• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

One Died For All

Status
Not open for further replies.

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This was post 850 from the other thread. (The other one was post 856 which I'll import shortly).

If you were then you wouldn't deny the HU and that there was a change since God is Immutable.
Newsflash: As for the Son of God, His entire life on earth was an exercise in mutability.

"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

Not my fault you don't believe the Scriptures. That was YOUR decision. As for immutability, let's put the final nail in the coffin, shall we? These two definitions of divine holiness stand diametrically opposed:
(1) Innate, immutable, intrinsic holiness. (The orthodox position)
(2) Acquired holiness - acquired by free will. (My position).
Now I will show why #1 contradicts the whole Bible. This is an argument I haven't unveiled as yet, although I hinted at it back at post 665.

Scripture doesn't merely COMMAND us to praise God. It goes further than that - it insists that He is WORTHY of our praise, that He DESERVES/MERITS our praise. The problem is, holiness as defined in #1 does not merit praise! Innate characteristics do not merit praise! For example, do not praise me for being human, or for my red blood, or my gorgeous features - all these things exist, but do not merit praise. The UNANIMOUS definition of merit - the definition that has grounded every sermon in the last 2000 years, is the following:

"Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time".

The best example is the cross. Suppose the Father had anesthetized Christ's nerves, and tranquilized His mind, sufficiently to prevent any suffering for the whole ordeal of the cross. How much praise would the cross merit, in that case? Zero! Zilch! None! Nada!

How much labor? Bear in mind that even the angels have merit - they labored/suffered against the agony of temptation for at least a period of time, and overcame it. And even ordinary Christian men labor for more than 50 years.

But Scripture claims that God has ineffably more merit than men have. Recently I was debating with a YEC (young earth creationist). I told him it was impossible that God created the world in 7 24-hour periods, that it contradicts His holiness. (At first he thought I was crazy as he couldn't connect the dots).

Then I explained to him. Since both angels and men have labored more than 7 days, we would merit more praise than God has merited for creation. Therefore you must conclude that God TOOK TIME to learn how to create (and manage) this complex planet. Start thinking in terms of millions of years, nay, BILLIONS even. Perhaps even tens of billions of gradual learning and skill. As I said, we already know that God's knowledge is NOT innate, it is ACQUIRED/LEARNED - we know this from the Incarnation:


"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

Of course it is learned. Otherwise His knowledge wouldn't merit any praise!

And more than that - only a jerk would want us to praise him for His innate characteristics! How would you feel about me, if I expected you to praise me for my red blood, my beating heart, and (of course) my gorgeous face? You'd consider me a jerk!

To summarize, for 2,000 years the church has been willing to praise the Ancient of Days for 3 days of passion for the cross, but has DENIED HIM ALL THE GLORY for His holiness (acquired over probably 13 billion years of labor minimum, if science is correct about the age of the universe). This is TOTAL DISREPECT for His age, it despises His title as Ancient of Days, it deprives Him of 99.9999999% of the glory, and it is probably worse than spitting on the cross.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,723
2,916
45
San jacinto
✟207,296.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ok I see that asking you guys to click two links was WAY TOO DEMANDING of me so I'll have to copy all that material here.
You presented me with no links and I have no idea where they were presented so I'm not going through this thread hunting for it when it almost certainly is matter of differences of opinion of what's valueable rather than a logical/factual disagreement.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And here is post 856.

I was kind of interested in your christology, is that in your link? if not can you link me that too.
I guess I'll spill the beans right here. I'll summarize my metaphysics here. Links for further details:

God Is a Physical Being
Why God is Worthy of Our Praise
The Problem of Evil


- Post 850 showed my defense for acquired holiness. Please start there.
- In fact every act of free will is acquired knowledge of sorts. How so? As noted earlier, free will contradicts foreknowledge. Free choice involves a period of deliberation whose outcome isn't foreknown because the mind hasn't decided yet. Therefore God's knowledge must be acquired knowledge, if He has free choice.

Ok so when did this learning process begin, for God? Today would not have been reached yet, if the past were infinite. There must have been a first moment in time, therefore, as the inception of a finite past. I said that I reject all magical phenomena, including "spirit" (all reality is physical in my view) and including creation nihilo. I don't even believe in "time" - except as a convenient term for counting motions. All I believe in is matter in motion.

