What Is Impossible With Men Is Possible With God.

[Hazelelponi]

And, until someone can show me different, there is no reason for me to think that God would do anything that is not according to his good pleasure —specifically those 'things' we might consider actual and possible, but that are, in fact, self-contradictory notions.

God already has been, what on the surface at least, is self contradictory, in order to unify the whole.

Let’s consider the paradox of:

“God is both just (cannot overlook sin) and justifier (declares sinners righteous).”

In modular arithmetic, numbers that are different in ordinary terms become equal under a new system. What looks contradictory outside the system becomes unified within.

We could symbolize it as:

J+M≡Rmod  CJ+M≡RmodC

Where:

J=J= Perfect justice (law must be satisfied)

M=M= Perfect mercy (the wicked are forgiven)

R=R= True righteousness (God’s nature and gift to man)

C=C= The Cross (the reconciling modulus—God’s chosen framework of unity)

This is a valid modular equation, expressing that:

In ordinary terms, justice and mercy cancel each other out (like 1 + (–1) = 0).

But under God’s “modulus” (the Cross), they are no longer opposites—they become a unified expression of righteousness.


We also have the tropical logic analogy: the minimum rules

In tropical algebra, contradiction collapses to the greater unifying truth:

Equation:
min⁡(Wrath,Grace)=Gracemin(Wrath,Grace)=Grace

Because grace absorbs wrath, just as the Son absorbs the judgment.


I'm with God doing whatever He wants to, since He can do whatever He wants with laws He created.

 

[David Lamb]

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'.

I agree. The question of making a rock too heavy to be lifted (even by God) and then lifting it seems as unreal as asking, "Can God create a being more powerful than Himself?"

 

[Arial]

Could God produce something that was not created? Could He split into 2 separate parts.
God could do that.
If it is conceivable, then it is a possibility and all things are possible with God.
Therefore, whether He chooses to divide Himself has not been done but He is not, by that prescription, incapable of doing.
The fact is, no matter what "what if's" we manufacture, God could, by virtue of being God, do anything we could conceive.
The fact that God does not actualize all possibilities is not proof He can't.

What does God say about himself? He is immutable. He cannot be anything other than who he is. So no. It is not conceivable and it is not possible. When Jesus said all things were possible to God, he was not presenting a theology or concept where God could change himself. He was making a statement that God is in control of everything he created and if, for example, he wants his sun to stand still or the shadows to move backwards, it will be so. In its immediate context, he was dealing with men entering his kingdom. Men cannot save themselves. And nothing and no one can stop God from saving whom he wills.

If he could change himself we could not trust him could we?

 

[makesends]

God already has been, what on the surface at least, is self contradictory, in order to unify the whole.

Let’s consider the paradox of:

“God is both just (cannot overlook sin) and justifier (declares sinners righteous).”

In modular arithmetic, numbers that are different in ordinary terms become equal under a new system. What looks contradictory outside the system becomes unified within.

We could symbolize it as:

J+M≡Rmod  CJ+M≡RmodC

Where:

J=J= Perfect justice (law must be satisfied)

M=M= Perfect mercy (the wicked are forgiven)

R=R= True righteousness (God’s nature and gift to man)

C=C= The Cross (the reconciling modulus—God’s chosen framework of unity)

This is a valid modular equation, expressing that:

In ordinary terms, justice and mercy cancel each other out (like 1 + (–1) = 0).

But under God’s “modulus” (the Cross), they are no longer opposites—they become a unified expression of righteousness.


We also have the tropical logic analogy: the minimum rules

In tropical algebra, contradiction collapses to the greater unifying truth:

Equation:
min⁡(Wrath,Grace)=Gracemin(Wrath,Grace)=Grace

Because grace absorbs wrath, just as the Son absorbs the judgment.


I'm with God doing whatever He wants to, since He can do whatever He wants with laws He created.

I can sort of follow some of that. (I gave up on math the day I graduated.)

"God...does whatever He wants." Psalm 115:3

 

[Hazelelponi]

I can sort of follow some of that. (I gave up on math the day I graduated.)

"God...does whatever He wants." Psalm 115:3

math isn't my strong suit either... I just had to give @fastfredy0 a hard time and just carried it through.

I thought about discussing further about Jesus walking on water and managed to delete accidentally a long response so I gave up on thinking for the day... Lol

 

[QVQ]

That, and nothing else, ever happened. So why do we suppose anything else was possible? God did not cause it to happen—therefore it could not have happened.

The question is not what God can do or not do. It is a question about the Will of God. Yes or No?

