Is Anything Impossible for God?

Fellowship · Sep 29, 2005

jasperbound said:
If nothing is impossible for God, then that means that God can sin, because if God can't sin, then something is impossible for Him.

*not necesscarily directed at you.

I'm glad we got this over with, yes God can do anything thing. What I think people have a hard time grasping is what he chooses to do.

There is nothing stopping God from lieing to us, nothing stopping God from destroying us, nothing stopping God from becoming a limited human with the ability to die, and finally there was nothing stopping Jesus from giving in to Satan's temptations save His own will.

If someone does find fault in this, the question needs to be asked "what is it that is stopping God," and "why is this more powerful than God, who is suppose to be all-powerful?".

I'd like to point out that in making these comments about God's 'limited' nature you are guilty of the 1st Commandment in putting "other gods before Him."

But I guess one of God's greatest commandments doesn't mean much, 'ey?

Fellowship · Sep 30, 2005

Natman said:
God cannot be "holy" and "un-holy" at the same time, and, yes, God cannot make a rock so big that He cannot move it. Otherwise, He would not be omnipotent.

Son-cerly,
Nathan Powers

There is a little thing called the Trinity where God did come into human flesh. Sense scripture doesn't speak of Jesus having super human strength, there is a good possibilty that He could not move huge rocks in a single bound.

Because of God's Tri-une nature this (for the last time!) is not a paradox.

Desolate Owl · Sep 30, 2005

depthdeception said:
What does "impossible by definition" mean? Who is it that's determining the definition?

I mean things are a logical contradiction. So something like God existing and not existing at the exact same time in the exact same sense.

depthdeception said:
God does lots of things that are logically contradictory, like, say, the Incarnation. It makes absolutely no "sense" at all. But Christian faith affirms that it indeed did happen.

I don't believe the Incarnation is a logical contradiction. If logic isn't valid and can be violated, then what framework do we have for thinking? If logic is not valid, then 'truth' does not exist. There is no line between truth and error. Christianity could be true, and it could also be false at the same time. It would be pointless for God to say that He cannot lie because He could then do anything (such as say He will do something and then not do it) without it being a lie. He could just be performing a logical contradiction. Without the laws of logic, thinking loses its framework.

depthdeception · Sep 30, 2005

Desolate Owl said:
I mean things are a logical contradiction. So something like God existing and not existing at the exact same time in the exact same sense.

But to posit that God does and doesn't exist at the same time isn't a logical contradiction at all. In a very real sense, God doesn't "exist" in that GOd does not derive God's existence from any originating source. Rather, God is the very ground of existence. On the other hand, as the ground of existence, GOd does, in some sense, exist.

However, this is beyond the point. To think in terms of "existence" and "non-existence" is only proper for beings that derive their existence from another source.

I don't believe the Incarnation is a logical contradiction. If logic isn't valid and can be violated, then what framework do we have for thinking?

Faith??? Yes, faith.

If logic is not valid, then 'truth' does not exist.

So "truth" is created out of logic and reason? Good thing for God that we all decided that it was logically tenable to affirm the "truth" of the existence of a all-powerful, eternal, and benevolent deity.

There is no line between truth and error. Christianity could be true, and it could also be false at the same time.

But Christianity is not "true." It is a witness to the truth of God that has been revealed not by reason, but by the incomprehensible incarntion and self-revelaton of Christ.

It would be pointless for God to say that He cannot lie because He could then do anything (such as say He will do something and then not do it) without it being a lie.

That "God cannot lie" can only be properly understood in reference to human beings that pervert truth and goodness. So then, just like with the idea of "existence", that God cannot lie is only relevant in an anthropocentric way.

Outrider · Sep 30, 2005

depthdeception said:
How does one determine the "categories" to which God does and does not belong. Any category within which we describe the infinite is going to be obviously lacking and limited. However, the approach which you are suggesting mitigates against any possibility of exploring God in philosophy--or theology--for it is quite impossible to determine objectively the proper categories to which God belongs and doesn't belong, and will invariably be determined by one's own subjective prejudices.

