Just Yet Merciful

[Josheb]

makesends said:
When the Bible says "...it is impossible for God to lie", it means that it is logical foolishness to suppose it. Of COURSE God does not lie —not for lack of ability, but because of what/who he is.

Irrelevant. God's inability to lie is in a different category than His ability to achieve His goals in multiple ways and His capacity to have a real dialogue with His Son about changing how He accomplishes His objectives (and I have already explained why).

I don't know if you realize that most of what you say, as if "It is so", is actually, "This is a well thought-out point of view, worth holding onto." It is human, and temporal, thinking, and a human and a temporal way of putting it. (Not saying that mine isn't, btw). I'm presenting a way to look at it, that honors God as the beginning and sustainer of fact. He does not adapt himself to possibles that rise up on their own.

And I do not know whether you realize this but that's a pile of hogwash. Human thinking is limited and flawed. The limits and flaws do not prevent all knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. The fact is (as I have said many times prior to this thread) divine revelation is revealed for the purpose of being understood. Appeals to human inability like, "We just cannot understand it" repudiate both the premise of revelation and it purpose. It's a cop out. This op would be a pile of meaningless rubbish if it were not possible to understand the simultaneously occurring mercy and justice God repeatedly revealed in His word to us. It is revealed for our understanding, so saying, "it is beyond our comprehension" is tantamount to calling God cruel and unjust.

That is the dumb argument!

No, the notion that God can do only what His purpose dictates, or that only what happens defines what God can do does not honor God as the beginner and sustainer of fact. What it does is make God a manipulator of action figures who can do nothing more than that.

Salvation would not have been the same thing, done a different way.

You're speculating over your head.

God could have sent His Son into creation at any time. The fact that he was revealed in the last times (1 Pet. 1:20) is not a fact that defines or limits God. It's a revelation by God for us to understand the last times were defined by the act, not the other way around. It's a revelation intended for us to understand God could have made any point at which Jesus entered creation as the perfect sacrifice the last times.

The end of the matter —God with his people, the Children of God, the Bride, the Body of Christ, etc. — is ONLY what it will be when we see it.

No (josh shakes head in incredulity). It is not our "seeing" that defines the end of a matter...... and you've just contradicted yourself because your entire argument is predicated on the inherent flaws in human thinking preventing understanding ("seeing"). It cannot be had both ways. Either humans are capable of seeing or they are not. The foundational presupposition of divine revelation is that it is understandable. There are caveats, such as when God purposefully veils understanding for a period of time, or when God deliberately blinds someone(s) from understanding. Those are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

It's not a matter of God accepting whatever turns out. (This I think you agree; I have heard you speak of it).

Yep

THIS —all fact— is what God is doing. To say that he could have done different is irrelevant.

Those are not mutually exclusive conditions. God can do the fact He and His creation are dynamic, not static.

I'm saying it is worth looking at, and that what you think is worth speculating on is bogus.

So much for practicing what is preached. Your views alone are worth looking at, but no one else's.

It is not a matter of whether justice demands mercy or any other thing that God has done. What God has done is all that we need to understand, and that, pretty quickly, should be understood as that which God did. To go beyond that is to elevate yourself into his category.

Nice digressionary cop out (and a bit of a strawman because I do not read anyone saying "justice demands mercy" in a manner that limits God or His action facts. That certainly has nothing to do with anything I have posted.

We should praise him and admire him and wonder why he did it the way he did.

It is good that God is praised in all circumstance, but to wonder where matters can be known and understood is not worshipful. It's insulting. This is especially true when revelation has been revealed with an expectation it will be understood and that understanding used fruitfully. To praise God with understanding (and gratitude for that understanding) is demonstrably better than self-imposed ignorant praise.

But what he had in mind for the end, from the beginning is the only way it will happen, and that depends on all the causal sequences between the beginning and the end, and there is no use in saying it can happen any other way.

I disagree and find that woefully ignorant.

Any god can make creation do only what He makes it say and/or do. That's not a very big god at all. That god is not a God, and s/he/it is most definitely the God of the Bible.

