Does Calvinism limit God?
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
Z Man
New member
Was God's ultimate plan and purpose frustrated by these men? Of course not; the bible tells us that that is impossible:
Job 42:1-2
Then Job answered the Lord: "I know that thou can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted."
Daniel 4:35
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, "What are you doing?"
Psalm 33:10-11
The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nought; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
How do you reconcile these verses with Luke 7:30? Do these verses directly contradict the verse that you have brought forth as evidence that God's will and purposes can actually be thwarted? Well, we both agree that the bible does not contridict itself, so we must conclude that God's will and purposes cannot be thwarted, as the Word of God so clearly tells us time and time again (there are numerous other verses that state that God's will can never be thwarted, but I only listed these three as good examples for now).
Thus, as Job so clearly observed, since God's will cannot be thwarted, the verse in Luke 7:30 cannot directly mean that God's purpose was frustrated by men. The logical conclusion and obvious answer is that anyone who is not saved is continually rejecting God's will for themselves. It is the will of God that men be holy as He is holy. All men fail to meet that criteria:
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Because of sin, we all reject God's will for our lives on a daily basis. However, it does not mean that God's purposes are directly thwarted. And what exactly is God's ultimate purpose? To glorify Himself.
Isaiah 48:11
"For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it . . . my glory I will not give to another."
God will always fulfill His purpose; no one can stop Him from doing otherwise - no one.
May it be known that I have never intentionally "ignored" your answers. I have always tried my best to show the TRUTH through the Scriptures my side of the argument. I understand that you are using just one verse, Luke 7:30, to support your theory that God's will can indeed be thwarted. But for crying out loud, what do you do with the tons of other Scriptural passages, like the one in Job, and Daniel, and Isaiah, and many many more, that state very clearly that God's will cannot be thwarted by no means? How do you reconcile those verses with your theory? How can you diliberatly say that His will can be thwarted when we read in Job that indeed, His will cannot be thwarted?
We must weigh the evidence and come up with a logical explanation for the verses that seem to contridict one another. Since you only have one verse to support your claim, it stands weak against the many verses that state otherwise. Thus, we must understand that Luke 7:30 does not mean that God's will can be thwarted. If that is indeed what it means, than there are several other verses that must be reconciled, such as the one in Job and Daniel and such. The Bible literally would contridict itself. But we both agree that that is not the case. Thus, you must interpret Luke 7:30 a different way, for it cannot imply that God's will can be thwarted.
Interesting story. I submit that your Sunday School teacher really didn't believe in anything; he was just taught those things without ever really studying it for himself.
People should not be afraid to take Scriptures that seem contridictory and study them to find out the truth for themselves. We shouldn't be afraid of doubt, but embrace it.
To believe with certainty, we must begin with doubting.
- STANISLAW J. LEC (1909–1966)
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I certainly hope you do not think that I "cringe" when I read verses that speak of God repenting, or of God grieving, or getting angry, or the likes! And I can assure you that in no way have I ever or do I now try to find "creative ways" to explain away the incarnation of God, or other vast quantities of Scripture, calling them "anthropomorphisms"!
Clete,
I have always and forever will take the whole Word of God into account. You have never provided Scripture that has in one bit contridicted my beliefs. I have yet to stumble amongst any verse that directly indicates that my beliefs are false. Well, I take that back. Of course someone could provide just a verse or two that may seem to implore that my belief about God is false, but that's not what we should build our doctrine upon; just one or two verses. If the Word of God is taken into full account, one can hardly escape the truth of God's absolute sovereignty.
Again, I assure you that I never forget about any of these verses or blatantly ignore them. As I said before, you have yet to provide any indication or evidence from Scriptures that would eradicate my doctrinal belief in God to nothing more than some man-made idea or dream. Everything that I believe in about God is 100% Scriptural; I would have it no other way.
Last edited:
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
Is God's will thwarted by man's will?
AC 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
And this was talking about the cross. God does not delight in evil, but even sinful actions are part of his plan, and part of his will:
PS 40:8 I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.
