Riddle me this, Batman

The moral framework is as eternal as God is. The moral framework could not be in any form other than it is.

 

No, you have missed the point. God's nature is inherent. He defines it for us. He does not define himself has completely truthful. He is completely truthful. He does not lie because he cannot. That is why Scripture says it is impossible.

The key phrase for God's attributes is: "God is what his attributes are." His attributes inhere in him. He does not choose certain attributes. He does not exist apart from those attributes.

 

Both God and human beings have a free will. The nature of God's holiness does not allow Him to use His will to commit sin. It is not His nature to do so.

Every man or woman is born into a world system and has within his or her soul a moral sensitivity to what is right and wrong and that there is a living God. The image of God in humankind insures this moral compass because God desires that sinners relate to Him in a faith trust.

Although humans have a moral compass, a continual life of sin can sear the human conscience. The remnants of depravity come from the old Adamic nature that keeps tugging the sinner away from the reality of Almighty God.

There is a moral system built into every human heart, because we are made in the likeness of God Himself, [James 3:9 c,d] and everyone is lit by the Light of the world how has come into His world. [John 1:9; Romans 1:19-21a]

Calvinism's concept of Total Depravity stonewalls any concept that suggests that human beings have any affinity for the things of God. If sinners had no moral compass they would not know that they were sinners and in need of our Savior. The remnants of the image of God in man insures an ability to respond to Him after hearing the glorious Gospel of His grace. No rebellious nature within or any demons can keep a sinner away from Christ if they decide to receive Jesus into their lives.

 

I don't think we can prove God never lies. But I have faith that He doesn't. On the other hand, men lie, and my own heart sometimes lies to me. Many people sincerely believe they have a word from God and many of these contradict each other. Many people sincerely believe they have properly interpreted scriptures and these interpretations sometimes disagree one with another. It behooves us to recognize that our opinions are perhaps not one hundred percent certainly truth.

 

Paul of Eugene,

II Peter 1:20 tells us there are no private interpretations of the Word of God. When we can dovetail all of the Word of God, then we know that we are interpreting it correctly. Some people's dogma hampers an honest understanding of His precious Word.

 

God's is who He is. That is not in debate - I think we agree with that. But the idea of Truth as is understood by humanity was indeed created for us, for there is no way we could be able to comprehend something as True as God.

And I suppose that is where we differ. God is love, but God transcends love. God is just, but GOd transcends justice. God is merciful, but God transcends mercy. GOd set into motion the whole system.

God is truth in that He is the source of all truth. Truth as we know it now was created in the beginning from Him. But it was still created.

I have never said that he was not true, he was not loving, he is not just or anything like that. But for these things to exist in our world, he would have had to "create them" as such.

How does it stem from God? Is it just "there"?

From the NIV - "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;:

Wisdom was brought forth. That implies that God was there before Wisdom was there. And this bringing forth is considered a "work."

Not what the NIV says.

It was done before the works, but you are still hardpressed to show that wisdom existed from eternity past.

I'm just applying a different set of philosophical understandings of the nature of time and eternity than you are. The "serious apologetic issues" have recently been merely ideas of how God interacts with time. Both are more philosophical than Scriptural, although in both of the issues, we both have found corroborating texts.

 

The moral framework is as eternal as God is. The moral framework could not be in any form other than it is. </font>[/QUOTE]Then why ask the question you did? Kinda silly, if you ask me.

 

I'm not denying that. I'm merely posing the question about why this is so. My contention is that it is impossible because of the moral framework that God created as a result of his nature. Because he chose to create a system where it is impossible for Him to lie, it is therefore impossible for Him to lie.

 

This thread seems like the old question: Can God create a rock that is so big that He can't move it?

Who cares? What is the purpose? It seems like fruitless speculation for the most part to me.

 

Great argument there.

Incorrect. Good try, though. Way to interject the "blasphemy" thing in there. That's a nice way to argue your point. A fallacious one, but a good try.

Put it this way:

Would you mind, for the sake of the argument, defining "lie" for us, then define what this lie deviates from (often called "truth").

 

IN the beginning of what??For all your talking about God being outside of time, you sure like to use it when it suits you. God is eternal. There is no beginning. He did not choose something "in the beginning." He has always been and has always been unchangeable.

He is God. "Self-definition" is not an attribute of God. God is what his attributes are.