The Totality is my term for the sum total of matter, understood to be imperishable. What caused it's first motion? The only real force in existence is free will. For example if I punch you in the face, what propelled my hand? Muscular energy alone? If that were the primary impetus, you couldn't blame ME - you could only blame the laws of physics and physiology. Free will is thus the only self-propelling impetus in the Totality.

When one piece of the Totality launched that first motion - that first act of free will - that piece began to awaken to full sentience. And it awoke to become the being that we now know as Yahweh. During His early years, presumbly, He quickly realized that the Totality would eventaully become a place of eternal conflict and war if there was no Ruler to keep the peace. Thus He made the decision to become holy (i.e. exponentially advanced in knowledge, skill, love, and purity). He decided to become the quintessential Ruler and Judge, to insure the everlasting safety of us all (all matter in the Totality).

The PROBLEM is that this task of becoming holy was likely too daunting to undertake without some hope of eventual reward. Hence He had to promise Himself a bride as a reward for His work (a bride formed from leftover matter in the Totality). He literally felt He had no choice, as He was facing the prospect of perpetual solitary confinement. The Totality would be doomed to eternal conflict if loneliness caused Him to falter in His effort to become holy. And failure was NOT an option. Therefore He could not risk the loneliness. Note that, to date, this is the only valid solution proposed to the Problem of Evil. Unacceptably, traditional theodicy has God creating this world of (potential) suffering, not out of a perceived NEED for it, and therefore for the FUN of it. Which is evil behavior. After all, an infinitely self-sufficient God wouldn't need a world like this - such a being could not have any needs or unfulfilled wants, by definition - and therefore could not justify creating this kind of world.


What is the Trinity? All reality is physical. Physicality means multiplicity. After all, which brain cell in your head is the real you? ALL of it is you. You are multiple. (Earlier I already demonstrated multiplicity in my theory of Adam). In a similar way, the Trinity is a multiplicity, it is the three major subdivisions/Persons exhaustively constituting the Godhead:
(1) The Father is a human-shaped figure seated on a throne (see Dan 7:9-11). Literally we are fashioned in His shape/image.
(2) The Son is a human-shaped figure seated at His right hand.
(3) The Holy Breath/Wind is the remainder of Yahweh (misnomered in orthodoxy as The Holy Ghost/Spirit), for example He exudes from the Son's nostrils and figure as rivers of Fire (Ps 18), billows of Smoke (Ps 18), and Light from His face (compare Rev 1:16 with Rev 21:23).

God's power? Again, same as ours. Free will. Nothing magical. Nothing supernatural.


What makes His holiness irreversible? A 2-pronged strategy, see post 116 on this thread:
The Problem of Evil


Incarnation? A cinch. If I wanted to reduce your knowledge to that of a vegetable, all I have to do is find a way to damage/scramble your brains. The Father surgically extracted a small subsection of the Son's figure, basically one cell, and did several things to it. For example, He:
(1) Yanked it out of the divine "neural network". Think of Yahweh as one huge Brain continually receiving and processing information. If you yank a cell out of that brain, it has already lost most of its knowledge by virtue of separation from the flow of information.
(2) He surgically "scrambled" that cell (scrambled its brains) until it had COMPLETELY lost all its former knowledge.
(3) He mated it to a human embryo in Mary's womb. God's strength/power is largely a product of His enormous size (He is spread throughout the Totality). But this tiny lone cell was as weak as we are.

Christ's soul was thus the uncreated Son of God - no human soul was added to the Trinity.

What I've expressed here is a simple manipulation of matter. That's what I meant when I said that my whole theory of the Incarnation falls under the scope of John 1:14:

"The (physical) Word became flesh".

It's not complicated.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You presented me with no links and I have no idea where they were presented so I'm not going through this thread hunting for it when it almost certainly is matter of differences of opinion of what's valueable rather than a logical/factual disagreement.
The hunting is over - see post 221.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,723
2,916
45
San jacinto
✟207,296.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This was post 850 from the other thread. (The other one was post 856 which I'll import shortly).


Newsflash: As for the Son of God, His entire life on earth was an exercise in mutability.

"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

Not my fault you don't believe the Scriptures. That was YOUR decision. As for immutability, let's put the final nail in the coffin, shall we? These two definitions of divine holiness stand diametrically opposed:
(1) Innate, immutable, intrinsic holiness. (The orthodox position)
(2) Acquired holiness - acquired by free will. (My position).
Now I will show why #1 contradicts the whole Bible. This is an argument I haven't unveiled as yet, although I hinted at it back at post 665.

