Could God create someone like Himself?

[Skandelon]

I agree with everything RM said above. And that's saying something since we differ on so much.

Then everything I said in response would also apply to you...

sad.

 

[Skandelon]

Reread it....I am demonstrating how the dependence of the will is obvious.

My post #39 posted right before your #40 did on the last page and I address much of what you said there...

 

[Aaron]

In another discussion a poster is attempting to argue that it would be impossible for God to create contra-causally free creatures, because that is a quality unique only to God.

I have accused him of having a weak view of God because he is claiming God is unable to create someone who is free and responsible to make choices. He continues to argue that 'God can't create God,' as if God creating a free/responsible creature is equal to Him recreating himself.

That got me to thinking. If God so desired, could He recreate a creature with His powers? Again, that is not what I'm saying God does. I simply believe God has created us in His imagine and with contra-causal free will, but I'm just taking this point a bit further for the sake of discussion.

Why couldn't God, if He so chose, create a creature with abilities like His own?

While we're on the subject of foolish questions, can God corrupt Himself?

 

[Luke2427]

Where are you getting this? Is it just something you think must be true because you can't imagine it otherwise? Or is there a particular verse which teaches that God really makes every decision ever made and we are merely reactionary creatures doing as we were predetermined to do by God?

There are verses but this conversation is not there yet. We are dealing with the logical implication of what you are purporting.

Ok, let's unpack this one.

We agree that God's EXISTENCE is uncaused...a mysterious and some would argue 'illogical' perspective based on some of the same 'laws' you are relying upon, mind you, but that is another topic...

Not the laws I am relying on. The laws this very conversation and evey other conversation in the history of the world rely on to be even remotely meaningful.

We agree that our EXISTENCE is caused by God.

Thus, we would agree that God is the only uncaused existent being. However that is different from saying "he must be the only being whose actions are uncaused by anything outside of himself." That is, once again, something you are just presuming...question begging.

It is not. It is self-evident that there are REASONS why the will chooses what it chooses. Those reasons are not part of the will. Many of them SHAPE the will and make it what it is.

For example- if you choose a hamburger over a hotdog based upon the fact that your taste buds derive a great deal more pleasure from a hamburger than a hotdog, then the taste buds are the REASON or, more pointedly, the CAUSE of the choice you made. They are at least one of the causes and, I think it is clear, are often the main, if not the only cause for that decision at times.


Now, the will that chose the hamburger did not make the taste buds. the taste buds are not created or sustained by the will. They are not PART of the will (or they may be which means this discussion takes another lengthy detour). If they are not PART of the will and they are the cause for which the will chose the hamburger.............. OBVIOUSLY the decision was NOT contra-causal and the will itSELF is not the reason for the choice.

Obviously the will is not, at least in this scenario, INDEPENDENT.

 

[Luke2427]

I agree with everything RM said above. And that's saying something since we differ on so much.

What we are really discussing, at its core, is whether or not God HAS incommunicable attributes... or at least whether or not his independency is one of those attributes.

That is certainly worth discussing.

 

[Rippon]

Let's go on to more serious concerns such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Skandelon]

Let's go on to more serious concerns such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Or we can discuss people who like to get on discussion forums, created for the very purpose of discussing these questions, only to criticize the topic, question other's character and belittle people, as if their comments are somehow more post worthy than the one's they are critiquing. It's just sad and blatantly immature.

 

[Skandelon]

What we are really discussing, at its core, is whether or not God HAS incommunicable attributes... or at least whether or not his independency is one of those attributes.

That is certainly worth discussing.

AMEN!...but we could spend half the day talking about how one group of steroid filled men moved a pig skin better than another on a striped field of grass for half a day and not one of them would say 'boo.'

 

[percho]

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 1:27 Why?


And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Peter 1:21

Did God the Father actually have to give glory to God the Son? Why didn't the Son just take it himself? After all it is his, isn't it?

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Did God the Father actually give God the Son to have life in himself? When did he give him this life?

Acts 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

Did he really give him the sure mercies? Did he not already possess the sure mercies as in being incorruptible and not subject to death.
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, Acts 13:34 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more;

Is that resurrection relative to life eternal and incorruptible?

Is Christ in the body different after the resurrection than Christ in the body was before death?


What is man?

The OP addresses a valid question none of you what to address.

Which man will be in the higher image of the creator God; The man of Gen 1:27 or the man in Romans 8:29?????



Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. That will be the man/men the brothers of Rom 8:29

 

[Rippon]

Or we can discuss people who like to get on discussion forums, created for the very purpose of discussing these questions, only to criticize the topic, question other's character and belittle people, as if their comments are somehow more post worthy than the one's they are critiquing. It's just sad and blatantly immature.

Hmm..And you have extrapolated all of the above from my post #46?

 

[Skandelon]

Hmm..And you have extrapolated all of the above from my post #46?

Nope...but from your affirmation of what the Rev stated

 

[preacher4truth]

Or we can discuss people who like to get on discussion forums, created for the very purpose of discussing these questions, only to criticize the topic.... It's just sad and blatantly immature.

Scripture criticizes these types of questions, thus those who warned about it and criticized it aren't the ones who are 'immature'.