 

[Josheb]

Maybe it would be more clear for me to say, I'm not applying it to God. I'm applying this to us. It is WE who think of possibility. God doesn't need that.

Hmmm... If the "it" is divine mercy/compassion and justice, then nothing in this discussion should be about God having any need. That would compromise divine aseity and simplicity and thereby fail prima facie. I have not read your posts to assert a need upon which God is dependent exists. However, the premise God can do only that which has been done is a compromise on aseity and simplicity. The dependency(-ies) created by strict determinism is paradoxical because (as I have already posted) it is a post hoc argument that defines God by temporal matters and then surrenders further understanding and any and all dissent with the sophistry of "It is beyond our comprehension."


It becomes apparent when questions like those asked in Post 54 are presented.


Any god can make action figures and make them do only what He wishes. That kind of god and that kind of creation makes a mockery of mercy and justice. That god is not a God. That god is not God. I can look over my fence and watch my neighbor's six-year-old make his creation do what he wants it to do and the idea those actions are the only thing he could do is laughable because it the exact opposite of reason and understanding. That child is willing and acting as a temporal creature in a temporal environment and audacious to assert that same condition exists for the Creator of time and space.... and then tell me I am speculating over my head.

 

[Josheb]

Maybe it would be more clear for me to say, I'm not applying it to God. I'm applying this to us. It is WE who think of possibility. God doesn't need that.

Maybe it would be est if questions asked were answered when asked and answered without personal commentary and misrepresenting others' posts.

The answers to the questions asked, btw, are all "No."


Two letters. "n" and "o".

Is God not a cause, and the first cause at that, of Sarah Beckstrom's death? No, I didn't say primary cause, but the first in the string of causes leading to her death. I didn't say efficient cause, but the first.

Or is your protest about God's immanence? Or his upholding the existence of all fact?

Do we need to list some more terms, or can you get my point with the few we have? SMH

The man that shot the woman shot the woman. What's more, he did so because he chose to. The myriad of causes leading up to it were indeed causes. And every one of them part of God's decree.

The problem here is not on my end and I have encouraged you multiple times to be cautious with the notion everyone else shares the inability to understand that you experience when contemplating these matters. If it is not possible for anyone to understand then it is also impossible for you to ever learn . I'd say it was "convenient" if I did not hold you in higher esteem. No knowledge can or will ever be garnered from God's revelation we'll all always be ignorant on this side of the grave. This is the logical necessity of appeals to inability.


It's also completely unnecessary as far as this op goes. We experience simultaneously existing mercy/compassion and justice/justness routinely, in big ways and small. That salvation entails both isn't particularly surprising and while it may not be obvious in the beginning, its shared territory of both mercy and justice is not hard to comprehend. To say these things must happen, must happen solely in one specific way, and God has no other option is irrational. It's a mockery of a mock god. This should be obvious in the fact God's purpose creation will glorify Him is demonstrated in two different ways (eternal life versus destruction) and either of those can (and is) meted out at any time God so chooses regardless of temporal circumstances.

 

[JesusFan]

Ok. Can you show how it happened, if he did not cause it?

God being sovereign does not preclude ghat He can either directly determine all that happens, or that he can also factor made decisions for His plan and purposes, he is not like Allah, determining all that happens, sins and all

 

[makesends]

God being sovereign does not preclude ghat He can either directly determine all that happens, or that he can also factor made decisions for His plan and purposes, he is not like Allah, determining all that happens, sins and all

"factor made decisions" —I'm not sure what you mean, but since you contrast Allah: Are you intending there the implication that "made decisions" are outside God's causation? If so, can you explain how decisions are made outside God's causation?

 

[JesusFan]

"factor made decisions" —I'm not sure what you mean, but since you contrast Allah: Are you intending there the implication that "made decisions" are outside God's causation? If so, can you explain how decisions are made outside God's causation?