Scripture doesn't merely COMMAND us to praise God. It goes further than that - it insists that He is WORTHY of our praise, that He DESERVES/MERITS our praise. The problem is, holiness as defined in #1 does not merit praise! Innate characteristics do not merit praise! For example, do not praise me for being human, or for my red blood, or my gorgeous features - all these things exist, but do not merit praise. The UNANIMOUS definition of merit - the definition that has grounded every sermon in the last 2000 years, is the following:

"Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time".

The best example is the cross. Suppose the Father had anesthetized Christ's nerves, and tranquilized His mind, sufficiently to prevent any suffering for the whole ordeal of the cross. How much praise would the cross merit, in that case? Zero! Zilch! None! Nada!

How much labor? Bear in mind that even the angels have merit - they labored/suffered against the agony of temptation for at least a period of time, and overcame it. And even ordinary Christian men labor for more than 50 years.

But Scripture claims that God has ineffably more merit than men have. Recently I was debating with a YEC (young earth creationist). I told him it was impossible that God created the world in 7 24-hour periods, that it contradicts His holiness. (At first he thought I was crazy as he couldn't connect the dots).

Then I explained to him. Since both angels and men have labored more than 7 days, we would merit more praise than God has merited for creation. Therefore you must conclude that God TOOK TIME to learn how to create (and manage) this complex planet. Start thinking in terms of millions of years, nay, BILLIONS even. Perhaps even tens of billions of gradual learning and skill. As I said, we already know that God's knowledge is NOT innate, it is ACQUIRED/LEARNED - we know this from the Incarnation:


"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

Of course it is learned. Otherwise His knowledge wouldn't merit any praise!

And more than that - only a jerk would want us to praise him for His innate characteristics! How would you feel about me, if I expected you to praise me for my red blood, my beating heart, and (of course) my gorgeous face? You'd consider me a jerk!

To summarize, for 2,000 years the church has been willing to praise the Ancient of Days for 3 days of passion for the cross, but has DENIED HIM ALL THE GLORY for His holiness (acquired over probably 13 billion years of labor minimum, if science is correct about the age of the universe). This is TOTAL DISREPECT for His age, it despises His title as Ancient of Days, it deprives Him of 99.9999999% of the glory, and it is probably worse than spitting on the cross.
Ok, I'm not seeing any actual argumentation towards merit just a bare assertion. What point do you think demonstrates Jesus wouldn't have merited praise without growth?
 
Upvote 0

Jesus is YHWH

my Lord and my God !
Site Supporter
Dec 15, 2011
3,496
1,727
✟389,997.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This was post 850 from the other thread. (The other one was post 856 which I'll import shortly).


Newsflash: As for the Son of God, His entire life on earth was an exercise in mutability.

"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

Not my fault you don't believe the Scriptures. That was YOUR decision. As for immutability, let's put the final nail in the coffin, shall we? These two definitions of divine holiness stand diametrically opposed:
(1) Innate, immutable, intrinsic holiness. (The orthodox position)
(2) Acquired holiness - acquired by free will. (My position).
Now I will show why #1 contradicts the whole Bible. This is an argument I haven't unveiled as yet, although I hinted at it back at post 665.

Scripture doesn't merely COMMAND us to praise God. It goes further than that - it insists that He is WORTHY of our praise, that He DESERVES/MERITS our praise. The problem is, holiness as defined in #1 does not merit praise! Innate characteristics do not merit praise! For example, do not praise me for being human, or for my red blood, or my gorgeous features - all these things exist, but do not merit praise. The UNANIMOUS definition of merit - the definition that has grounded every sermon in the last 2000 years, is the following:

"Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time".

The best example is the cross. Suppose the Father had anesthetized Christ's nerves, and tranquilized His mind, sufficiently to prevent any suffering for the whole ordeal of the cross. How much praise would the cross merit, in that case? Zero! Zilch! None! Nada!

How much labor? Bear in mind that even the angels have merit - they labored/suffered against the agony of temptation for at least a period of time, and overcame it. And even ordinary Christian men labor for more than 50 years.

But Scripture claims that God has ineffably more merit than men have. Recently I was debating with a YEC (young earth creationist). I told him it was impossible that God created the world in 7 24-hour periods, that it contradicts His holiness. (At first he thought I was crazy as he couldn't connect the dots).