Of what relation is "sovereignty" to his "attributes." You would eaiser say that sovereingty is an attribute rather than attributes being somethign that God can be sovereign over. His attributes make up what he is. If he changes them (by some theoretical notion of the impossible), then he is no longer God.

If God cannot lie (as your last paragraph finally admits), and if it because he chose to (meaning that he really can, he just chose not to), can he change his mind or he is not totally free?

 

I still think this debate is fruitless.

Nick you wrote: The difference is simple. The Bible doesn't tell you the answer to your question. I can tell you the answer - no, it is impossible for God to create a rock so big He cannot lift it. I can also tell you why it is impossible. It is impossible because the concept is nonsense.
But let's get back to MY topic. The Bible DOES answer the question "is it possible for God to lie?" And the answer is "no, it is impossible for God to lie". And one cannot say that it is impossible because the concept is nonsense (at least it is NOT nonsense in the same way the rock question is).

So I repeat, why is it impossible for God to lie? It's not the question, "Can God lie?" that I was refering to. It's this question of why, that I was saying is speculative.

You dismiss my example of a question, "Can God create a rock to big to move?" Why? Because the bible doesn't answer it. The ironic thing is that the Bible also doesn't tell us why He can't lie, yet you all persist to speculate.

Don't get me wrong, that's fine if you want to discuss it further but I seems that you both are saying the same things in different ways. We all agree God is truth and does not lie. I suggest we move on to our points of contention. Just my two cents worth. God Bless

 

Actually, there is a bone to pick here, so to speak. It appears that in order to maintain the free will theory of salvation, Arminians have to contend that God could lie(at least at some previous point in a timeless eternity), or else He does not have free will. If God does not have free will to lie, then the Arminian free will theory of salvation falls flat.

At least that is how I see this discussion relating to this forum.

 

Bingo, Ray. That is exactly the problem that Arminian dogma runs into. And also the reason why I am a firm believer in the doctrines of God's amazing grace. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

In the beginning of eternity. Complex, huh?

And why can self-definition not be an attribute of God?

But can He not choose for Himself what His attributes are? This is the crux of the argument. Because of God's holiness and sovereignty, God is the Perfect Being He is. That is probably an unanswerable question, but it remains the crux of the argument.

Why would he change his mind? He's already decided what he is going to do? From the beginning of eternity He decided His plan of action in how He would create.

Perhaps it all comes down to Truth. Perhaps you could answer the questions I posed to another: Would you mind, for the sake of the argument, defining "lie" for us, then define what this lie deviates from (often called "truth").

 

Actually, there is a bone to pick here, so to speak. It appears that in order to maintain the free will theory of salvation, Arminians have to contend that God could lie(at least at some previous point in a timeless eternity), or else He does not have free will. If God does not have free will to lie, then the Arminian free will theory of salvation falls flat.

At least that is how I see this discussion relating to this forum. </font>[/QUOTE]WHAT? This is absurd. Are you seriously arguing that Arminians must believe that God could lie????

For one Scott, it appears to me, is not even arguing that, he is merely making the point that before the creation was created--God was truth, but to what measure? He was the only one, therefore truth and lie did not even exist before creation as we understand it. He created the time and exisitance to which we now have a measure of truth and untruth. God is truth therefore everthing he says and does is truth.

How can he lie if He is the standard of what is truth? So if by our standards God lies, then our standards are wrong, not His. If he says, "The sky is green and grass is blue, then our names of the colors need to change or the sky and grass need to change colors, but God has not lied. In other words, God is even Sovereign over the standard of truth and lie that we understand. I think we can all agree with that.

Let's move on.

 

It is interesting that we now have a topic that you want Calvinists to leave alone. I think that is revealing.

Don't you believe in your theology that God has free will? Therefore, to be consistent, you must believe that God could lie if He willed to lie. Therefore, you and Scott must say that God chose not to lie, rather than God being incapable of lying period.

Why do Arminians have a problem with this topic? Because it strikes at the very heart of their free will theory of salvation. Since God does not have the free will to lie, then it destroys their argument that man must have free will to act in the same way that God can act in regards to "free will".

God cannot go against His nature. Neither can man go against his nature. Man must be given a new nature(regeneration, new birth) before he can come to Jesus in repentance and faith.

Quite a theological quandary for Arminians.