Can God do all things?

[Guest]

only realizing that this does not mean that God can do what is illogical (that's all you need to fess up to, the rest can wait lol)

I confess... God can not do what is illogical.

It is interesting how uncomfortable this confession makes me even as I type it. I think it's because, at some (perhaps emotional) level, I'm still holding onto the notion that "logical" = "what seems reasonable".

During my daily lunch time, I typically go for a walk in a nearby park. Usually, I spend the time listening to lectures, or the mp3 bible. But today, I found that I just kept pouring over our discussion. (I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not )

Anyway, I imagined you and I and God in heaven...

God, portrayed here by actor Christopher Walkin, bursts from his lab, his hair is all messed up and smoke is pouring off of his lab coat as he holds up his latest invention.

God: Check it out guys, I've just created a circular square.

Derek and Perry ogle open mouthed. God hands the strange shape to Derek who turns it over so as to examine it from all angles.

God: (proudly) I call it a "squircle".

Derek: (shaking his head in disbelief) This just can't be... not even in theory!

Derek hands the squircle to Perry who examines in a similar fashion.

Perry: (wide eyed) Wow! I didn't think these were even possible.

(offscreen a noise is heard in God's lab)

Derek: But umm, God, what about that other project you were working on?

As one, God, Derek and Perry lean to one side so as to get a different view through the still-open door into a another corner of God's lab.

There, on a stool, sits a glum figure. His head keeps changing, each change accompanied by a strange popping sound. By progressive stages, he changes from wise old bearded man to dashing young teen, to tiny young tot, only to reverse the process and move through those same stages, now in the opposite order, back to wise old man.

God: I'm beginning to think that some things are impossible even for me.

Fade to black...

Anyway, now that I've given you this frightening look at the inner workings of my brain, I'm sure you're all ready to call the paddy wagon.

I really do appreciate the effort you've put into the dialog Derek.

Thanks again bro,

Perry

[_Derek]

I think it's because, at some (perhaps emotional) level, I'm still holding onto the notion that "logical" = "what seems reasonable".

Don't worry, that is not the sense in which I am using it. I am the first to admit that God can, and does, do things that "don't seem reasonable".

I really do appreciate the effort you've put into the dialog Derek.

Likewise brother.

I have really been thinking about your trinity questions. I will get to them soon. I must say that before I post, I may change my mind about some of what I've said above (regarding the trinity, not logic). I may need a "do-over" on a few things.

God bless,

[Guest]

Derek,

I may need a "do-over" on a few things.

That's fine. Take you're time. I'm looking forward to continued discussion.

Perry

[_Derek]

Perry,

Hey there brother. Here it goes....

Correct my mistake in the following.
1). God is immortal, by scriptural assertion.
2). What is immortal, by definition, cannot die.
3). The Word is God, by scriptural assertion.
4). Jesus is the Word, by scriptural assertion.
5). (From 3 & 4) Jesus is (and always has been) God.
6). (From 1 & 5) Jesus is immortal.
Have I made any mistakes yet?

1. True. But let's define "immortal".

Having no principle of alteration or corruption; exempt from death; having life or being that shall never end; as an immortal soul. [websters]

God, who is a non-physical entity, cannot die, because death is a physical phenomenon. It requires a resperatory, and circulatory system, which He does not possess in and of Himself.


2. True. If you agree with this definition of "die"

To be deprived of respiration, of the circulation of blood, and other bodily functions, and rendered incapable of resuscitation, as animals, either by natural decay, by disease, or by violence; to cease to live; to expire; to decease; to perish; and with respect to man, to depart from this world. [Websters]

3. True. But a few things first.

The term "God" can apply to any one person in the trinity; The Father, (1Cor. 1:13); The Son (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1); and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). As well as to all three (Gen 1:1-3, w/26); Also, the Father, who is God, speaking to the Son and calling Him God. (Heb. 1:1,8). So it is ok to use the term "God" to speak of the trinity as a whole, as well as any of the persons which comprise the trinity.

In John 1:1-2, the word "God" is used in at least two of the ways above.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [the Father], and the Word was God [the Son].
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God [the Father].

