God, logic and His attributes

[J.D.]

I'm guessing that Skypair's idea that God can sin is in line with his understanding of free will. He thinks that free will means that God can do anything, including those things which are not in keeping with His nature. He thinks the same thing of man. i.e. God can sin even though it is against His nature, and man can believe even though it is against his nature.

 

[TCGreek]

There is a difference between faulty logic and sound logic. God is perfectly logical. 1 + 1 = 2 is perfectly logical. There is a logical order to the universe which God authored.

God can not be illogical, nor allogical. He can contradict nature, or superseded it, but He can not destroy the logical order of the universe without destroying the universe itself. He can not make 1 + 1 = 3. He can combine two entities into one new entity, such as two made one flesh in marriage, or Jew and Gentile being one new man (church), but two entities must always be two entities.

The same thing can be said of rationality. God is perfectly rational. An atheist is a "fool" - an irrational person. The fact that man is plagued with his own irrationality does not mean that God and the "things of God" are either illogical, allogical, or irrational.

Tucked away in my expression "human logic" is the implication of faulty logic. Of course, I believe in sound logic, or I would not be able to engage in any sort of meaningful dialogue.

 

[TCGreek]

I'm guessing that Skypair's idea that God can sin is in line with his understanding of free will. He thinks that free will means that God can do anything, including those things which are not in keeping with His nature. He thinks the same thing of man. i.e. God can sin even though it is against His nature, and man can believe even though it is against his nature.

I like to see Skypair clarify his statement.

 

[J.D.]

Tucked away in my expression "human logic" is the implication of faulty logic. Of course, I believe in sound logic, or I would not be able to engage in any sort of meaningful dialogue.

I was pretty sure that's what you were implying, but I just wanted to make sure it was clear for those that might not see the difference.

 

[npetreley]

I like to see Skypair clarify his statement.

You're a glutton for punishment. :laugh:

 

[J.D.]

I like to see Skypair clarify his statement.

I hope he will come to understand these things.

I can agree if someone said "God can do anything He wants to do". But then the question is "what does He want to do?" The answer is that He wants to do the things which are in keeping with His nature.

Also, if somebody said "you can be saved if you want to be saved", that would be a true statement, if understood properly. The necessary understanding is what "saved" means. One must "believe" to be saved. But no one can just "believe" nilly-willy, contrary to what decisional evangelists think. Oh, they can make a profession of belief, say the prayer, go to the front, and even be baptized, but they can not truly believe without a change in their nature. They must be born again. One that has been born again, having received a new heart, WANTS to be saved - not just from the penalty of sin, but from the power and presence of sin also. And this is God's work in us! Glory to Him!

 

[TCGreek]

I hope he will come to understand these things.

I can agree if someone said "God can do anything He wants to do". But then the question is "what does He want to do?" The answer is that He wants to do the things which are in keeping with His nature.

Also, if somebody said "you can be saved if you want to be saved", that would be a true statement, if understood properly. The necessary understanding is what "saved" means. One must "believe" to be saved. But no one can just "believe" nilly-willy, contrary to what decisional evangelists think. Oh, they can make a profession of belief, say the prayer, go to the front, and even be baptized, but they can not truly believe without a change in their nature. They must be born again. One that has been born again, having received a new heart, WANTS to be saved - not just from the penalty of sin, but from the power and presence of sin also. And this is God's work in us! Glory to Him!

And this is something I would say myself. :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

Could Jesus have given into satan's temptation in the wilderness, or couldn't he? Is temptation really temptation if the ability to not do what you are tempted to do does not really exist?

 

[Isaiah40:28]

First I would and do ask, which logic? Our logic? Well, I would say that God is at times SEPARATE from our logic. And please, do not misunderstand me. I am fully aware that God in His Divine design created us with minds that function in certain ways and God Himself promotes rational thinking. The Proverbs are filled with such reflections and principles. And our theological conclusions could not be drawn without the capacity for and the broad application of logic.

But where logic is limited I believe we must cede. For example. God is omniscient. What is omniscience? Well we know it is knowing all things that can be known at all times (or any similar definitions but you get the point without stopping to split hairs). But can we completely comprehend omniscience? No. It is impossible to know what it is like to hear all sounds by all creatures and understand and perceive all actions by all creatures, never minding just humans, and all potential actions by all elements whether fulfilled or possible simultaneously (and every other thing that comes with omniscience of which I could never write enough if I had eternity).

Though our human capacity for logic can understand this as a reality and appreciate it in many ways as evidenced by rich theological systems derived from the Scriptures, we are limited to comprehending its full effects and interactions and cannot draw absolute resolutions that need no further illumination. If we could define and understand it as such, we would be DIVINE. This is not to say we cannot define some certainties of omniscience.

Yes, we can know MANY boundaries of omniscience and many FUNCTIONS but we cannot determine logically, all, simply because our capacity to know and understand OMNISCIENCE is humanly limited, particularly here on earth. SO at some point our logic is limited.