No, stating that the God of the bible is not into fatalism, not causing making me to commit sin , as Muslim Allah is famous for destiny and predetermine how much adultery they shall be doing as a Muslim male

 

[makesends]

Maybe it would be est if questions asked were answered when asked and answered without personal commentary and misrepresenting others' posts.

The answers to the questions asked, btw, are all "No."


Two letters. "n" and "o".

What questions? Not sure I understand why anyone's questions are to be considered as asked. After all, they do assume certain things not in evidence. For example, the below.

The problem here is not on my end and I have encouraged you multiple times to be cautious with the notion everyone else shares the inability to understand that you experience when contemplating these matters. If it is not possible for anyone to understand then it is also impossible for you to ever learn . I'd say it was "convenient" if I did not hold you in higher esteem. No knowledge can or will ever be garnered from God's revelation we'll all always be ignorant on this side of the grave. This is the logical necessity of appeals to inability.

Yes, that is very encouraging. Yes, it is difficult for me to understand how someone else thinks their assessments of the infinite and eternal are altogether valid while yet temporal, and demands that I answer according to their parameters.

It's also completely unnecessary as far as this op goes. We experience simultaneously existing mercy/compassion and justice/justness routinely, in big ways and small. That salvation entails both isn't particularly surprising and while it may not be obvious in the beginning, its shared territory of both mercy and justice is not hard to comprehend. To say these things must happen, must happen solely in one specific way, and God has no other option is irrational. It's a mockery of a mock god. This should be obvious in the fact God's purpose creation will glorify Him is demonstrated in two different ways (eternal life versus destruction) and either of those can (and is) meted out at any time God so chooses regardless of temporal circumstances

But I didn't say God has no other option. What I said is that there is only one way to do what God is doing —that is, if indeed he is doing so according to the principle of cause-and-effect that he has humans using as logical. I have repeatedly gone out of my way, to several members here, to show that I am not dealing with whether or not God can do something, but that our notions of what he can and cannot do are not in themselves valid. He is doing what he is doing, and anything else he could have, might have, can or can't do, is, by our way of thinking, bogus consideration. (I'm not even saying that what he WOULD HAVE done is bogus. (Many places it is evident that what he would have done, were we to have obeyed/disobeyed/etc, would be different; but the fact is it is not different—we did not obey/did obey/ etc, and, as we can see, what he decreed came about perfectly.))

Hmmm... If the "it" is divine mercy/compassion and justice, then nothing in this discussion should be about God having any need. That would compromise divine aseity and simplicity and thereby fail prima facie. I have not read your posts to assert a need upon which God is dependent exists. However, the premise God can do only that which has been done is a compromise on aseity and simplicity. The dependency(-ies) created by strict determinism is paradoxical because (as I have already posted) it is a post hoc argument that defines God by temporal matters and then surrenders further understanding and any and all dissent with the sophistry of "It is beyond our comprehension."

No, "it" was not divine mercy/compassion, and no, this discussion is because I present the fact that God does not "need" nor does "he has to". The "it" I was referring to is alluded to soon after alluding to it: I was alluding to our notion of 'possibility', or maybe better, that the notion of possibility applied to God is what I am protesting; since he does only what he does, who are we to venture into what he could have done? Are we about to protest about what he should have done? Here ya go:
makesends said:
Maybe it would be more clear for me to say, I'm not applying it to God. I'm applying this to us. It is WE who think of possibility. God doesn't need that.

Once again, I have gone out of my way —in fact, this tangent is a result of my protest to —ha!, I don't even remember who; maybe @JesusFan ?— who said that God had to do—aarrgh, now I have to find it to quote it right! Ah, yes, post #46:

JesusFan said:
REven if we were to stae God could do many different things or say many different ways, what he did do is what He only could have done

—to which I answered: "Wrong way to look at it, or, at least, wrong way to state it. It is logically impossible that he would do other than he did— it is not that a question of what he could or could not do. It is not for lack of power or ability, but only that his decree is absolutely "universal" (sorry, no pun intended.) It is not that he cannot do the logically self-contradictory, (such as to make the rock too big for himself to pick up), but that the logically self-contradictory is a non-thing. Foolishness. So with whatever he does. HE does it, and that includes the whole of history and beyond. There is no fact that is outside his decree. He is not a co-inhabitant with us within a larger context of possibility."