Then I explained to him. Since both angels and men have labored more than 7 days, we would merit more praise than God has merited for creation. Therefore you must conclude that God TOOK TIME to learn how to create (and manage) this complex planet. Start thinking in terms of millions of years, nay, BILLIONS even. Perhaps even tens of billions of gradual learning and skill. As I said, we already know that God's knowledge is NOT innate, it is ACQUIRED/LEARNED - we know this from the Incarnation:


"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

Of course it is learned. Otherwise His knowledge wouldn't merit any praise!

And more than that - only a jerk would want us to praise him for His innate characteristics! How would you feel about me, if I expected you to praise me for my red blood, my beating heart, and (of course) my gorgeous face? You'd consider me a jerk!

To summarize, for 2,000 years the church has been willing to praise the Ancient of Days for 3 days of passion for the cross, but has DENIED HIM ALL THE GLORY for His holiness (acquired over probably 13 billion years of labor minimum, if science is correct about the age of the universe). This is TOTAL DISREPECT for His age, it despises His title as Ancient of Days, it deprives Him of 99.9999999% of the glory, and it is probably worse than spitting on the cross.
learn the truth about the Hypostatic Union.

the 2 natures in Christ solve your problem since neither I nor the bible have a problem with God the Father and God the Son having the same Divine nature and attributes.

you argue like unitarian and kenosis heretics regarding Jesus nature.

hope this helps !!!
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ok, I'm not seeing any actual argumentation towards merit just a bare assertion. What point do you think demonstrates Jesus wouldn't have merited praise without growth?
Huh? Did you actually read that post? Apparently not.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,723
2,916
45
San jacinto
✟207,296.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Huh? Did you actually read that post? Apparently not.
I did, and the only parts I saw that seemed relevant to this discussion was you insisting that without having to work for it it's not praiseworthy, which is nothing more than an assertion of an opinion. Your own example of beauty/good looks proves the case, as people regularly recognize beauty as praiseworthy even if someone doesn't have to work to acquire it.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That post provides a definition of merit undergirding virtually every sermon in the last 2,000 years. Therefore anyone who tries to tell me that the post is irrelevant to a debate on merit is, in my opinion, either totally confused or guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I did, and the only parts I saw that seemed relevant to this discussion was you insisting that without having to work for it it's not praiseworthy, which is nothing more than an assertion of an opinion.
It's an assertion backed by 2,000 years of consensus.
Your own example of beauty/good looks proves the case, as people regularly recognize beauty as praiseworthy even if someone doesn't have to work to acquire it.
Nope. Category mistake. You're confusing these two concepts - because we tend to use the same words to describe them. But in theology we must be a bit more precise, in a debate at least. So let's distinguish the two concepts.

When I consider my wife's beauty as praiseworthy, I'm not necessarily saying she MERITS praise for that beauty. Being lucky enough to have good genes doesn't MERIT praise. She is not praiseworthy in THAT sense. I may praise her good looks as an ACT OF KINDNESS, but I can't regard it as virtuously meritorious. The TRUTH is that, strictly speaking, she deserves ZERO PRAISE for her good looks.

Otherwise, we have a discrepancy. Do we really want to maintain that those who have poor genes (bad looks) are worthy of less honor?

So why do we honor God for the cross? What makes it meritorious? Christ's good looks, in your view?
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,723
2,916
45
San jacinto
✟207,296.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's an assertion backed by 2,000 years of consensus.

Nope. Category mistake. You're confusing these two concepts - because we tend to use the same words to describe them. But in theology we must be a bit more precise, in a debate at least. So let's distinguish the two concepts.

When I consider my wife's beauty as praiseworthy, I'm not necessarily saying she MERITS praise for that beauty. Being lucky enough to have good genes doesn't MERIT praise. She is not praiseworthy in THAT sense. I may praise her good looks as an ACT OF KINDNESS, but I can't regard it as virtuously meritorious. The TRUTH is that, strictly speaking, she deserves ZERO PRAISE for her good looks.

Otherwise, we have a discrepancy. Do we really want to maintain that those who have poor genes (bad looks) are worthy of less honor?

So why do we honor God for the cross? What makes it meritorious? Christ's good looks, in your view?
Merit-the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward

So no, there's no confusion of definitions. When you praise someone for their beauty, you are decclaring them worthy of praise...or meriting praise. There's no requirement that it be "earned" in some fashion and in fact effort can be a negative, like in beauty where a natural beauty is seen as more valueable than someone who preens themselves constantly to achieve beauty.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Merit-the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward

So no, there's no confusion of definitions. When you praise someone for their beauty, you are decclaring them worthy of praise...or meriting praise. There's no requirement that it be "earned" in some fashion and in fact effort can be a negative, like in beauty where a natural beauty is seen as more valueable than someone who preens themselves constantly to achieve beauty.
Dancing. Again. You're not distinguishing between the two concepts.
(1) Praising someone as an act of kindness or politeness, or simply in reaction of awe. "Oh what a beautiful sunset!"
(2) Characterizing someone as deserving/meriting praise.