Again, this is speaking of Jesus, and includes the cross.
"As it is done in heaven," though, "in the same way" is what is meant here, I think, i.e. God's will done willingly, versus unwillingly.
I think we are allowed to hope that all will be saved, though:
RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
And thus God's will in this area will not be frustrated.
Certainly sin causes God pain, but, again, pain is actually part of God's plan, and does not indicate that his will is being thwarted:
MK 8:33 "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
"The things of God" again, here, references the cross.
I think this was God's will, too, though:
JN 17:12 None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
Not at all!
DA 11:35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end.
Even the stumbles have a purpose, to purify them.
Certainly God's purpose is not always fulfilled immediately. But surely "God's will" does not refer merely to being baptized by John. I think here it refers to conversion, that that corresponds to "God's will" here, which would have been indicated by their being baptized. They would have been baptized if they had repented, and I think the refusal of baptism is pointed out to show that they did not repent. If they eventually repent, though, I think that would fulfill God's purpose for them, at a later date. Again, I hope that it is possible that all men may be saved.
JER 19:5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
But here is a verse that says even this was not unexpected by God:
EZE 20:25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by...
Which refers to this sin. Which God hates! It did not enter his "heart", is what I think should be read in Jer. 19:5, that is the actual word used here.
ISA 5:4 What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?
God is indeed asking "why?" here, but he is asking them, not himself, this does not mean that he doesn't know the answer. I think the situation here is similar to this verse:
LK 8:25 "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples.
Or this one:
JN 6:6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.
Blessings,
Lee
Is God's will thwarted by man's will?
AC 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
And this was talking about the cross. God does not delight in evil, but even sinful actions are part of his plan, and part of his will:
PS 40:8 I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.
Again, this is speaking of Jesus, and includes the cross.
"As it is done in heaven," though, "in the same way" is what is meant here, I think, i.e. God's will done willingly, versus unwillingly.
I think we are allowed to hope that all will be saved, though:
RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
And thus God's will in this area will not be frustrated.
Certainly sin causes God pain, but, again, pain is actually part of God's plan, and does not indicate that his will is being thwarted:
MK 8:33 "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
"The things of God" again, here, references the cross.
I think this was God's will, too, though:
JN 17:12 None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
Not at all!
DA 11:35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end.
Even the stumbles have a purpose, to purify them.
Certainly God's purpose is not always fulfilled immediately. But surely "God's will" does not refer merely to being baptized by John. I think here it refers to conversion, that that corresponds to "God's will" here, which would have been indicated by their being baptized. They would have been baptized if they had repented, and I think the refusal of baptism is pointed out to show that they did not repent. If they eventually repent, though, I think that would fulfill God's purpose for them, at a later date. Again, I hope that it is possible that all men may be saved.
JER 19:5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
But here is a verse that says even this was not unexpected by God:
EZE 20:25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by...
Which refers to this sin. Which God hates! It did not enter his "heart", is what I think should be read in Jer. 19:5, that is the actual word used here.
ISA 5:4 What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?
God is indeed asking "why?" here, but he is asking them, not himself, this does not mean that he doesn't know the answer. I think the situation here is similar to this verse:
LK 8:25 "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples.
Or this one:
JN 6:6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.
Blessings,
Lee
I alluded to specific examples based on Scripture. You know them and can easily read them in context. I do not think you want proof texts. Clete just gave you one. I am not giving you a specific verse because page after page in the Bible demonstrates the obvious...man and demons can exercise their wills contrary to God's desires and intentions. To think otherwise makes God culpable for evil, contrary to His explicit declarations and self-revelation.
It may not say "Other creatures thwart my will" if that is what you are looking for. It does say things like my creation is very good according to my will followed by the Fall leading to a new disposition in the heart of God: I am grieved at the result of the rebellion and wish I did not even make man...I will wipe them out because they have turned from my will. I think the point is implicit in the many examples I listed. It is hard to conclude otherwise unless you are blinded by a preconceived theology.