I said that the study of God does not belong to philosophy. I did not say that the study of God does not belong to theology. Theology is exactly where the study of God belongs. I suspect that you assume that theology is a part of philosophy when in fact it is apart from philosophy. Philosophy is a perception of reality based upon reason. Theology is a perception of the divine based upon revelation. God can only be known to man as man is informed of the attributes of God through revelation.

No, Christ is the revelation of God, not the Bible.

This statement does not make sense. It is true that Christ is the revelation of God. What is not true is that he is revealed apart from the Bible. I don't see how you can make any case for Christ being the revelation of God by cutting the means of his revelation off from the Bible.

I note in many of your posts that you nullify the usage of Scripture by placing it in the dilemma of human interpretation. This is too common. Variations on human interpretation do not present a dilemma to true interpretation of Scripture or to the revelation of God contained within it. The missing element in your thinking is the office of the Holy Spirit in the exegesis of Scripture to those who submit to his teaching of it. The Bible clearly teaches that revelation from the written word is not alone, but is accompanied by the tutelage of the Holy Spirit. When one begins with God as the Author of Scripture and then proceeds to God as the teacher of Scripture, where is the hermeneutic dilemma? If raw human reason is applied to Scripture, certainly the result will be various and false interpretations of it, but where the believer submits to the teaching of the Scripture by God in humble faith, the problem blows away like chaff. Who knows the Bible better than its author? Who indeed is the Author and Finisher of the faith?

Without the Bible, the whole Bible, it is doubtful that the very name of "Jesus" would be known to any but a few scholars of ancient Roman documents. All that would be known of the man would be a few sketches of a radical Jew from the time of Pax Romana. Strange that in this discussion one begins leaning completely on the revelation of Christ from Scripture to know his nature as God, perfect man, the hypostatic union of those natures (revealed from Scripture historically by the Holy Spirit through counsels), his redemptive work... things that could not be known from any ploace but from Scripture--- then turn around and say that the Bible is just a source material apart from special revelation and that human reason is sufficient to know him by somehow contemplating him. Based on what? We have to start with the Bible to understand the God who is. Nature reveals deity, even that deity is invisible, omniscient, and all-mighty. But nature does not reveal redemption or the glorification of God through the revelation of grace, or the inexorability of divine justice. How would you know those things you now take for granted had you not learned it in the Bible? So, why would you look for the revelation of God in any other place but the Bible? Has it not proven its ability (with the aid of the Holy Spirit's guidance) to reveal his attributes, at least those attributes he chooses to reveal to finite men with regard to their redemption? Strange that one will claim that God cannot be contained in a book, then turn and claim that God can be contained in the human mind or heart.

God has something to say about his being contained. He says first that he cannot be contained because he "fills up the heavens". Then he turns around and claims that he can assign his name to a place. In the Older Testament, it was the Temple. Today, it is a Book.

The real question might be not "Can God create a rock he cannot lift". A more useful question for this faithless generation might be "Can God who cannot be contained place his name and vest his power of salvation in a written form and in the imperfect, verbal pronouncement of that name by imperfect people. God says he can. Let him be true...

depthdeception · Sep 30, 2005

Outrider said:
I said that the study of God does not belong to philosophy. I did not say that the study of God does not belong to theology. Theology is exactly where the study of God belongs. I suspect that you assume that theology is a part of philosophy when in fact it is apart from philosophy. Philosophy is a perception of reality based upon reason. Theology is a perception of the divine based upon revelation. God can only be known to man as man is informed of the attributes of God through revelation.

I agree that God can only be known to humanity as humanity is informed of the attributes of God through revelation. And this revelation has been accomplished in the person of Christ, the self-revelation of God, to which Scripture and the Church are witnesses.

This statement does not make sense. It is true that Christ is the revelation of God. What is not true is that he is revealed apart from the Bible. I don't see how you can make any case for Christ being the revelation of God by cutting the means of his revelation off from the Bible.

I can make this case easily enough. Christ is the Logos of God. As the Word of God, the very Truth of God, Christ has become Incarnate in the history of salvation. Through this Incarnation, Christ, as the Logos of God, is the very revelation of God. Nowhere along the line is Scripture the means of this revelation. Rather, it is clear that the Scriptures are a testimony to the Truth of Christ--a reaction to the self-revelation of God in history. To make Scripture the ultimate source of revelation is to make Christ subservient to them. In other words, such an approach makes Scripture the determiner of God's self-revelation, rather than being informed in their content by this self-revelation.