I have been modeling the Will based on the human will, limited by space (Providence) and time (one thing after another)
The model is the will of man in an ice cream shop. Man has a choice of flavors and the choice of flavors are according to the Will of God (Providence)

Now, God, in His infinite wisdom, would know every possible choice available to Him and has the power to make any or all of it real (all of our God could or couldn'ts)
Why would God create choices for Himself then choose between them? As @Arial pointed out, that is a capricious God, and God is immutable.

I am starting to see @makesends point that God, being outside space and time, is not "choosing" in the sense that man chooses.
@makesends "Why do we suppose anything else was possible? God did not cause it to happen, therefore it could not have happened."
The OP to me is more a question about the Will of God.

 

[makesends]

The question is not what God can do or not do. It is a question about the Will of God. Yes or No?

I have been modeling the Will based on the human will, limited by space (Providence) and time (one thing after another)
The model is the will of man in an ice cream shop. Man has a choice of flavors and the choice of flavors are according to the Will of God (Providence)

Now, God, in His infinite wisdom, would know every possible choice available to Him and has the power to make any or all of it real (all of our God could or couldn'ts)
Why would God create choices for Himself then choose between them? As @Arial pointed out, that is a capricious God, and God is immutable.

I am starting to see @makesends point that God, being outside space and time, is not "choosing" in the sense that man chooses.
@makesends "Why do we suppose anything else was possible? God did not cause it to happen, therefore it could not have happened."
The OP to me is more a question about the Will of God.

This subject (above) deals with all 3 questions at the bottom of the OP. I don't mean to claim, like some here of our recent acquaintance, that because a thing makes sense to me that it is accurate, or because I've studied and reasoned it out, (nor, certainly, "because the Spirit has shown me"), that it is the truth, but that this is just "a way to look at it", different from the usual temporal view common to us all. WE like to fit God to what we consider reality, and to me it is not just a mistake to do so, but I have so far heard nothing to disprove the notion, and all the corollaries to it that I have so far seen implied, that GOD is the default, and very reality is a result.

In fact, the only thing I have so far heard that truly gives me pause about my view is that God doesn't often speak that way in Scripture, though I am convinced that maybe even most of what he says to us is anthropomorphistically stated. Well, there's that, plus the fact that nobody on this planet can help but think anthropomorphistically about God and temporally about reality —even when shedding temporal thinking they still must use temporal terms to do so. That same thing, said differently, is —If I am right about God, then there is no way I can be even nearly all right, and necessarily my view will be AT LEAST somewhat skewed.

I don't really mean to berate anyone for thinking temporally and anthropomorphistically, because God does not often berate us for that, but for failure of being skeptical of their own worldview and its claims.

Anyhow, and please continue to accept my disclaimer: God need not 'consider' options —in fact, there are none, except whatever he planned to do. There is nothing "available to him" except what he made. "Possible" and "impossible" are human considerations, not God's. This is Aseity, and quite a few other things we attribute to him: He does not encounter what he did not in some way intentionally cause. He need not "deal with" anything. God does not live within a system greater than himself, to which he must accommodate himself.

 

[QVQ]

Anyhow, and please continue to accept my disclaimer: God need not 'consider' options —in fact, there are none, except whatever he planned to do. There is nothing "available to him" except what he made. "Possible" and "impossible" are human considerations, not God's. This is Aseity, and quite a few other things we attribute to him: He does not encounter what he did not in some way intentionally cause. He need not "deal with" anything. God does not live within a system greater than himself, to which he must accommodate himself.

Absolutely!

Possibility exists in time. When a person enters the Ice Cream Shop, the flavors are "possibilities" until the choice is made. That is the same as the coin flip but God does not operate in time so there isn't any "possible" in the Will of God (need not consider options)

Now there is the question of God's Will within Time and Space
Here is a model I have been considering:

1) I create a dam to direct water (1st cause)
2) There are infinite possibilities as to where the water flows. I direct the water with irrigation ditches, gates etc. I can make changes at any point and at any time depending on my good pleasure (active agent in creation)
3) I control the water, beginning to end so I know exactly where every drop is going, no matter what choices I made in 2)

I know the cause, all possible changes and the final outcome The water, where it was, is and shall be, at All Times 1) 2) 3) (omniscient)

That would be God as an active agent within creation "all things are possible to God" still retaining the omnisience of the Creator.
Does the model contain random or capricious? That is what I am puzzling.

 

[makesends]

Absolutely!