ZMAN...in relation to Clete's verse...of course God's ULTIMATE purposes are not thwarted...He will rule and reign supreme, rise from the dead, vanquish evil, judge the wicked, redeem a people for Himself, create a new heaven/earth, etc.
This does not mean in specific lives and specific limited choices God does not have His way in our lives. It is NOT God's will for women and children to be raped and He is not glorified in this. Evil is genuine and not an illusion nor God's will. I state an extreme example to show the fallacy of hyper-Calvinism that makes God responsible for what He says is our responsibility. The soul that sins is the one that will die. God does not cause anyone to sin...it originates in our will, contrary to His will. This is self-evident without having a specific verse (though I am sure they are there) to state the obvious. It is the whole tenure of Scripture and its principles.
Last edited:
Dr. Gregory Boyd "Is God to Blame?"
Ps. 135:6 "The Lord does whatever pleases Him, in the heavens and on the earth..."
or ...'whatever the Lord pleases He does..."
Here is an alternative way to look at some of the texts...(zman)..do not whine that I do not use verses...we read the same verses with different understandings...hence the need to share our opinions and insights in addition to merely quoting verses...I believe in all the verses you quote, but do not see them teaching your conclusions...
(Boyd's ideas with my comments)
Some conclude from this passage and others like it (Job 23:13,14; Job 42:2; Ps. 115:3; Dan. 4:35) that God's will can never be THWARTED. Whatever God wants, God gets. As Augustine put it, 'the will of the omnipotent is always undefeated.'
But since (1) Jesus' life, death, and resurrection reveal God's inequivocal stance against sin and his willingness to suffer at the hands of sinners (2) Scripture explicitly teaches that God's will is SOMETIMES THWARTED:
Is. 63:10 "Yet they rebelled and grieved the Holy Spirit. So He turned and became their enemy..." (not God's will or doing)
Lk. 7:30 at that moment, God's will was thwarted...it is not sufficient to say that ultimately it was not...the fact is that it was thwarted regardless how God eventually had his will in other lives.
Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people...you always RESIST the Holy Spirit." Is this not thwarting God's will and ways in their lives? They resisted and grieved the Spirit. Accept it at face value. It does not contradict your other verses if you would interpret them properly and not use them to come up with a generalization that God absolutely controls every moral and mundane choice in the universe...He does not voluntarily. Evil and freedom are genuine. God has nothing to do with when and how you brush your teeth. Do not insult His sovereignty that He cannot make animals or humans that can do things on their own accord without His direct control. He is not threatened by this and it enhances, not impinges on His greatness.
Eph. 4:30 do not grieve the Spirit (resist, thwart)
Heb. 3:8,15: 4:7 ...do not harden YOUR hearts... (God would not command them to do something not in their control or that He was manipulating for His glory?!)
(3) The denial that God's will can be thwarted leads to the conclusion that God actually wills every aspect of the horrendous evil we find in the world.
Therefore, look for an alternate interpretation to your verses or accept that God is culpable for evil (this is an attack of an atheist, not a Christian...perhaps Calvinism distorts God's character?)
Refute this:
"These passages certainly teach that the Lord CAN do whatever He pleases, but they don't assert that the Lord is pleased to CONTROL EVERYTHING. Why should we assume that God desires to do everything he has the RAW power to do? Parents have the power to completely control their young children. But emotionally healthy parents refrain from doing so....Scripture makes it evident that though God COULD control us, he desires to empower us to be self-determining, morally responsible agents.
Whatever the Lord pleases He does, INCLUDING creating free agents (this fits Scripture and reality...what mechanism does God use to control your driving, eating, sexual habits, thoughts, etc.? or do I misunderstand your contention that God's will is so controlling He drives 1000s of drunk driven cars killing people?!)
Those who believe that God meticulously controls everything often claim that their view of God is the ONLY one that depicts God as truly sovereign and glorious (this is arrogant and ignorant).
