to do, to make). Having a good will toward someone doesn't necessitate that you will make it the case, or give or do for them 1. the highest degree in quality and quantity of, and 2. every kind of good thing. How could God do that logically and still create kinds/types/species/genera? It's logically impossible. Even omnipotence cannot instantiate or actualize contradictions. If we took omnibenevolence to mean omnibeneficent, and actually took that literally, then every individual creature would have to have all benefits, blessings and abilities. Every creature would have to be able to breath underwater like a fish, fly like a bird, be as fast as a cheetah, be as soft as a kitten, armored hard like a crocodile, as small as a bacteria, as large as a whale, be physical like animals, be immaterial like angels, and have angelic intelligence. They would need to be as beautiful and handsome as all men and women. There wouldn't even be distinct sexes. No males or females. But then that would take away from God's creativity and would violate the "principle of plenitude." Meaning the idea that God likes to express His infinite creativity with as much [or at least very much] variety in the world or worlds which He creates or instantiates.
My proposed definition of divine omnibenevolence merely requires: 1. God only does good things, and never does any bad things. That whatever God does is always and only good. 2. This would also makes sense if there's some truth to the concept of evil as being (among other things) privatio boni [a neo-platonic insight co-opted by some early Christians]. Whereby goodness is associated with being, and that one way evil can be defined is by conceiving it as the privation of, or negation of, or twisting of, or perversion of the good. The traditional analogy would be that goodness is like a dress, and evil would be the moth eaten holes in the dress that are contrary to the intended original design. Such that evil has no positive ontological existence. Like how shadows are real in some sense, but don't truly exist. Same thing with the cold. You can feel the cold during winter, but technically, coldness is the absence of heat. As shadows are the absence or diminution of light resulting from the blocking of direct light. 3. Finally, divine omnibenevolence would mean that all goodness and good things find their source in God. As the hymns say, God is the "fount of every blessing" and God is "ever blessing, ever blessed."
My conception of omnibenevolence rejects the idea that God must be supremely and equally loving and gracious to all creatures in the exact same ways, degrees and kinds. As a Calvinist, I emphatically deny that God's "only" or even primary end is the pleasure/benefit of His sentient creatures. It is one of God's goals after God's greatest goal of seeking His own glory. Something which would be sinful for creatures, but proper, righteous and appropriate for God to do. Were God to have a different goal other than seeking the glory the the supremely perfect Being [namely God], God would then be committing idolatry.
Christianity is more central to my web of beliefs in my worldview than the specific brand of Christianity I hold to [which includes a Calvinistic soteriology]. Calvinism is slightly less central. It's a second tier, and not a first tier issue. So I'm more willing to give up my Calvinism than my Christianity. But on the assumption of the truth of Calvinism (or something very much like it), rather than loving all entities equally and being beneFICENT to all entities equally, my proposed definition of omnibenevolence is that God has a beneVOLENT attitude toward all entities. The latter seems to be perfectly consistent with God loving some things more or less than other things. Which makes room for Calvinism's doctrine of predestination. At least versions of Calvinism that affirm Common Grace, and a univeral good will toward all creatures to some degree or another.
