What Is Impossible With Men Is Possible With God.

[makesends]

In another thread, these verses were quoted.

Can these verses be used to prove that any scenario we can dream up is possible for God to do?

"Who then can be saved?"​

​

Matthew 19:25-26 KJV​

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? [26] But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.​

Interlinear: With men this impossible is with however God all things [are] possible.​

​

Mark 10:26-27 KJV​

And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? [27] And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.​

Interlinear: With men [it is] impossible but not with God all things for [are] possible with God.​

​

Luke 18:26-27 KJV​

And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved? [27] And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.​

Interlinear: The things impossible with men possible with God are.​

​

Other English translations usually either say, "...what is..." or, "...the things..." or similar. In reality, "the things that are impossible" is not in English the same as "that which is impossible", but it the difference can be ignored for the purposes of this OP.​

In many debates the question comes up whether God can be limited by anything we can mentally 'conceive'. If logic tells me that a scenario I invent is non-sensical or bogus, has no application to God's ability, then that logic can be used to say, "Well, that's impossible". Not that it is or isn't possible for man, but is it possible at all? Can we use these verses to show that in fact it IS possible with God?

What comes to mind right now, for me, is the notion of a human will that is free to do whatever "is possible" to be done, independently from antecedent causes, and, particularly, it is insisted, independent from God's causation. While to man's logic, that notion is bogus, there is also the self-contradictory notion added that this came about by God making things that way —i.e. self-contradictory in that, it is said, God caused it that man can choose, uncaused to do so. This OP is not arguing whether "free will" is valid, but whether something logically self-contradictory can be possible with God.

So, I ask, can these verses be used to prove to those who believe Scriptures over their own logic, that it IS possible for God to do something logically self-contradictory? In apologetics, it becomes necessary to be specific about what is meant by the terms of an assertion.

1. What is a "thing", anyway?
2. What does "possible" mean?
3. What is impossible with man that is possible with God? Are these verses applicable to logically vapid notions of the human mind?

 

[QVQ]

An attempt to answer:
1 "thing' is all the totality of all possible that have been, are and can be.
2. "possible" is whether the "thing" can be realized as actual (not whether it is, as it may or may not be realized or actualized)
3. The Will of God contains all "all possible things." Unlimited, although God does not actualize all possibilities. That is the very definition of Will.

All things are possible to God, as He is unlimited but He chooses to actualize or manifest (Will) according to His good pleasure.

Jesus did impossible and illogical
And he did them within the context of having the power (Will) to do impossible things in an unlimited variety of ways.
He walked on water.
He could have flown.
He could have "ghosted" from one point and "beamed" Himself to another.
He could have conjured up a speed boat or even a row boat.
All of those things are illogical and impossible for man in the context of time and place.
All of those things are possible to God, at any time, any place.
It was illogical and impossible for man to walk on water but Jesus did so, as God.
The casual simplicity of the act is often overlooked.
Jesus walked...on water. Man and God, One

(I am not certain the answer addresses the question in the OP.)

 

[makesends]

An attempt to answer:
1 "thing' is all the totality of all possible that have been, are and can be.
2. "possible" is whether the "thing" can be realized as actual (not whether it is, as it may or may not be realized or actualized)
3. The Will of God contains all "all possible things." Unlimited, although God does not actualize all possibilities. That is the very definition of Will.

All things are possible to God, as He is unlimited but He chooses to actualize or manifest (Will) according to His good pleasure.

Jesus did impossible and illogical
And he did them within the context of having the power (Will) to do impossible things in an unlimited variety of ways.
He walked on water.
He could have flown.
He could have "ghosted" from one point and "beamed" Himself to another.
He could have conjured up a speed boat or even a row boat.
All of those things are illogical and impossible for man in the context of time and place.
All of those things are possible to God, at any time, any place.
It was illogical and impossible for man to walk on water but Jesus did so, as God.
The casual simplicity of the act is often overlooked.
Jesus walked...on water. Man and God, One

(I am not certain the answer addresses the question in the OP.)

That is very much along the lines of the OP, and thank you.

I wouldn't say that anything Jesus did was illogical, though it may be counter-intuitive or even defying the 'laws' of nature. What I mean by man's logic, for the purposes of this thread, is 'logic' —not, 'man's thinking'. Not that man's logic (in this use) is capable of going as far as God's but it is simple logic, and sound. (Cause and effect, 1+1=2, a thing cannot be both X and not X at the same time in the same way, etc.)

I agree completely that Jesus did what is impossible for man to do, and that he was capable of logical pursuits, for clarity of mind and lack of sin, beyond what other men could do. But, as you probably know from other conversations with me, by definition of 'possible', nothing that ever happened was impossible. In fact, if it was impossible it couldn't have happened (by definition).