We all know the mandate of 2 Timothy 2:23 and the result of not obeying it is being seen fulfilled within this thread, i.e. strife and accusations &c. What did you expect to happen when you went against this?

 

[Skandelon]

Scripture criticizes these types of questions, thus those who warned about it and criticized it aren't the ones who are 'immature'.

We all know the mandate of 2 Timothy 2:23 and the result of not obeying it is being seen fulfilled within this thread, i.e. strife and accusations &c. What did you expect to happen when you went against this?

"Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." -2 Tim. 2:23

This verse could apply to those who interrupt an honest, cordial conversation about the sovereignty of God as it relates to the responsibility of man with unfounded accusations of pride and stupidity.

As Luke rightly pointed out, this is an age old point of discussion and very much falls in line with the very purpose of this forum's existence. There is NO EXCUSE for interrupting this conversation with unfounded personal accusations. Not only is that against the rules of this forum, it is very immature...almost as immature as defending such behavior as being 'biblical.'

 

[percho]

Why couldn't God, if He so chose, create a creature with abilities like His own?

Could Spirit the God bring forth, produce, beget, whatever, a Son with a woman taken from a man who had been created in the image of himself?

Wait, maybe the Word of God doesn't state that took place or maybe it does.

Maybe I Am That I Am, lacked the words to tell what took place in another manner in which we could understand.

 

[Yeshua1]

In another discussion a poster is attempting to argue that it would be impossible for God to create contra-causally free creatures, because that is a quality unique only to God.

I have accused him of having a weak view of God because he is claiming God is unable to create someone who is free and responsible to make choices. He continues to argue that 'God can't create God,' as if God creating a free/responsible creature is equal to Him recreating himself.

That got me to thinking. If God so desired, could He recreate a creature with His powers? Again, that is not what I'm saying God does. I simply believe God has created us in His imagine and with contra-causal free will, but I'm just taking this point a bit further for the sake of discussion.

Why couldn't God, if He so chose, create a creature with abilities like His own?

God could grant a human being some of His powers if he choose too, but is impossible to create another "God", as God is eternal and unique Being, that would be impossible for Him to do, as God is God by eternal state, not by act of a creation!

 

[Luke2427]

God could grant a human being some of His powers if he choose too, but is impossible to create another "God", as God is eternal and unique Being, that would be impossible for Him to do, as God is God by eternal state, not by act of a creation!

Which is precisely what Skandelon is saying.

He is saying that man's decisions are as independent as God is. They are SELF-RELIANT, SELF-EXISTENT. They are based on a self that is not contingent upon anything.

Nothing can be self-reliant in actuality. That is the PRIMARY attribute that defines God AS God. It is what he means when he says, "I Am." It is what the name Jehovah means.

It means "I am contingent upon nothing. I rely upon nothing to do whatever I do."

This is the VERY thing that identifies him as God.

And Skandelon is assigning that property to the will of man. He is making the will of man into God. Or, if you ask him what the will bases its choices on, he will say, they are based on the CHOOSER- the person's own self.

But since the person's self is contingent or totally dependent upon outside forces for ITS existence, ultimately the decisions based on the self are ultimately contingent upon the same forces that create and maintain the contingent self.

If you deny contingency then you make either the WILL or the SELF into God- because God ALONE is not contingent.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which is precisely what Skandelon is saying.

He is saying that man's decisions are as independent as God is. They are SELF-RELIANT, SELF-EXISTENT. They are based on a self that is not contingent upon anything.

Nothing can be self-reliant in actuality. That is the PRIMARY attribute that defines God AS God. It is what he means when he says, "I Am." It is what the name Jehovah means.

It means "I am contingent upon nothing. I rely upon nothing to do whatever I do."

This is the VERY thing that identifies him as God.

And Skandelon is assigning that property to the will of man. He is making the will of man into God. Or, if you ask him what the will bases its choices on, he will say, they are based on the CHOOSER- the person's own self.

But since the person's self is contingent or totally dependent upon outside forces for ITS existence, ultimately the decisions based on the self are ultimately contingent upon the same forces that create and maintain the contingent self.

If you deny contingency then you make either the WILL or the SELF into God- because God ALONE is not contingent.

God by very definition is solely unique, as the Supreme being, the One from which ALL other things were created by...

God cannot have ANYONE else full self willed and he still remain God, as He MUST always be free to move upna nd change desires and wills as It pleases Him !

For that which was created is ALWAYS subject to its Creator!

 

[Skandelon]

God could grant a human being some of His powers if he choose too

Not according to Luke. God is too weak to do this. He has to create people who He determines. God, from Luke's perspective, is not much more than a robot builder.

 

[Reformed]

Skan, for the purpose of clarity, how do you define "contra-casual free will"?

 

[percho]

Not according to Luke. God is too weak to do this. He has to create people who He determines. God, from Luke's perspective, is not much more than a robot builder.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua1 View Post
God could grant a human being some of His powers if he choose too[/QUOTE]


And my question is.

Isn't this what God is doing?

Not to the human being (the living soul) that comes from the first Adam but to the one born in the image of the the last Adam, the life giving Spirit, the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth who had come in the image of the first Adam but now is, the firstborn from the dead.

Is Jesus of Nazareth the only, Son of Man, begotten of God born of woman declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead? See Rom. 1:3,4

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9