I note in many of your posts that you nullify the usage of Scripture by placing it in the dilemma of human interpretation.

I do not nullify the usage of Scripture at all. It is crucial to the life of the Church and believer, as it is a witness generated from within the believing community to the self-revelation of God in history.

This is too common. Variations on human interpretation do not present a dilemma to true interpretation of Scripture or to the revelation of God contained within it.

True interpretation of Scripture is that which is done in faithfulness to the historic and communal experience of the people of God and their witness to the revelation of God in Christ. Scripture, however, is not revelation--it is a testimony to revelation. It is a faithful witness, moreover, because Scripture does in fact preserve this witness and places it within the life of the believing community.

The missing element in your thinking is the office of the Holy Spirit in the exegesis of Scripture to those who submit to his teaching of it.

Not at all. I fully affirm the Spirit's role in exegesis.

The Bible clearly teaches that revelation from the written word is not alone, but is accompanied by the tutelage of the Holy Spirit.

Not true. The Scriptures are a witness to the revelation of God in Christ. Furthermore, the Spirit, as Christ himself said, is given to guide believers into "all truth." Therefore, as the truth of God has been revealed in the Incarnate Christ, the Spirit is an instructor in the revelation that has already been given in Christ.

When one begins with God as the Author of Scripture and then proceeds to God as the teacher of Scripture, where is the hermeneutic dilemma?

But God is not the Author of Scripture, at least not directly. Humans wrote the Scriptures in response to the actions of God in the history of salvation. And as mentioned above, the Spirit is given to guide believers into the full truth that has been revealed in Christ, not simply the "truth" that is contained in Scripture.

If raw human reason is applied to Scripture, certainly the result will be various and false interpretations of it, but where the believer submits to the teaching of the Scripture by God in humble faith, the problem blows away like chaff. Who knows the Bible better than its author? Who indeed is the Author and Finisher of the faith?

Proper interpretation is secured when interpretation is done within the context of the believing community which testifies to the truth which has been revealed in Christ. For example, the orthodox dogmas of faith provide hermeneutical parameters within which believers can (and must) approache the Scriptures. When these parameters are maintained through the faithful witness of the Church, the proper interpretation of Scripture is maintained.

Without the Bible, the whole Bible, it is doubtful that the very name of "Jesus" would be known to any but a few scholars of ancient Roman documents.

Well, thankfully enough the Church was able to survive for several decades (and flourish) without any documents that contained the name "Jesus." Rather, they maintained within their ranks a testimony and common faith that preserved the story of Jesus and eventually came to produce written versions of the faith which they shared amongst themselves.

All that would be known of the man would be a few sketches of a radical Jew from the time of Pax Romana.

Yes, that would be true if no one had believed his message. However, this is not the case; obviously, because we have the Scriptures which were written by those who did believe.

Strange that in this discussion one begins leaning completely on the revelation of Christ from Scripture to know his nature as God, perfect man, the hypostatic union of those natures (revealed from Scripture historically by the Holy Spirit through counsels), his redemptive work... things that could not be known from any ploace but from Scripture--- then turn around and say that the Bible is just a source material apart from special revelation and that human reason is sufficient to know him by somehow contemplating him.

Your caviat about the counsels overthrows your entire argument about Scripture, and shows that there was within Christian tradition other authorites besides Scripture upon which the Church relied for their theological understanding and development.

Moreover, I am not saying that human reason is "sufficient" to know God--obviously, there must be revelation. I am simply saying that this revelation is not located in the pages of Scripture--rather, the pages of Scripture record the Church's testimony to God's revelation in Christ.

Based on what? We have to start with the Bible to understand the God who is. Nature reveals deity, even that deity is invisible, omniscient, and all-mighty. But nature does not reveal redemption or the glorification of God through the revelation of grace, or the inexorability of divine justice.

I agree certain aspects of the nature and activity of God cannot be known by "contemplating" nature. However, before the writing of the gospels and the epistles, the early Church did not have the Scriptures. Did they not, therefore, have any source of information or revelation about redemption, grace, etc? Of course not! They had the testimony of those who had lived and walked with Christ--the apostles. Therefore, it was on the basis of the apostles' testimony that they believed.