But I don't strictly consider SIN to be a 'thing', in the sense that God made all things. I don't discredit the notion of God causing that there be sin, but that is a few steps away from 'creating sin'. I'm just careful with the terminology there, to avoid misunderstanding and accusations, because the Bible says that he is NOT the author of sin, and besides that logically (by definition of sin), it is self-contradictory to say that God can sin, it says he tempts nobody. To my knowledge, God's distance from evil precludes it being part of what he 'pervades' in the sense of 'God's Immanence'. We live and move and have our being in him. And so does the universe, in at least one sense. But not sin.

 

[fastfredy0]

God cannot make a rock to big to be lifted and then lift it.
God cannot do the impossible.

 

[QVQ]

I wouldn't say that anything Jesus did was illogical, though it may be counter-intuitive or even defying the 'laws' of nature. What I mean by man's logic, for the purposes of this thread, is 'logic' —not, 'man's thinking'. Not that man's logic (in this use) is capable of going as far as God's but it is simple logic, and sound. (Cause and effect, 1+1=2, a thing cannot be both X and not X at the same time in the same way, etc.)

Logical 1) conforms to the laws of nature 2) cause and effect 1+1=2

Yes, things can be x and non-x at the same time. A coin spinning in air is heads and tails until the final state is chosen.

Dogs are superstitious as they believe that one thing predicts another.
Cause and effect are laws of motion, not prediction

@makesends
I agree completely that Jesus did what is impossible for man to do, and that he was capable of logical pursuits, for clarity of mind and lack of sin, beyond what other men could do. But, as you probably know from other conversations, by definition of 'possible', nothing that ever happened was impossible. In fact, if it was impossible it couldn't have happened.
@QVQ
Impossible 1) Defies all known physical laws, 2) Defies logic 1+1=2
IT did happen when Jesus walked on water.
It was an unrealized possibility that defied logic, therefore impossible
Yet it came exist as a realized possibility.

Here's the Thing...a thing is the absolute totality of whatever has been, is or can be
Possible is an act of Will to actualize the thing or not.

God does not choose (Will) to actualize winged men or fire snorting dragons but those things are possible within the laws of nature and cause and effect. So a thing is what is Willed. What is willed is what is possible and that is unlimited to God, limited for man

But I don't strictly consider SIN to be a 'thing', in the sense that God made all things. I don't discredit the notion of God causing that there be sin, but that is a few steps away from 'creating sin'. I'm just careful with the terminology there, to avoid misunderstanding and accusations, because the Bible says that he is NOT the author of sin, and besides that logically (by definition of sin), it is self-contradictory to say that God can sin, it says he tempts nobody. To my knowledge, God's distance from evil precludes it being part of what he 'pervades' in the sense of 'God's Immanence'. We live and move and have our being in him. And so does the universe, in at least one sense. But not sin.

Sin is a thing and it was ordained by God when man was banished to East of Eden. It is a condition of East of Eden.
Separate God from God's Will. Every possible and impossible thing is subject to the Will of God.

Now, what is sin? Fear, lust, pride, envy for a start. God cannot lust or fear. I mean, What?
He also doesn't drink or eat as He states in Psalm 50. He is altogether not such a one as thyself.
God can't sin. It is not in His nature. Although He could if He so Willed.
So there is God and there is the Will of God. All things are within the Will of God but God is not all things. God may not even be a "thing."
The argument I am seeing for this "God caused sin but didn't create sin" is that God is being mixed into a created thing and being identified
as that thing. The idea that God created a thing therefore God is that thing. Sin can be created and be as separate from God as tree sap.
The argument here is very close to Pantheism. And if carried to another extreme, dualism.

 

[QVQ]

God cannot make a rock to big to be lifted and then lift it.
God cannot do the impossible.

I can do that with a bit of blasting powder, a wheel barrow and a shovel.
God can do it. You just don't know how
God is not limited or He would not be God.

 

[fastfredy0]

God is not limited or He would not be God.

God is limited, but in a positive way. For instance, God cannot learn.

God can do it. You just don't know how

God cannot be "A" and NOT "A" at the same time. In a similar way He can't make a rock too heavy to lift and then lift it.

 

[QVQ]

God is limited, but in a positive way. For instance, God cannot learn.

That is not a limitation. The limitation is if He could learn as learning is for fulfillment.
He is filled, not limited.

 

[makesends]

God cannot make a rock to big to be lifted and then lift it.
God cannot do the impossible.

Not at all to say that he can, here, but that is why I say, it is not a question of what HE can and cannot do. It is a question of what is real. Our bogus notions do not figure into the 'realm of possibility'.

 

[fastfredy0]

He is filled, not limited.

