Is there anything God can't do?

[crystalpc]

Well, let's see. God can not lie. Pretty black and white to me. And yes, I've been wrong before...once I think.

Now here's a though, and I don't think I agree with it, but play along. I once heard the reason God can't lie is because when He says something, it happens. For instance, if He said the moon was made of cheese, the moon would change into cheese. I don't know if I agree with this, but it got me thinking.

Hebrews 6
18that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

This is a very good point. It sets the heart to dancing!

 

[Theophilus7]

Oh the richness of the English language both helps and hurts as we explain things. This is especially true in the case of theology.

Very true.

...Once God has stated that He will work or not work in a certain way, He is uable to go back on His Word because His holy and righteous nature prevents this (Ps. 89:33, 34).

Therefore, it was not that Jesus/God lacked the divine ability to perform mighty works among the people mentioned in Mark 6:5, 6. He COULD NOT because of His own Word in which He covenanted to honor faith and to show no honor to unbelief.

I pretty much guessed that was what you meant. I was wondering, however, whether it is scriptural to subordinate the acts of God to the faith (or lack of faith) of His people. In other words, has God actually chosen to limit Himself and only heal when there is faith? God could choose to do that, but has He?

In Romans 3:3, Paul writes, "What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?" I think there's a principle there. Faith has a part to play in the work of the kingdom of God, but it is not an absolute prerequisite. God does not require us to have faith in every instance to do His work.

Food for thought.

 

[Theophilus7]

You gave C.S. Lewis a warm mention in another of your posts elsewhere, JimB. Ever read his discussion of intrinsic impossibilities in The Problem of Pain? There are some things God simply can't do because they not really "things" at all. God cannot make a square circle. Nonsense is still nonsense, even when we talk it about God.

 

[crystalpc]

I pretty much guessed that was what you meant. I was wondering, however, whether it is scriptural to subordinate the acts of God to the faith (or lack of faith) of His people. In other words, has God actually chosen to limit Himself and only heal when there is faith? God could choose to do that, but has He?

Another good point, that sets the mind to dancing!
I have often wondered who's faith was he working on when he meant the funeral, and raised the dead son of the widow! Could it be that there is such thing as afaith, in the same meaning of the word amoral. Or a faith vacuum that he works in when there is neither no faith or no unbelief either?
Another thing is thankfulness, when he cleansed the 10 lepers, all of them were healed from the disease, but the one that came back and thanked him was healed even from the losses the disease had affected on his body!

 

[Hollypop]

This has probably already been said but... God cant make you love him.

 

[victoryword]

Very true.



I pretty much guessed that was what you meant. I was wondering, however, whether it is scriptural to subordinate the acts of God to the faith (or lack of faith) of His people. In other words, has God actually chosen to limit Himself and only heal when there is faith? God could choose to do that, but has He?

In Romans 3:3, Paul writes, "What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?" I think there's a principle there. Faith has a part to play in the work of the kingdom of God, but it is not an absolute prerequisite. God does not require us to have faith in every instance to do His work.

Food for thought.

Alright my British friend, you have made some very good points. I suppose that the man by the pool of Bethesda and a few other examples prove that I cannot box God in with my the strong statement I made on the subject. So now allow me to backtrack and requalify my theology

Let us say that God has established a law in which He USUALLY works within a person's faith, though as a sovereign God He certainly has the right to perform miracles without faith being present (when I say "sovereign" I am not using the word in the same way that my Calvinist brethren use it. I simply mean that He has the right to choose to work in a way that does not violate His nature).

I recall the late Kenneth Hagin making a similar statement to this effect:

You see, God initiated something on His own. He is a sovereign being. If He wanted to send an angel down there by an act of His divine sovereignty, trouble the waters, and heal somebody that way, He could. He didn't have to write to someone on earth to endorse it! (Seven Things You Should Know About Divine Healing, p. 57

HOWEVER, in a majority of cases, God usually has pledged to honor FAITH:

And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it]. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. (Heb. 3:18-4:3)

So yes, we cannot make a set rule about God and box Him into our own theology. God's normal way is to honor faith and work though the one believing, though He does occasionally work and help people who display little to no faith.

However, I believe that people should learn to live by faith and not become fatalistic in their theology in thinking that since God has the ABILITY to do it He will do it if it is His will. That is fatalism. God can do many things and it is often His will to do those things, but most of the time He is looking for a channel to work through.

Does that sound better old chap?

 

[victoryword]

This has probably already been said but... God cant make you love him.

That is true Hollypop

 

[Theophilus7]

Does that sound better old chap?

Oh, rather! Jolly good show, old bean. (And, oh I say, what a ripping quote from Kenneth Hagin!) Keep up the good work, old man.

 

[victoryword]

Oh, rather! Jolly good show, old bean. (And, oh I say, what a ripping quote from Kenneth Hagin!) Keep up the good work, old man.

Theo, you are a CARD!!!! Hahahahahahahaha

 

[FBI78]

Well no God cant make you love Him cause he doesnt mess with Free will but if you think of it He had our life planned out before the beginning so really He will already know if we love Him or not. God can do anything and everything. Think about the playtypus.