You conveniently were silent on the cross as an example. Here's another example: Two kids, the one rich by inheriting wealth, but a lazy sloth, the other born poor but wealthy by diligent labor. Which one is a more likely candidate for merit in your eyes? In God's eyes? (All other things/factors being equal of course).

in fact effort can be a negative,
Not in terms of merit it can't. Effort done in accordance with my stated definition of merit is ALWAYS meritorious in God's eyes. Unless you think He is one to poo-poo our efforts.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,723
2,916
45
San jacinto
✟207,296.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Dancing. Again. You're not distinguishing between the two concepts.
(1) Praising someone as an act of kindness or politeness, or simply in reaction of awe. "Oh what a beautiful sunset!"
(2) Characterizing someone as deserving/meriting praise.

You conveniently were silent on the cross as an example. Here's another example: Two kids, the one rich by inheriting wealth, but a lazy sloth, the other born poor but wealthy by diligent labor. Which one is a more likely candidate for merit in your eyes? In God's eyes? (All other things/factors being equal of course).


Not in terms of merit it can't. Effort done in accordance with my stated definition of merit is ALWAYS meritorious in God's eyes. Unless you think He is one to poo-poo our efforts.
Huh? Praising someone for being beautiful is not a matter of "politeness or kindness" but a matter of recognizing an inherent quality in them that is worthy. We do the same with many inherent qualities, such as intelligence. We praise beautiful people because we believe that possessing beauty is something that deserves praise, and even if we didn't you would still be in error because when people speak of God's merit its the noun form(a quality He possesses) not the verb form. He does praiseworthy things because He is praiseworthy, rather than being praiseworthy for what He does. Your entire premise is faulty, so why would I deal with an example built on that premise?
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Huh? Praising someone for being beautiful is not a matter of "politeness or kindness" but a matter of recognizing an inherent quality in them that is worthy. We do the same with many inherent qualities, such as intelligence. We praise beautiful people because we believe that possessing beauty is something that deserves praise,
Again, desist with the double-talk. The real question here is not whether a "thing" (beauty) deserves praise, but whether the PERSON merits praise, and whether he DESERVES more praise than someone else (viz. the lazy sloth versus the diligent person).



He does praiseworthy things because He is praiseworthy, rather than being praiseworthy for what He does. Your entire premise is faulty, so why would I deal with an example built on that premise?
So merit is intrinsic/innate? It has nothing to do with earned accolades? Fine. Then your God is unjust because on YOUR premises, the angels who sinned, when faced with suffering/temptation, should be honored just as much as those who diligently overcame it.

You're not making any sense. On your premises, every human who stands before the throne of God on judgment day merits equal accolades - regardless how slothful they were - and likewise angels.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,351
7,568
North Carolina
✟346,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
None of the uncreated were sitting around in need of refinement, and certainly weren't asking for it. Suffering won't exist in heaven precisely because it is NOT inherently good. In heaven we'll be holy and thus incapable of hurting each other, ourselves, or God. What you're not explaining is:
(1) Why God didn't just create heaven to begin with, foregoing temptation.
(2) Essentially, why not do everything in His power to preclude suffering, even up to the extent of abstaining from creating (were that necessary).
Interrupting to answer the question. . .

Because the glory of God is more important than any and all things.
The infinite perfection of his divine attributes deserve glory, therefore, divine justice requires that they receive glory.

Scripture reveals that God has ordained to receive that glory through/in the glorifying of his Son, Jesus Christ, in the glorifying of his goodness, justice, etc. in his creation.

All that occurs serves the purpose of his divine wisdom in that plan. . .even when we don't see how.

It is not my purpose to join the debate. . .carry on.
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
He does praiseworthy things because He is praiseworthy
Really and truly speaking, that is not even an assertion. It doesn't convey anything at all. That's like saying God does holy things because he is holy.

What makes Him praiseworthy? His good looks? So if He treated us in thoroughly evil and selfish ways, for example, He is equally praiseworthy?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.