Even if this interpretation is illogical, (which I don't think it is), then that still wouldn't make trinitarianism illogical; only that particular interpretation of this verse.

Only if "God" is being used in the same sense in all three occurences here, can this interpretation be illogical.

4. True

5. Here is where the problem is. This will require some additional info.

While I agree that God cannot die according to the definition given above, this is the case simply because He is deity, and not humanity. A resperatory and circulatory system is necessary to die, and God does not have that (not in and of Himself anyway-hence the incarnation).

However, it is a biblical doctrine, that the Word, who is God, also "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

By taking on flesh, He was able to die a human death (which is by definition, a physical phenomenon). You may say, "but wait, you just said that He's God, and God is immortal!". Indeed I did. Let me explain.

Though Jesus is both human, and divine, it is not necessary to think that whatever it is that's "divine" about Him died when He did (physically). God, by scriptureal assertion, is Spirit. He does not have flesh and bones. Why is it necessary to believe that when Jesus physically died, His spirit, or soul, died? If any part of Him was divine, it certainly could not have been His physical body (by definition, it could not have been), so God, or His divine nature, did not die.

I said earlier that I did not wish to "divide Jesus up" and talk about the "divine part" vs. the "human part", and I don't think that I am. At least not any more than any human is biblically.

The bible presents the human, as at least soul and body. I understand physical death, per the Websters definition above, to refer to the death of the body (a). However, there is also such a thing a spiritual death, where a person's actual soul is destroyed (b), and they cease to exist all together. God is incapable of the latter, and this is the sense in which "immortal" should be applied to Him, due to His lack of a physical body in and of Himself.

Mat 10:28 "Do not fear those who (a) kill the body but are unable to (b) kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

In this verse, we see two types of death. One, in which is physical [a], that humans are capable of inflicting upon other humans (because it is a physical phenomenon), and another, which is only possible for God to inflict, where the "soul is destroyed" (which is obviously a spiritual phenomenon). [this may be what is refered to as the "second death" in Rev. 20:14]

I would say, and I don't see how you could show otherwise, that Jesus only died physically. Since God is spirit, without a human body, God did not die. Therefore there is nothing illogical such as "God can die and not die at the same time", about my position. He cannot die as in , but He can die as in [a], if He takes on something that is capable of such. Namely flesh.

My position is that God is immortal, in so far as the term can apply to Him, (see above), but it is possible for Him to take on human flesh and die physically. So [a] is a possibility, per the incarnation, but is not a possibility due to having the immortal divine nature.

Another way to put it is that if He took on a physical body, then that body could die [a], but God would not cease to exist . The person Jesus is divine (the person has always existed, even before the incarnation). His person, which would be His soul, and mind (the things that make His "personality" as opposed to His physical body), did not die.

So here, you might still say, "so God can choose to be mortal if He wants". I would answer, "not exactly". I would have to say that death is a physical phenomenon, and is only possible by having a physical body. Could God take on flesh and have a physical body? Yes. As He has done.

Could God Himself, being a non-physical entity die? No.

So to summarize; God cannot die, unless He takes on a physical body in order to die (because a physical body is required). In and of Himself, He cannot die, being a non-physical entity.

Feel free to point out any logical inconsitencies that you see in this post. If I contradicted any thing I said in another post, please remember that I said I might change my mind. If we stick to this post, it will help make things smoother.

P.S. Upon proof reading this, I think there may be a few apparent contradictions, but I think they are semantic only, and can be fixed by rewording them. Thus, I chose (due to time constraints) to leave it unedited.


God bless,

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

Message received... I'm going to digest it for a bit.

Do you mind if we also insert the following axiom, which is, after all, the point we're exploring?

0). God is a trinity, by trinitarian assertion.

I will limit myself to your latest post, and will do my best to avoid argueing semantics, so that, hopefully, your concerns about wording won't be an issue.

Take care,
Perry

[_Derek]

Do you mind if we also insert the following axiom, which is, after all, the point we're exploring?