LImited defined: restricted in size, amount, or extent; few, small, or short.

So, God is limited in the "amount" He can lie. Hey, I admit this is a technicality and that's why my initial post say God is LIMITED in a POSITIVE way.

.... as Kamala would say, "I think we are dealing with a 'word salad'"

 

[makesends]

God is limited, but in a positive way. For instance, God cannot learn.


God cannot be "A" and NOT "A" at the same time. In a similar way He can't make a rock too heavy to lift and then lift it.

That is not a limitation. The limitation is if He could learn as learning is for fulfillment.
He is filled, not limited.

God does not 'learn', as we mean the word.

In fact, it is not as though any hypothetical or even future event is relevant to God's knowledge, but that he is the FIRST CAUSE of all fact. They are true in that God caused them. 'Limitation' is OUR stupid HUMAN construction to discipline our wandering brains. It is useless as far as attributing fact to God.

 

[fastfredy0]

Not at all to say that he can, here, but that is why I say, it is not a question of what HE can and cannot do. It is a question of what is real. Our bogus notions do not figure into the 'realm of possibility'.

Well, I'm not too smart but some of my notions can fit into reality. Even I know what a "lie" is and I can figure out if someone said 1+1=3 he'd be lying.

 

[makesends]

LImited defined: restricted in size, amount, or extent; few, small, or short.

So, God is limited in the "amount" He can lie. Hey, I admit this is a technicality and that's why my initial post say God is LIMITED in a POSITIVE way.

.... as Kamala would say, "I think we are dealing with a 'word salad'"

It would be the first true thing she has said!

 

[makesends]

Well, I'm not too smart but some of my notions can fit into reality. Even I know what a "lie" is and I can figure out if someone said 1+1=3 he'd be lying.

You are too smart. We aren't talking about lying, if we are talking about God. Where it is said in Scripture in the same sentence, is an anthropomorphism. (I can let Scripture get away with it but not you!)

 

[QVQ]

LImited defined: restricted in size, amount, or extent; few, small, or short.

So, God is limited in the "amount" He can lie.

By that definition God is not limited in size, amount or extent.
If you have to learn something then you were limited in size amount or extent of knowledge before you learn it. When you learn it, you are not limited by size, amount of extent. God knows it all so He is not limited by size, amount or extent.
You are limited and are filling your cup. God's cup is full and unlimited.

Here we are back to sin and tree sap. Tree sap does not flow in God and lies are not in His Word. However, those are within the power and provenance of His will.

 

[QVQ]

God cannot be "A" and NOT "A" at the same time. In a similar way He can't make a rock too heavy to lift and then lift it.

I just did it
I am A with a rock too heavy to lift
I am Not A with blasting powder, a wheel barrow and a shovel.

God even created an "x" and "not x" at the same time. A spinning coin.

 

[makesends]

Logical 1) conforms to the laws of nature 2) cause and effect 1+1=2

1. "Conforms to the laws of nature" reduces to, "this is what we think" —not, this is truth. It is the forms or boundaries we have observed, without understanding, being only human, and temporal beings, at that. 2. Math, yes. Math is logical, as long as it is [edit: 'NOT'] misused.

Yes, things can be x and non-x at the same time. A coin spinning in air is heads and tails until the final state is chosen.

Not a valid statement. It is neither heads nor tails until the final state is accomplished. Speculation is not substance. Ask Schrodinger.

Dogs are superstitious as they believe that one thing predicts another.
Cause and effect are laws of motion, not prediction

What has prediction to do with it? Cause and effect are visible in time but not limited by time. Ask any competent modern physicist

@makesends
I agree completely that Jesus did what is impossible for man to do, and that he was capable of logical pursuits, for clarity of mind and lack of sin, beyond what other men could do. But, as you probably know from other conversations, by definition of 'possible', nothing that ever happened was impossible. In fact, if it was impossible it couldn't have happened.
@QVQ
Impossible 1) Defies all known physical laws, 2) Defies logic 1+1=2

As I show above, that (1) may be common use of the term, but by strict meaning of "possible", the impossible will never happen. It is only that what we thought it impossible, which turned out to be wrong, since it did happen.

IT did happen when Jesus walked on water.
It was an unrealized possibility that defied logic, therefore impossible
Yet it came exist as a realized possibility.

It was not impossible. WE call it impossible. It defied human understanding, it did not defy logic —(Reality fits to God, not God to reality). FACT does not depend on anyone but God knowing it. Nobody else—certainly not humans and their ignorance.

Here's the Thing...a thing is the absolute totality of whatever has been, is or can be
Possible is an act of Will to actualize the thing or not.

Which will might that be? God doesn't work with "perhaps". Possible is indeed the act of God's will. Our ignorant speculations have no bearing on reality.