 

[crystalpc]

Well no God cant make you love Him cause he doesnt mess with Free will but if you think of it He had our life planned out before the beginning so really He will already know if we love Him or not. God can do anything and everything. Think about the playtypus.

Then should we believe in the extreme pre-destination view? My mother believed that she could do anything on this earth, and if it was Gods will to save her before she died he would. He did, but it was a matter of 30 some odd years of prayer on my part, and no telling how many years on my grandmothers part.
She also believed that no matter, if you were born again at an early age and lived a good life trying to please God, if it was Gods will you wouldn't be saved you wouldn't be.
There is a great misconception between pre-destination, and fore-knowledge.
Was Adam pre-destined to sin?

 

[victoryword]

Then should we believe in the extreme pre-destination view? My mother believed that she could do anything on this earth, and if it was Gods will to save her before she died he would. He did, but it was a matter of 30 some odd years of prayer on my part, and no telling how many years on my grandmothers part.
She also believed that no matter, if you were born again at an early age and lived a good life trying to please God, if it was Gods will you wouldn't be saved you wouldn't be.
There is a great misconception between pre-destination, and fore-knowledge.
Was Adam pre-destined to sin?

Good post and good questions Crystal.

I think R. A. Torrey said it best when he made this statement:

Foreknowledge no more determines a man’s actions than afterknowledge. Knowledge is determined by the fact, not the fact by the knowledge...

Being more of an Open Theist myself, I may not be in full agreement with Torrey's views on foreknowledge, but I will take his view over the "controlling sovereignty" teaching any day.

 

[Theophilus7]

Good post and good questions Crystal.

I think R. A. Torrey said it best when he made this statement:

Foreknowledge no more determines a man’s actions than afterknowledge. Knowledge is determined by the fact, not the fact by the knowledge...

Being more of an Open Theist myself, I may not be in full agreement with Torrey's views on foreknowledge, but I will take his view over the "controlling sovereignty" teaching any day.

Leaning on the Arminian side, I would agree with Torrey. But I'm surprised you do, victoryword. I would have thought that you would agree with the Calvinist that foreknowledge, traditionally defined, begets predetermination, thus the Arminian view is unsatisfactory. At this fork in the theological road, you go left and the Calvinist goes right. You choose the God who can limit Himself (or is limited), even in His knowledge, and the Calvinist chooses the God who arbitrarily chooses some to **** and others to save - "is it your lucky number?", and all that.

 

[victoryword]

Leaning on the Arminian side, I would agree with Torrey. But I'm surprised you do, victoryword. I would have thought that you would agree with the Calvinist that foreknowledge, traditionally defined, begets predetermination, thus the Arminian view is unsatisfactory. At this fork in the theological road, you go left and the Calvinist goes right. You choose the God who can limit Himself (or is limited), even in His knowledge, and the Calvinist chooses the God who arbitrarily chooses some to **** and others to save - "is it your lucky number?", and all that.

Actually, I do not believe in predestination as taught by Calvinism and by most Arminians. I believe in that the Scriptures teach CORPORATE ELECTION. Have you ever read Robert Shank's book, "Elect in the Son"? Robert Shank writes, “The election to salvation is corporate and comprehends individual men only in identification and association with the elect body.”

I am pretty much in agreement with Shanks. If we see election as corporate rather than individual then we can better understand why God puts the gospel call out for everyone to repent and why it is His desire that all men be saved and come into a knowledge of the truth and why He is willing that no man perish.

If God has predestined certain individuals to be saved from eternity, whether this be based on His sovereign will or whether it be based on His foreknowledge of what an individual will do, then HIs call for all men everywhere to repent seems less than genuine to me. That is why I believe that Shank, using both Scripture and reason, makes the best case for corporate, rather than individual election.

The late Donald C. Stamps who wrote most of the notes for the Full LIfe Study Bible gave an excellent illustration that I will have to type from memory as best as I know. He described election as a ship. God invites all to get on board. Those who get on board are within the elect. Those who do not are not elected though they could have been.

However, I do believe that God knows every possible action that a person can take and every possible outcome of every event. So in some sense, and probably with some modifications, I could fit that part of Torrey's statement within my theology

 

[victoryword]

This article seems to explain my view a little better:

http://www.bibleviews.com/election.html

Don't worry, I do not think that the writer is OV

 

[crystalpc]

This article seems to explain my view a little better:

http://www.bibleviews.com/election.html

Don't worry, I do not think that the writer is OV

Thank you for the article! I have to agree with the same view that God has sent a ship named Jesus Christ, and invites everyone aboard, those who accept the invitation to board are elected.

 

[sOuLifieD]

God can do anything. However, He chooses not to do many things. He could lie if He wanted to, but He chooses not to. He could also go against His character if He wanted to, but He chooses not to. He also chooses not to breech our free will. There are plenty of things that He won't do, ever, but He could if He wished to.

 

[Theophilus7]

Thanks for the clarification, victoryword.

 

[BBAS 64]

I say YES there are things God can not do.

BBAS

 

[Jim B]

Is there anything God can't do?

Of course not.