Hello my Calvinist friends.... There are different ways of being sovereign, and some are more virtuous than others. Who do you most admire? Those who lead by controlling as much as they can, or those who lead by empowring and influencing others by virtue of their character and wisdom? The latter is more virtuous and praiseworthy (be honest). Why do we think that God would be more glorious if he exercised meticulous control (preconceived theology from pagan philosophy that does not know the living God with a Father heart)?
I concede that God could control everything if He wanted to. He's omnipotent and creation is His. But what would be praiseworthy about this raw power? I can wiggle my fingers at will because they are my fingers. This is not praiseworthy. God could wiggle his creation any way he chose, for it's His creation (eliminating risk and His will being thwarted in specific cases). But would this display of power be more glorious than God empowering other agents to have say-so and seeking to influence them by His love?
When we think about God's sovereignty and glory in light of Calvary, we won't be inclined to define God's sovereignty in terms of meticulous control. God can indeed do whatever He wants to do. But as unexpected as it may be to our fallen minds, Christ reveals that the omnipotent God fundamentally wants to enter into a freely chose love relationship with people. And He's WILLING to allow these very people to crucify Him to win them over with His love.
An extreme emphasis on transcendence should not negate His immanence and love. Both truths are valid. He is the Sovereign Lord God Almighty AND the humble Savior revealing the broken Father heart of God. Calvinism knows God as the Sovereign, but Jesus and Open Theists remind us that He is also Father (without negating His glory).
Ps. 135:6 "The Lord does whatever pleases Him, in the heavens and on the earth..."
or ...'whatever the Lord pleases He does..."
Here is an alternative way to look at some of the texts...(zman)..do not whine that I do not use verses...we read the same verses with different understandings...hence the need to share our opinions and insights in addition to merely quoting verses...I believe in all the verses you quote, but do not see them teaching your conclusions...
(Boyd's ideas with my comments)
Some conclude from this passage and others like it (Job 23:13,14; Job 42:2; Ps. 115:3; Dan. 4:35) that God's will can never be THWARTED. Whatever God wants, God gets. As Augustine put it, 'the will of the omnipotent is always undefeated.'
But since (1) Jesus' life, death, and resurrection reveal God's inequivocal stance against sin and his willingness to suffer at the hands of sinners (2) Scripture explicitly teaches that God's will is SOMETIMES THWARTED:
Is. 63:10 "Yet they rebelled and grieved the Holy Spirit. So He turned and became their enemy..." (not God's will or doing)
Lk. 7:30 at that moment, God's will was thwarted...it is not sufficient to say that ultimately it was not...the fact is that it was thwarted regardless how God eventually had his will in other lives.
Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people...you always RESIST the Holy Spirit." Is this not thwarting God's will and ways in their lives? They resisted and grieved the Spirit. Accept it at face value. It does not contradict your other verses if you would interpret them properly and not use them to come up with a generalization that God absolutely controls every moral and mundane choice in the universe...He does not voluntarily. Evil and freedom are genuine. God has nothing to do with when and how you brush your teeth. Do not insult His sovereignty that He cannot make animals or humans that can do things on their own accord without His direct control. He is not threatened by this and it enhances, not impinges on His greatness.
Eph. 4:30 do not grieve the Spirit (resist, thwart)
Heb. 3:8,15: 4:7 ...do not harden YOUR hearts... (God would not command them to do something not in their control or that He was manipulating for His glory?!)
(3) The denial that God's will can be thwarted leads to the conclusion that God actually wills every aspect of the horrendous evil we find in the world.
Therefore, look for an alternate interpretation to your verses or accept that God is culpable for evil (this is an attack of an atheist, not a Christian...perhaps Calvinism distorts God's character?)
Refute this:
"These passages certainly teach that the Lord CAN do whatever He pleases, but they don't assert that the Lord is pleased to CONTROL EVERYTHING. Why should we assume that God desires to do everything he has the RAW power to do? Parents have the power to completely control their young children. But emotionally healthy parents refrain from doing so....Scripture makes it evident that though God COULD control us, he desires to empower us to be self-determining, morally responsible agents.