How would you know those things you now take for granted had you not learned it in the Bible? So, why would you look for the revelation of God in any other place but the Bible?

Because revelation is not located there. However, the Scriptures are an accurate witness to the self-revelation of God in Christ. Therefore, they are a definitive source of authority in re: revelation. However, they themselves are not the revelation of God.

Has it not proven its ability (with the aid of the Holy Spirit's guidance) to reveal his attributes, at least those attributes he chooses to reveal to finite men with regard to their redemption?

They have proven their ability to recall the faithful's witness to God's attributes as revealed in Christ. I do not dispute this.

Strange that one will claim that God cannot be contained in a book, then turn and claim that God can be contained in the human mind or heart.

I never said this.

God has something to say about his being contained. He says first that he cannot be contained because he "fills up the heavens". Then he turns around and claims that he can assign his name to a place. In the Older Testament, it was the Temple. Today, it is a Book.

No, today it is the Church, the body (temple) of Christ.

The real question might be not "Can God create a rock he cannot lift". A more useful question for this faithless generation might be "Can God who cannot be contained place his name and vest his power of salvation in a written form and in the imperfect, verbal pronouncement of that name by imperfect people. God says he can. Let him be true...

Moving on...

jasperbound · Sep 30, 2005

Fellowship said:
I'm glad we got this over with, yes God can do anything thing. What I think people have a hard time grasping is what he chooses to do.

I never said or implied that God will do everything He can do. I just suggested that if He can do anything, then He can sin.

Fellowship said:
I'd like to point out that in making these comments about God's 'limited' nature you are guilty of the 1st Commandment in putting "other gods before Him."

But I guess one of God's greatest commandments doesn't mean much, 'ey?

Tell me... What god are we putting before God by believing He's logical? And saying that logic is the god would be just as bad as saying that by saying that God is Love, we are making love an idol equal to God. God is Love and God is logical.

Outrider · Sep 30, 2005

I can make this case easily enough. Christ is the Logos of God. As the Word of God, the very Truth of God, Christ has become Incarnate in the history of salvation. Through this Incarnation, Christ, as the Logos of God, is the very revelation of God. Nowhere along the line is Scripture the means of this revelation. Rather, it is clear that the Scriptures are a testimony to the Truth of Christ--a reaction to the self-revelation of God in history. To make Scripture the ultimate source of revelation is to make Christ subservient to them. In other words, such an approach makes Scripture the determiner of God's self-revelation, rather than being informed in their content by this self-revelation.

Sounds fancy. Now explain how the knowledge of God gets into the head and heart of a person from what you have said above. Take a person who knows nothing about God and show me how revelation works to bring that person the knowledge of God, Christ and salvation. Step by step.

jasperbound · Sep 30, 2005

Fellowship said:
There is a little thing called the Trinity where God did come into human flesh. Sense scripture doesn't speak of Jesus having super human strength, there is a good possibilty that He could not move huge rocks in a single bound.

Because of God's Tri-une nature this (for the last time!) is not a paradox.

So, what you're saying is that Jesus lacked was unable to lift huge rocks that weighed more than 200 tons even if He wanted to? If not, then your example doesn't work, because God still could have lifted that rock if He so willed to, so it's not as if He couldn't lift the rock, and by saying that Jesus couldn't have done that, you are violating the first commandment.

immortalavefenix · Sep 30, 2005

Immature and Lazy?

It is immature and lazy to expect a father to pay attention to the emotional and spiritual needs of his son's and daughters? A fathers whose sole method of instruction is tossing over a voluminous book writen in obtuse and difficult to read translations of dead langueges to a young confuseded son, and offering the advice "hey read this, it will answers all your questions,... good luck, I have to go to work, I'll be back later" Is a weak example indeed. Do you not agree that fathers, creators have a certain responsibility to their offspring?

Im of the school that does not agree with handing out moral blank checks to non-physical entities because they have a tag with God on it.

I said that the study of God does not belong to philosophy

I disagree with your position, nevertheless I recongnize that your reason for your point are well thought out, and I am willing to respect them.