0). God is a trinity, by trinitarian assertion.

Well, my whole post, starts with that presupposition, but we can start there, sure.

Anyhoo, just imagine that 0). is at the beginning of the post.

0). True.


God bless,

[Guest]

Hiya Derek,

I hope all is well with you and your wife. Sharon says “hi”.

Like you, I wonder if everything is expressed clearly here. I’ve done my best.



Points 1 and 2.

It seems to me that what you’ve done in points 1 and 2 is separate life into two categories. In one category we have that which is mortal, and requires respiration for survival. In the other we have that which is immortal and does not. With this framework it’s possible to define death as “deprived of respiration.” But since God doesn’t require respiration in the first place, and since it is self evident that God is not dead, we must, by this reasoning, conclude that life and death are not opposites.

I’m not questioning the legitimacy of this, at least not yet. I’m still digesting it, but it is a natural consequence of your definition.

Perhaps that's trivially obvious to you, but it isn't to me. I'm still thinking about it.

It occurs to me that we have several accounts of God’s breath in scripture. Most of them are probably anthropomorphic in nature. However, Genesis 2:7 seems particularly germane.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

Also, I gather from your quote in Webster, and from other comments, that you believe that man is in possession of an immortal soul. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, however, so I’m going to ask for clarification on this point, since you also mention that we should be afraid of Him who can destroy both body and soul. Are you an annihilationist, or do you believe man possesses an immortal soul? (It may turn out to be irrelevant to the current discussion, but I’m curious anyway.) If we do have such a soul, then clearly that soul doesn’t require respiration for survival (just as God doesn’t). But if that’s the case, what does Gen 2:7 mean?

Point 3.

You surprised me. I didn’t expect this approach, which is the same direction that Paidion went. As I told him, I don’t think this is allowed in classic trinitarianism, but admit that I could be wrong.

It may be that my whole difficulty is a misunderstanding of what it is that trinitarianism asserts.

You suggest multiple uses for the word “God”. One usage says that it is okay to apply the word to any “Person” of the trinity. Hence, Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Another usage is to apply it to the trinity as a whole, (Axiom 0), and that we need to be careful not to confuse these two usages.

We might agree to some convention that would help us keep our usage clear. For example, we might, when referring to any “Person” of the trinity, always indicate our usage by only capitalizing the first letter, but when referring to all three “persons” we would capitalize all three. Thus you would have, Jesus is “God”, the Holy Spirit is “God”, and the Father is “God”, but “GOD” is a trinity.

But such a usage is contrary to everything the Trinity doctrine hopes to accomplish in the first place. “Jesus is fully God”, is the phrase I hear all the time. So is the Father, and so is the Holy Spirit. Orthodox trinitarianism, as I understand it, dodges this difficulty by using the word “person” instead.

Consider the following:

a) Jesus is a person.
b) The Father is a person.
c) The Holy Spirit is a person.
d) God is three persons.
e) Jesus is God.
f) Jesus is three persons, by d and e.

Your objection, I believe, is that God in (d) should be “GOD” and God in (e) should be “God”. But if that’s the case then “GOD” in (d) and “God” in (e) are two different things… two different kinds of God, two different Gods… the very thing that trinitarianism seeks to avoid.

The bottom line is that, there are three different “Somethings”. The trinity doctrine asserts that those “Somethings” are “Persons,” but absolutely not “Gods” (can’t have three gods), while simultaneously asserting that each of those “Somethings” is God (albeit, it now seems, with a different usage of the term).

It’s like an Abbot and Costello routine, and I just can’t see it as anything other than a devolution into semantics.

I believe your answer would be, “It’s a semantic difference that is necessary in order to avoid a logical inconsistency.” “The trinity is one God in three persons, each of whom are God as long as we understand that we’re using 'God' in two different ways here."

So to avoid a logical inconsistency we introduce a semantic one??? I would say that if we’re forced to redefine the terms of our statement before we even finish making it, then we’re not really presenting a logical case. You may object to this point, but, if I’m allowed to redefine my terms before even finishing the statement, then I can make any statement at all and claim that it is logical.