Possibility exists in time. When a person enters the Ice Cream Shop, the flavors are "possibilities" until the choice is made. That is the same as the coin flip but God does not operate in time so there isn't any "possible" in the Will of God (need not consider options)

Well, I'm saying, "possibility" is OUR consideration of what we do not know. Yes, we necessarily think from a temporal viewpoint, but that does not make 'possibility' real. It no more exists in time than in eternity. We just think and talk that way because WE are not God.

Now there is the question of God's Will within Time and Space
Here is a model I have been considering:

1) I create a dam to direct water (1st cause)
2) There are infinite possibilities as to where the water flows. I direct the water with irrigation ditches, gates etc. I can make changes at any point and at any time depending on my good pleasure (active agent in creation)
3) I control the water, beginning to end so I know exactly where every drop is going, no matter what choices I made in 2)

I know the cause, all possible changes and the final outcome The water, where it was, is and shall be, at All Times 1) 2) 3) (omniscient)

That is, I hope you agree, only "a way to look at it". Not to utterly reject it, but I don't see that as the way God works.

That would be God as an active agent within creation "all things are possible to God" still retaining the omnisience of the Creator.
Does the model contain random or capricious? That is what I am puzzling.

Lol, well IF the model implies 'random' or 'capricious', then either there is something wrong with it, or the reader mistakenly infers it.

I don't see the need for God to be an 'agent' at all, in the common use of the term, which to me necessarily implies something less than omnipotence —the Creator need not 'act upon', in order to cause a thing to be or become. 'Immanence' says he is pervades at the most intimate level, without being a resident of that creation. (Aside: That touches on the paradox of God-become-man being such an astounding thing, and is why some people 'instinctively' reject the Messiah.)

Certainly, at least, he does not 'act upon' whatever already is, as we see 'agency', but, rather, whatever becomes does so by God's act in creating all 'things'. That is neither deism, nor open theism, by the way.

 

[QVQ]

Well, I'm saying, "possibility" is OUR consideration of what we do not know. Yes, we necessarily think from a temporal viewpoint, but that does not make 'possibility' real. It no more exists in time than in eternity. We just think and talk that way because WE are not God.

Well, then we have a problem because Jesus said "for men this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.
So it would seem, impossible and possible" are consideration of Jesus Lord, God.

Therefore we are attemptinig to discover "where" in all creation is "possible" for God."
Jesus may have been speaking in antropomorphic terms (the language of men) so men could understand
However, what then did Jesus mean?
Also, if all things are possible to God, and "possible" only exists in temporal reality, then God can do and does impossible things in temporal reality. Which means He is an active agent in creation, not the creator who simply set it in motion, like a clock and then because of cause and effect takes no more active part.
But for God to act in creation would introduce random or capricious, perhaps?
What does it all mean, "possible?"

@makesends, I do have to laugh as that verse, Matthew 19: 26 I have read a thousand times. It seemed completely self evident. Perhaps one of the least obscure passages of the Bible, has suddenly become a 3 page discussion. LOL

 

[QVQ]

Ok, we could confine the meaning to exactly the entire quote.
It is, in context, only speaking about how men are saved. It is impossible for man but possible for God.
That is simple doctrine if the word "things" has a single and sole meaning.restricted to the context

 

[makesends]

Well, then we have a problem because Jesus said "for men this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.
So it would seem, impossible and possible" are consideration of Jesus Lord, God.

Therefore we are attemptinig to discover "where" in all creation is "possible" for God."
Jesus may have been speaking in antropomorphic terms (the language of men) so men could understand
However, what then did Jesus mean?

Also, if all things are possible to God, and "possible" only exists in temporal reality, then God can do and does impossible things in temporal reality. Which means He is an active agent in creation, not the creator who simply set it in motion, like a clock and then because of cause and effect takes no more active part.

What I said was that 'Possible' is our temporal viewpoint doing a bit of considering. That God does it is not only definitive of it —how do they put it? Aaaurgh! — I'll just say, 'causal', of it. WE use the word, most clinically as something that can happen. As I have shown, historically we have no reason to think anything can happen except whatever DOES happen.

But for God to act in creation would introduce random or capricious, perhaps?

He acts in creation, and it is by his own nature necessarily not random or capricious. And maybe it would be closer to saying that he does not act 'within' creation, though we humans will probably think of it that way since our minds consider what we see as default 'what is'.

What does it all mean, "possible?"

@makesends, I do have to laugh as that verse, Matthew 19: 26 I have read a thousand times. It seemed completely self evident. Perhaps one of the least obscure passages of the Bible, has suddenly become a 3 page discussion. LOL