The missing element in your thinking is the office of the Holy Spirit in the exegesis of Scripture to those who submit to his teaching of it

Well Im going to quite frankly have to agree with you. There is no question that without the "spirit". Again, that is why I stand by my ascertain that the bible as "stricly" a book is far from prefect.

If raw human reason is applied to Scripture, certainly the result will be various and false interpretations of it, but where the believer submits to the teaching of the Scripture by God in humble faith, the problem blows away like chaff

We agree on the frist half but with the secound half I have issue. Actually I should clairfy frist that due the results will be various, by their very nature, may not nesccasry be false. I have a REAL problem with a priori judgments. Onward. That "the problem blows away like chaff" has not in fact been the case; the many thousands of christain denominations, countless posulates on christain faith, conflictive biblical arguments, interpatations, and differnt perssonal contextualizations can account to that. It is hard for me to accept that so many millions of people are unable to "submit to the teaching of the Scripture by God in humble faith" and find it easier to accept that simply baseing ones religous views on something so subjective and ultimately perssonal as "revelation" is bound to produce highely differing biblical viewpoints.

Whatever "revelation" I may or may not have, I assure you, is QUITE differnt from one had by a member of the Omish community.

Can God who cannot be contained place his name and vest his power of salvation in a written form and in the imperfect, verbal pronouncement of that name by imperfect people

That is a better question indeed.

In my own perrsonal view I believe he can.

I have to admit I am enjoy this discussion and Im please with the level of thought and effort put into the post, even if I dont agree with them. I wish more Christain could do the same.

Depth very intersting. Its been awhile since I've heard a christain refering to logos. What relief! You make some promising points. I wish could go down that path

depthdeception · Sep 30, 2005

Outrider said:
Sounds fancy. Now explain how the knowledge of God gets into the head and heart of a person from what you have said above. Take a person who knows nothing about God and show me how revelation works to bring that person the knowledge of God, Christ and salvation. Step by step.

The Holy Spirit guides all humans into contact with the revelation of God in Christ, through a variety of means.

Fellowship · Oct 1, 2005

jasperbound said:
So, what you're saying is that Jesus lacked was unable to lift huge rocks that weighed more than 200 tons even if He wanted to? If not, then your example doesn't work, because God still could have lifted that rock if He so willed to, so it's not as if He couldn't lift the rock, and by saying that Jesus couldn't have done that, you are violating the first commandment.

What I am saying is, because there are three personas of God, it is possible for God to be able to do something and for him not to be able to do something at the same time. Therefore no paradox.

jasperbound · Oct 1, 2005

Fellowship said:
What I am saying is, because there are three personas of God, it is possible for God to be able to do something and for him not to be able to do something at the same time. Therefore no paradox.

And you are still limiting God by saying that Jesus Christ would be unable to lift a boulder that weighed two million pounds even if He chose to do so. I guess when other people limit God by saying He is bound by logic, that is idolatry, but saying that the God lacked the ability to lift a two million pound boulder as Christ even if He tapped into all his strength as God, thereby limiting His power, is perfectly all right!

Besides, what if I asked, "Could the Father create a boulder so heavy that no member of the Godhead could lift it?" Since you believe God could do anything, even that which is logically impossible, would you mind explaining how He could do this, and how lacking the ability to lift such a boulder would not be a limit of His strength?

Fellowship · Oct 1, 2005

jasperbound said:
And you are still limiting God by saying that Jesus Christ would be unable to lift a boulder that weighed two million pounds even if He chose to do so.

jasperbound said:

If Jesus chose to do so, it would be by the authority of the Father, and though the power of the Holy Spirit.

jasperbound said:

I guess when other people limit God by saying He is bound by logic, that is idolatry,

Click to expand...

Your saying idolatry, not me. I can't remember saying logic is an idol, but ok.

jasperbound said:

but saying that the God lacked the ability to lift a two million pound boulder as Christ even if He tapped into all his strength as God, thereby limiting His power, is perfectly all right!?

Click to expand...

Whose strength would Jesus be tapping into though? Is it by Jesus' own power, and authority that He performs miracles, or is God working His ultimate power and Spirit through Him that was sent?

jasperbound said:

Besides, what if I asked, "Could the Father create a boulder so heavy that no member of the Godhead could lift it?"

Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter to me.

jasperbound said:

Since you believe God could do anything, even that which is logically impossible, would you mind explaining how He could do this, and how lacking the ability to lift such a boulder would not be a limit of His strength?

Click to expand...

Being seperated but working together They could use Their infinite power of God three-fold, to lift an object of infinite mass or weight that One may not be able to lift alone.

Click to expand...

coolstylinstud · Oct 1, 2005

Since you believe God could do anything, even that which is logically impossible, would you mind explaining how He could do this, and how lacking the ability to lift such a boulder would not be a limit of His strength?

It is outside of our logic we will never know how he does it

jasperbound · Oct 2, 2005

Fellowship said:
If Jesus chose to do so, it would be by the authority of the Father, and though the power of the Holy Spirit.

Your saying idolatry, not me. I can't remember saying logic is an idol, but ok.

Remember this: "I'd like to point out that in making these comments about God's 'limited' nature you are guilty of the 1st Commandment in putting "other gods before Him."

Fellowship said:
Whose strength would Jesus be tapping into though? Is it by Jesus' own power, and authority that He performs miracles, or is God working His ultimate power and Spirit through Him that was sent?

It wouldn't matter to me.

And in the end, it comes down to the fact that it would not be impossible for Jesus to lift a mountain, and so one still hasn't shown that God can create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it.

Fellowship said:
Being seperated but working together They could use Their infinite power of God three-fold, to lift an object of infinite mass or weight that One may not be able to lift alone.

So, when you want to make something that's illogical logical, you just ignore the question and answer one you make yourself. Notice how I was specific about who creates the rock.

jasperbound · Oct 2, 2005

coolstylinstud said:
It is outside of our logic we will never know how he does it

Or even if He is not bound to logic.

intricatic · Oct 2, 2005

It is impossible for something to be impossible for God.

monkman · Oct 2, 2005

jasperbound said:
Or even if He is not bound to logic.

not to sound insane, but:

God is bound by his own logic, which is infinite, therefore He is bound only in His increasing and infinite logic, which is to say that He is bound by infinity, which is to say that he is not bound.

Desolate Owl · Oct 3, 2005

depthdeception said:
But to posit that God does and doesn't exist at the same time isn't a logical contradiction at all. In a very real sense, God doesn't "exist" in that GOd does not derive God's existence from any originating source. Rather, God is the very ground of existence. On the other hand, as the ground of existence, GOd does, in some sense, exist.

The way you have presented it does not present a logical contradiction because you have spoken of 'existence' in two different senses. I said that a logical contradiction would exist if God did exist and did not exist at the same time and in the same sense.

depthdeception said:
However, this is beyond the point. To think in terms of "existence" and "non-existence" is only proper for beings that derive their existence from another source.

The example is not important only the principle. Try a person then. Can a person exist and not exist at the same time in the exact same sense?

depthdeception said:
Faith??? Yes, faith.

Faith does not provide a framework for thinking. It sounds like I would disagree with the way you define faith, but even if I were to agree, faith would only provide a means of accepting statements as true. Here's an example:

(1) All people have spirits.
(2) I am a person.
(3) Therefore, I have a spirit.

Assuming that God has told us the first 2 statements, but not the 3rd, on faith, we would know that the first 2 are true, but not the 3rd because logic is what we use to draw such a conclusion.

depthdeception said:
So "truth" is created out of logic and reason? Good thing for God that we all decided that it was logically tenable to affirm the "truth" of the existence of a all-powerful, eternal, and benevolent deity.

I don't mean to say that logic provides truth. We can only know truth through God's revelation. What I mean is that the existence of the laws of logic draw a line between true and false. Logic doesn't tell us if God exists or does not exist. Logic only says that these statements cannot both be true. It would be up to God to reveal the truth of His existence.

depthdeception said:
But Christianity is not "true." It is a witness to the truth of God that has been revealed not by reason, but by the incomprehensible incarntion and self-revelaton of Christ.

Don't get me wrong. I am not affirming that man can find God by reason.

Is Anything *Impossible* for God?