Notice the phrase, there. Here, I'll highlight it for you and bring up the font a little bit. "It is logically impossible that he would do other than he did."

But, I wouldn't want to call the arguments concerning whether God can or cannot do other than he did, "a strawman". That would have the tendency to invoke the site rules.

It becomes apparent when questions like those asked in Post 54 are presented.

Re post 54, notice that I didn't assign moral responsibility for her death to anyone but the guy that shot her.

Any god can make action figures and make them do only what He wishes. That kind of god and that kind of creation makes a mockery of mercy and justice. That god is not a God. That god is not God. I can look over my fence and watch my neighbor's six-year-old make his creation do what he wants it to do and the idea those actions are the only thing he could do is laughable because it the exact opposite of reason and understanding. That child is willing and acting as a temporal creature in a temporal environment and audacious to assert that same condition exists for the Creator of time and space.... and then tell me I am speculating over my head.

No, I try not to say things against the rules, such as, "you are speculating over your head."

I disagree and find that woefully ignorant.

Nice digressionary cop out (and a bit of a strawman

So much for practicing what is preached. Your views alone are worth looking at, but no one else's

That is the dumb argument!

Irrelevant

And I do not know whether you realize this but that's a pile of hogwash.

The answers to the questions asked, btw, are all "No."

Two letters. "n" and "o".

(Makes shakes head in incredulity). Your kindness to condescend to such an unworthy opponent with such a length of letters is amazing. I love and admire you, too, bro.

No (josh shakes head in incredulity). It is not our "seeing" that defines the end of a matter......

I didn't say our seeing defines the end of a matter. I said it will happen when we see it. Far be it from a monergist to assess coincidence as causation!

and you've just contradicted yourself because your entire argument is predicated on the inherent flaws in human thinking preventing understanding ("seeing"). It cannot be had both ways. Either humans are capable of seeing or they are not. The foundational presupposition of divine revelation is that it is understandable. There are caveats, such as when God purposefully veils understanding for a period of time, or when God deliberately blinds someone(s) from understanding. Those are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

I will give you credit, though. I wouldn't go nearly so far to prove a strawman wrong!

 

[Josheb]

What questions?

Those asked in Post 54. Those questions to which I have requested answers at least three times.

Was Sarah's mother the cause of Sarah's death?
Did Sarah die because Gary Beckstrom impregnated Sarah's mother?
Is Gary the cause of Sarah's death? Did she die because Andrew Wolfe was talking to her?
Is that what caused Rahmanullah Lakanwal to leave Washington State, drive across the country and shoot Sarah Beckstrom?

The answers to all those questions is, "No." Sarah's mother did not cause Sarah's death. Sarah's father, Gary, did not cause Sarah's death. Andrew Wolfe did not cause Sarah's death. Sarah, Gary, and Andrew did not, in any way, cause Rahmanullah to leave Washington State.

Not sure I understand why anyone's questions are to be considered as asked.

Because this is a discussion board where topically relevant questions are routinely asked and answered..... except by those who don't wish to discuss their own statement, those who wish to undermine the normal operation of a discussion board, and or those who wish to disrespect others. A person might answer such a question because it moves the conversation forward and doesn't create dead ends. A person might answer such a question to learn something they hadn't previously consider, or they might answer a question to better inform the inquirer, to edify, to set an example for lurkers. There are many reasons why a member of this forum might/would/could answer a question asked.

I just answered your question, and I did so immediately, directly, and courteously.

After all, they do assume certain things not in evidence. For example, the below.

Yes, that is very encouraging. Yes, it is difficult for me to understand how someone else thinks their assessments of the infinite and eternal are altogether valid while yet temporal, and demands that I answer according to their parameters.

Non sequitur. That example has absolutely nothing to do with the inquiries of Post 54 and it contains no question.