Whatever the Lord pleases He does, INCLUDING creating free agents (this fits Scripture and reality...what mechanism does God use to control your driving, eating, sexual habits, thoughts, etc.? or do I misunderstand your contention that God's will is so controlling He drives 1000s of drunk driven cars killing people?!)
Those who believe that God meticulously controls everything often claim that their view of God is the ONLY one that depicts God as truly sovereign and glorious (this is arrogant and ignorant).
Hello my Calvinist friends.... There are different ways of being sovereign, and some are more virtuous than others. Who do you most admire? Those who lead by controlling as much as they can, or those who lead by empowring and influencing others by virtue of their character and wisdom? The latter is more virtuous and praiseworthy (be honest). Why do we think that God would be more glorious if he exercised meticulous control (preconceived theology from pagan philosophy that does not know the living God with a Father heart)?
I concede that God could control everything if He wanted to. He's omnipotent and creation is His. But what would be praiseworthy about this raw power? I can wiggle my fingers at will because they are my fingers. This is not praiseworthy. God could wiggle his creation any way he chose, for it's His creation (eliminating risk and His will being thwarted in specific cases). But would this display of power be more glorious than God empowering other agents to have say-so and seeking to influence them by His love?
When we think about God's sovereignty and glory in light of Calvary, we won't be inclined to define God's sovereignty in terms of meticulous control. God can indeed do whatever He wants to do. But as unexpected as it may be to our fallen minds, Christ reveals that the omnipotent God fundamentally wants to enter into a freely chose love relationship with people. And He's WILLING to allow these very people to crucify Him to win them over with His love.
An extreme emphasis on transcendence should not negate His immanence and love. Both truths are valid. He is the Sovereign Lord God Almighty AND the humble Savior revealing the broken Father heart of God. Calvinism knows God as the Sovereign, but Jesus and Open Theists remind us that He is also Father (without negating His glory).
Z Man,
I don't have time for a thorough response but I don't really think one is necessary anyway. Thorough responses tend to produce super long posts anyway. If you don't mind I'll just be as focused and brief as possible in order to keep from diluting the point of the debate.
You basically respond to a verse of Scripture that you asked for that specifically stated that certain individuals rejected the will of God by saying that God's "ultimate plan and purpose" was not frustrated. The problem with that response is that it doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
No body has suggested that God lost the war because these individuals didn't get saved. There is a big difference between God's "ultimate plan and purpose" and what He wants for a particular individual person. All the verses you quote are dealing with this larger issue of God's overall plan and purpose, which of course will not be thwarted. And some of them may even apply to very specific plans that God has ordained that He Himself will bring to pass but that in no way implies that individual people cannot do as they please. If one does not wish to become baptized God CANNOT force that person do it! He could force them to get wet physically but baptism is a whole lot more than just getting wet. It involves an inward surrender that simply CANNOT be coerced by anyone, including God.
You went on to say that…
Your thesis is that they cannot, then to prove your point you say that the verse I quote simply means that all men thwart the will of God all the time. A little self-contradictory isn't it?
I agree by the way, that men do thwart the will of God every day. That's the whole story of the Bible from beginning to end! Man rebelled and God fixed it then man rebelled some more. That's what the whole Bible is about! Your accusation that I have but one verse is disingenuous at best. I have the whole book! Which you have just basically admitted without realizing it.
And, by the way, I also agree that one should not be afraid of seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible. What one should be wary of is the tendency to render passages meaningless or to say that they mean precisely the opposite of what they say.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I don't have time for a thorough response but I don't really think one is necessary anyway. Thorough responses tend to produce super long posts anyway. If you don't mind I'll just be as focused and brief as possible in order to keep from diluting the point of the debate.