There are times something does defy logic in the work of God. Not because GOD is illogical or above logic but SEPARATE from logic in the sense that He is more than that but all of that.

I do realize that what I have said, myself, may appear a bit lacking in definitive terms and maybe someone might accuse me of being obtuse or deliberately avoiding giving a direct answer, and if so I understand why they might believe that but trust me, I am not avoiding any direct answer here and am quite earnest.

I appreciate you taking the time to write this out.
So when you said this:

The end of your argument places God as an agent of His foreknowledge and unable to act outside of it but forced to acquiesce.

You were saying that God is separate from His foreknowledge and is able to act outside of it because He is more than that but all of that.
Am I following your point at all?

 

[TCGreek]

Could Jesus have given into satan's temptation in the wilderness, or couldn't he? Is temptation really temptation if the ability to not do what you are tempted to do does not really exist?

Now, we taking off into the very nature of Jesus: Was His nature peccable or impeccable?

 

[webdog]

Now, we taking off into the very nature of Jesus: Was His nature peccable or impeccable?

Can we really separate Jesus' nature, though?

 

[TCGreek]

Can we really separate Jesus' nature, though?

Many have tried and have been condemned as heretics in church history. I really don't think Scripture has given us that option.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Could Jesus have given into satan's temptation in the wilderness, or couldn't he? Is temptation really temptation if the ability to not do what you are tempted to do does not really exist?

If we accept that Jesus was fully man, then yes, the temptation was real.
Hebrews 4:15 affirms that He was tested in every way just like we are.
When I looked at my study notes to see what else they said, it mentioned that amongst other things, the temptation to sin did not arise from within Him as it does us and then references James 1:14. Meaning without a sin nature to desire sin, the temptation had to come from another source.
And His experience in the Garden seems to indicate that He had to again resist the temptation as a man to turn aside from His work on the cross.

I have struggled with this idea as well, but it is His temptation that qualified Him to be our High Priest.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I appreciate you taking the time to write this out.
So when you said this:

You were saying that God is separate from His foreknowledge and is able to act outside of it because He is more than that but all of that.
Am I following your point at all?

Yes you do follow my point, rather precisely it appears. I would only moderate the statement that God is separate from His foreknowledge. The rest is precise.

 

[Humblesmith]

Regarding the OP, God is logical, and always logical. The only other alternative would be that He is sometimes illogical, which He is not. I used to say that he was beyond logic or alogical, but upon closer examination, these last things must make sense somehow, and are therefore logical. So God is always logical. This does not mean that we always understand Him...........because we don't. Nor does it mean that we can begin with mere human mind and reason our way to the point that we understand all of God's nature, because we can't. Some things God must reveal to us. But once these things are revealed, then we can reason about them, since God is reasonable.

The question then arises "Is God subject to logic that is outside of Himself, or what?" The answer is that logic comes from inside God, not outside. And God is consistent with His own nature.


The question about the logic of God usually brings up the questions about whether we can understand Him, but that is a separate question from "is he logical?"

 

[J.D.]

Could Jesus have given into satan's temptation in the wilderness, or couldn't he? Is temptation really temptation if the ability to not do what you are tempted to do does not really exist?

I agree that it's difficult for us humans to know where that fine line is between temptation and sin. But Jesus knew exactly where it was and he never crossed it, even though he actually felt the pangs of hunger, it was impossible for him to cross that line into sin.

 

[MB]

Hi JD,

I agree that it's difficult for us humans to know where that fine line is between temptation and sin. But Jesus knew exactly where it was and he never crossed it, even though he actually felt the pangs of hunger, it was impossible for him to cross that line into sin.

If it was impossible then how can it be called temptation. If Satan said to breathe oil would you be tempted? I don't think you would because you know it's unbreathable and you have no desire to. You say in short that it was impossible for Christ to sin. However since Christ is God undoubtably He would have known He couldn't sin. I see no temptation If He couldn't sin. This is why in order for Him to be tempted, something He did desire was offered. What does Christ desire here? wasn't it the kingdom or rule over all He was shown. Isn't that what His return and our ressurection is all about. Isn't His goal the kingdom of God on earth.

MB

 

[npetreley]

If it was impossible then how can it be called temptation.

IMO, it was entirely possible for Jesus to turn stones into bread. It was not possible for Him to give in to the temptation to do so.

 

[Tom Butler]

There isn't a thing God can't do however there are things He won't do. Huge difference between "can't do" and "won't do"
MB

Okay, Greek scholars, I quoted Paul in his letter to Titus (1:2) as saying that God cannot lie. Is this a faithful translation into English?

MB now says there isn't anything that God can't do. Can these two statements be resolved in any way?

 

[Ed Edwards]

I heard a good sermon some 40years ago.
The evangelical (plan of salvation) outline was four
things that God couldn't know/couldn't do.

God does not have a better way to be
saved than thru Jesus.

etc.

To bad I didn't keep the notes???