God does not choose (Will) to actualize winged men or fire snorting dragons but those things are possible within the laws of nature and cause and effect. So a thing is what is Willed. What is willed is what is possible and that is unlimited to God, limited for man

Those things that are not, are considered by us as possible, according to the principles we pretend to understand. But not according to what actually happens. WE are the ones saying something could be, when historically, epistemically, we should know better. We do have "should have" and regret—that is real enough. But, we do not have "could have" and a different history.

Sin is a thing and it was ordained by God when man was banished to East of Eden. It is a condition of East of Eden.
Separate God from God's Will. Every possible and impossible thing is subject to the Will of God.

Ha! I saw this coming. The "'is—ought' problem", in reverse. You are considering reality to be a separate thing from the will of God, though subject to it. Thus you consider speculation valid. God's decree IS reality.

Now, what is sin? Fear, lust, pride, envy for a start. God cannot lust or fear. I mean, What?
He also doesn't drink or eat as He states in Psalm 50. He is altogether not such a one as thyself.
God can't sin. It is not in His nature. Although He could if He so Willed.

God can't sin is a human way to put it. The mindset there is visible in that next sentence, "It is not in His nature". That it is not in his nature is a little like saying, "it is not in the nature of light to be darkness". By definition of sin, it is a bogus thought humanity constructs, that God should or should not be able to do such a thing. Whether he can or not is not the point. The point is that sin is AGAINST GOD, and it is self-contradictory nonsense to say that God is against himself.

So there is God and there is the Will of God. All things are within the Will of God but God is not all things. God may not even be a "thing."
The argument I am seeing for this "God caused sin but didn't create sin" is that God is being mixed into a created thing and being identified
as that thing. The idea that God created a thing therefore God is that thing. Sin can be created and be as separate from God as tree sap.
The argument here is very close to Pantheism. And if carried to another extreme, dualism.

Expand, please. I see nothing I have said descending into Pantheism. "In him we live and move and have our being" does not translate into "God is comprised of us", nor, "Everything that lives and moves and has being IS God". And I don't see dualism even entering here.

For God to cause something that is not he himself may seem strange to human intuition, but it is not irrational nor illogical. If that something is made capable of observing that there is an external Creator of "all this", and that "all this" bears the marks of orderly principle, it does not imply that that willed, orderly, principle-maker IS "all this". I may conjecture as to whether, for him, to create is any different than to sustain the existence of his creation. But either way, was he to "withdraw his hand", we would not only cease to exist, but we would cease to have ever existed. And THERE perhaps, can be seen the difference between causes and effects as 'facts', and temporal sequence as 'events'.

We know very little. We should say, "I don't know if...", rather than, "it is possible that...".

 

[makesends]

Well, I'm not too smart but some of my notions can fit into reality. Even I know what a "lie" is and I can figure out if someone said 1+1=3 he'd be lying.

Your understanding of what a lie is, is not a bogus notion.

 

[makesends]

By that definition God is not limited in size, amount or extent.
If you have to learn something then you were limited in size amount or extent of knowledge before you learn it. When you learn it, you are not limited by size, amount of extent. God knows it all so He is not limited by size, amount or extent.
You are limited and are filling your cup. God's cup is full and unlimited.

Agreed.

Here we are back to sin and tree sap. Tree sap does not flow in God

Huh? I must've missed something.

Here we are back to sin and tree sap. Tree sap does not flow in God and lies are not in His Word. However, those are within the power and provenance of His will.

"...those are within the power and provenance of His will [decree]." Not that there is really any difference between his sovereign will and his decree, but I changed it to point out the difference between how WE see possibility and HE sees fact.

 

[QVQ]

Expand, please. I see nothing I have said descending into Pantheism. "In him we live and move and have our being" does not translate into "God is comprised of us", nor, "Everything that lives and moves and has being IS God". And I don't see dualism even entering here.

I was addressing the pantheism that could exist in the argument that God can not sin therefore He did not create sin.

God can create a thing and not be that thing. Therefore God could create sin. It is an act of His will (decree), not a quality of God, anymore than by creating trees, tree sap flows in His veins.
God could create and decree sin as a component of East of Eden.
There is providence and choice within a given space and time.
One man might choose to lie. Another man to steal.
Sin is a smorgasbord. All of it, the opportunity and the capacity to commit are within natural man in providence.
The same as a man in an icecream shop, he could choose vanilla (lust) chocolate (envy) OR he could choose none.
So within that very limited scope, when the man who chooses the double scoop dies from diabetes and heart problems, it is not God who chose the flavor of man's demise, even though God definitely created and decreed ice cream and metabolisms and gluttony in East of Eden.