You basically respond to a verse of Scripture that you asked for that specifically stated that certain individuals rejected the will of God by saying that God's "ultimate plan and purpose" was not frustrated. The problem with that response is that it doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
No body has suggested that God lost the war because these individuals didn't get saved. There is a big difference between God's "ultimate plan and purpose" and what He wants for a particular individual person. All the verses you quote are dealing with this larger issue of God's overall plan and purpose, which of course will not be thwarted. And some of them may even apply to very specific plans that God has ordained that He Himself will bring to pass but that in no way implies that individual people cannot do as they please. If one does not wish to become baptized God CANNOT force that person do it! He could force them to get wet physically but baptism is a whole lot more than just getting wet. It involves an inward surrender that simply CANNOT be coerced by anyone, including God.
You went on to say that…
Well which is it Z Man, can man thwart the will of God or not?
Your thesis is that they cannot, then to prove your point you say that the verse I quote simply means that all men thwart the will of God all the time. A little self-contradictory isn't it?
I agree by the way, that men do thwart the will of God every day. That's the whole story of the Bible from beginning to end! Man rebelled and God fixed it then man rebelled some more. That's what the whole Bible is about! Your accusation that I have but one verse is disingenuous at best. I have the whole book! Which you have just basically admitted without realizing it.
And, by the way, I also agree that one should not be afraid of seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible. What one should be wary of is the tendency to render passages meaningless or to say that they mean precisely the opposite of what they say.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Z Man
New member
Clete,
The fact that the Bible does plainly and clearly tell us that "NONE of God's purposes can be thwarted" (Job 40), yet there are other verses that state likewise, like the one you presented from Luke 7:30, reveals to us something. Either a) the Bible contridicts (which we both agree it does not), or b) there are two different wills of God.
One will/purpose of God can never be thwarted by no one and by nothing. On the other hand, there is a different will of God that the Bible does say we reject on a daily basis. It "implies that there are at least "two wills" in God, or two ways of willing. It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass. This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc (John Piper).
lee_merrill
New member
Hi Z Man,
Doesn't this imply that God experiences frustration, though? And that he has to compromise?
And how about the priests who were commanded to offer sacrifices on the Sabbath, and thus break the Sabbath? Isn't that a conflict in God's preceptive will, and thus now three wills in God?
I don't think the two-wills view is a good option, there has to be a better way...
Blessings,
Lee
Doesn't this imply that God experiences frustration, though? And that he has to compromise?
And how about the priests who were commanded to offer sacrifices on the Sabbath, and thus break the Sabbath? Isn't that a conflict in God's preceptive will, and thus now three wills in God?
I don't think the two-wills view is a good option, there has to be a better way...
Blessings,
Lee
Calvinists ALWAYS present a THREE WILLED God, and of course THEY KNOW what ALL THREE wills are of course.
and there may be varying degrees of wills inbetween as well depending on WHO is doing the ANALYSIS of GOD'S (multiple) WILLs.
They don't like to mention this though because it shows a LESS THAN SOVEREIGN Will.
and there may be varying degrees of wills inbetween as well depending on WHO is doing the ANALYSIS of GOD'S (multiple) WILLs.
They don't like to mention this though because it shows a LESS THAN SOVEREIGN Will.
God is angry with the wicked. He grieves at man's sin and rebellion. He is broken-hearted with the suffering of a fallen creation. He also has infinite joy and delight in His children. His 'frustration' would not be the same as our fleshly frustration, but His 'heart' is real since He is a personal being.
The doctrine of impassibility (God has no emotions or feelings= classical theology) is not the God and Father that Jesus revealed.
The doctrine of impassibility (God has no emotions or feelings= classical theology) is not the God and Father that Jesus revealed.
God_Is_Truth
New member
ok, if you believe that God has feelings, then do you believe that his feelings change? or does he always feel exactly the same? are his feelings mutable or immutable?
Immutability and Impassibility go hand in hand and are considered normative in Calvinistic/classical theism. This is why I find Open Theism refreshing. It rightly recognizes God as a personal Father, not a philosophical principle that would be impersonal if it had no ability to be dynamic or have feelings. Though you do not practically believe this, it logically follows those concepts (which is why there is a better understanding of God's self-revelation). Regardless, it is commendable that we want to be Scriptural. Which understanding really is the biblical one? A responsive, personal, dynamic God or a changeless, static God (immutable 'eternal now')?