But I didn't say God has no other option.

I did not say you did.

What you just did is a very common problem. Something gets posted and a reader incorrectly thinks those words are about them when the words might simply be covering a matter preemptively. It's ironic because "I never said that," implies the other person was talking about them, intentionally misrepresenting them, so it's okay to set up the rest of the conversation as a strawman when it's not. It is much easier to just answer the questions asked in a topical, timely, direct, succinct, and courteous manner or address any comments similarly.

But the facts in evidence are that the implication of saying, "God could only do what He did," is that He had no other option. And you did say that. It is true you did say, "If it's something God does not do, it is not for lack of ability, but for force of purpose," which is true and correct, but you also said, "That it may be logically impossible that he would do other than what he did is what should be looked at here —not whether he was/is able to do otherwise," which is incorrect, and "It is logically impossible that he would do other than he did— it is not that a question of what he could or could not do. It is not for lack of power or ability.....," You also said, "Is God not a cause, and the first cause at that, of Sarah Beckstrom's death? No, I didn't say primary cause, but the first in the string of causes leading to her death. I didn't say efficient cause, but the first." That's a nice attempt to split hairs but the simple fact is if EVERYTHING happens solely because God created, created in a specific, pre-determined manner and everything serves only His purpose a priori, then God does not have no other option. Time and space are fixed and volitional agency is an illusion. Then there's the matter of the attempted dodge: "The man that shot the woman shot the woman. What's more, he did so because he chose to. The myriad of causes leading up to it were indeed causes. And every one of them part of God's decree." Nice attempt to move the goalposts, redefine the conversation, and avoid answering the questions asked in a manner that addresses your own inconsistency. All those "myriad causes" are God-made causes in determinism. Any perception of secondary causes is an illusion.

There is also the problem with asserting strict determinism and saying, "I didn't say he direct caused sin. But it did come as a result of his creating creatures that are responsible to him, and that, intentionally creating them for [at least] that purpose—that sin would happen. Use the term, "allowed", if you like—there is no reason to think it came out of thin air, without cause." If God is the sole cause of everything simply as a consequence of the necessary consequence of His original creation combined with His purpose limiting everything then God is the culpable cause of sin.


It would have been much easier and saved us both some time to just answer the questions asked, when asked. Instead, I now have to read,

What questions?

Yeah. That would have never happened had the questions asked been answered when asked, and that too is one of many reasons why questions should be answered when asked.

God made you do that. Any notion on your part that it was a choice made on your part is an illusion because, according to you, is something that deterministically goes all the way back to the act of creation because God is the first cause of everything and it's not logically possible He could have done anything other than what happened," which, in this case, was you forgetting Post 54.

What I said is that there is.....

I know what you said. I know what I said. What I said was a few questions in Post 54. It took multiple requests to get actual answers and, according to you, that is the only thing that could have happened because you cannot behave in any way that does not align with what God is doing or anything that does not serve His purpose. Not even God can do anything other than that which He has done, and that which serves His (prescribed) purpose. So whether the specific words were used, you have, in fact inconsistently argued for a very strict determinism.....

....and avoided the questions of Post 54 and their implications.

The man that shot the woman shot the woman. What's more, he did so because he chose to. The myriad of causes leading up to it were indeed causes. And every one of them part of God's decree.

He did not choose if his choice is solely the effect of a series of deterministic causes that reach all the way back before Genesis 1:1. ALL of it, every constituent element was decreed by God.


Any god can make creatures do only what he makes them do. That does not even take a god. You and I can do that. That kind of god is not a God, and s/he/it is most definitely not the God of the Bible. It is a much, much, much greater God (in every way) Who creates a dynamic, interactive creation filled unrealized potential and filled with creatures who possess real volitional agency AND all of it serves His purpose(s). That God embarrasses the other god. It's sort of the point when Paul says idols are nothing and scripture repudiates all the mythological gods.


Shoulda just answered the questions asked when asked because it was not my original intent to go through all of this. I just wanted you to think about causality (divine or otherwise) a little differently.