God_Is_Truth
New member
i shake my head every time i hear someone talk about God as being in this "eternal now" state. i really don't understand how people see him in that way. i've never seen it in scripture and i sure don't see it in reality so i sometimes wonder where they get ideas like that.
then i started hearing about guys like plato, augustine and calvin....
Z Man
New member
I believe God experiences different "emotions" or "feelings", for a lack of better words (since we are talking about a Spirit, and not a human - something far beyond our scope of intellect, logic, language, etc.). However, they don't change. For example, God is not going to hate sin oneday, and then the next like it. He isn't going to rejoice in the work that His Son did at the cross, and then the next day, hate it. His emotions are all expressed and "felt" by Him at once. Our God is complex, and there is no way that we can simply say that God's emotions resemble a roller coaster ride, much like ours. He doesn't go through mood swings. We must not ascribe to God the same attributes that we have, simply because that is all we know to be logical. He is far beyond our intellect and way to complex for us to ever comprehend or understand. As John Piper once put it:
Exactly. "Eternal Now" is a philosophical and absurd concept from Greek philosophers. Augustine was certainly not above adopting these ideas. It is not the Hebraic view of God in the Old Testament where God is seen to experience unidirectional succession, sequence, duration (time). I like C.S. Lewis, but he also promoted this concept in "Mere Christianity". I used to blindly accept traditional views, but now think critically in the hopes to be more Scriptural. Popular authors or great Church History figures are not always correct on every detail of theology (any more than I am).
Z Man
New member
You just haven't looked hard enough:
Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Isaiah 46:9-10
Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'
2Peter 3:8
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Exodus 3:13-14
Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
John 8:57-58
Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
Basing God on your logic is very unwise.
The above verse are better understood as 'endless duration', not timelessness.
e.g. Rev. 1:8 uses time statements: past, present, future! Alpha and Omega also mean beginning and end (time statements, but without limit).
God is everlasting, not an eternal now (this would negate personality since will, intellect, and emotions all require sequence, duration, succession= time). He had no beginning and no end. It is an endless duration of time, not timelessness.
Revelation also talks about silence in heaven (eternity) for 1/2 and hour (time statement).
2 Peter uses the word day= time expression. God's perspective on time is different since He has lived forever and can be in more than one place at one time.
I am= self-existent...you are wrongly assuming it means timeless.
Psalms says God is from everlasting to everlasting, an endless duration of time, not timelessness.
Time is unidirectional. The present is now, the past is fixed, the future is not yet. God is portrayed as experiencing reality in succession. You would have to say this is an anthopomorphism. This is not necessary if you look at the Jewish understanding rather than the platonic ideas of the Greeks.
e.g. Rev. 1:8 uses time statements: past, present, future! Alpha and Omega also mean beginning and end (time statements, but without limit).
God is everlasting, not an eternal now (this would negate personality since will, intellect, and emotions all require sequence, duration, succession= time). He had no beginning and no end. It is an endless duration of time, not timelessness.
Revelation also talks about silence in heaven (eternity) for 1/2 and hour (time statement).
2 Peter uses the word day= time expression. God's perspective on time is different since He has lived forever and can be in more than one place at one time.
I am= self-existent...you are wrongly assuming it means timeless.
Psalms says God is from everlasting to everlasting, an endless duration of time, not timelessness.
Time is unidirectional. The present is now, the past is fixed, the future is not yet. God is portrayed as experiencing reality in succession. You would have to say this is an anthopomorphism. This is not necessary if you look at the Jewish understanding rather than the platonic ideas of the Greeks.
John Reformed
New member
I don't wish to be rude, but it appears that the concept of God is quite a carnal one. You seem to see God as a being who resides within the confines of the universe which he created...much like a man who built a house and moved into it. But the truth is that the creation exists within the Creator Himself: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; (ACTS 17:28).
The only reason that we have a concept of time and space, life and death is because they are what we (as creatures) experince based upon the created order of things. We have absolutely no concept of that which transcends the universe.