Your interpretation of John 1:1-2 sounds surprisingly like what the JW’s say… big GOD the Trinity, and little god the persons of it. While the JW’s insert the word “a” in front of one of the words for “God”, what you’re inserting is a rather hidden usage of the word “God” itself.

Whether or not your interpretation is valid, it’s not trinitarianism as I understand it.

Point 4… undisputed.

Point 5.

In the interest of keeping things manageable for both of us, I’ll postpone comment on point 5 for now, except to say that I don’t think we’re very far apart here.

God bless,

Perry

[_Derek]

Perry,

I hope all is well with you and your wife. Sharon says “hi”.

Hello and God bless you to Sharon!

It seems to me that what you’ve done in points 1 and 2 is separate life into two categories. In one category we have that which is mortal, and requires respiration for survival. In the other we have that which is immortal and does not. With this framework it’s possible to define death as “deprived of respiration.” But since God doesn’t require respiration in the first place, and since it is self evident that God is not dead, we must, by this reasoning, conclude that life and death are not opposites.

"Not requiring" respiration is a lot different than "deprived of" respiration don't you think?

It occurs to me that we have several accounts of God’s breath in scripture. Most of them are probably anthropomorphic in nature. However, Genesis 2:7 seems particularly germane.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

I don't think that God litterally breathes because that requires lungs. Since God doesn't have a physical body, (in and of Himself) He doesn't have lungs. (Jn 4:24 w/Lk 24:39).

Notice also that God does not give the "breath of life" to non-rational creatures, even though they breath oxygen.

Also, I gather from your quote in Webster, and from other comments, that you believe that man is in possession of an immortal soul. ...

I am an annihilationist. God alone posseses immortality (1 Tim 6:15-16) and only those that are "in Him" have it (1 Jn. 5:11).

I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought otherwise by quoting Webster.

You surprised me. I didn’t expect this approach, which is the same direction that Paidion went. As I told him, I don’t think this is allowed in classic trinitarianism, but admit that I could be wrong.

As far as I know, I'm not a classical trinitarian, in that I reject the notion that Jesus is "eternally begotten" and "eternally the son" because those are both contradictions in terms as far as I can tell. (That's not to say I don't think He's eternal.)

To be honest, I am really not all that interested in being "orthodox" or "classical" or any such thing. I believe in the trinity doctrine, (or at least some form of it), because it makes the most sense of scripture. If you can show otherwise from scripture, I'll gladly change my opinion. It's not like I adhere to some "statement of faith" that I need to line up with!

You suggest multiple uses for the word “God”. One usage says that it is okay to apply the word to any “Person” of the trinity. Hence, Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Another usage is to apply it to the trinity as a whole, (Axiom 0), and that we need to be careful not to confuse these two usages.

First of all, I think I did more than "suggest" it. I gave examples from the Bible.

If you wish to distinguish between them, you can say God the Son, God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the trinity. It doesn't bother me. It means no more than what I've been saying. God is three in one sense and one in another. However, I don't know why that would be necessary for the purposes of our discussion.

Calling them "persons" is not simply a "dodge" to avoid a logical inconsistency. It is necessary to make sense of scripture. If there is not logical inconstency (with calling them persons), and it's the only way, (or the best way), to make sense of the biblical data, then there is no reason to reject it.

There is nothing logically wrong with saying that God is "one" in one sense, and "three" in another. I may not fully comprehend how that can be, but it's not illogical.

Take time for instance. There is one "time". Yet time includes the past, the present and the future. The whole can be called time, as well as any of its three divisions. The future is not the past. Nor is the present the future, etc., yet they are all "time". Same for matter (liquid, solid, gas) and space (height, width, depth). Of course, these analogies break down at some point, as all analogies do. But perhaps you see my point.

a) Jesus is a person.
b) The Father is a person.
c) The Holy Spirit is a person.
d) God is three persons.
e) Jesus is God.
f) Jesus is three persons, by d and e.

Rather:
0) There is one God (Is. 44:6)
a) Jesus is a person.
b) The Father is a person.
c) The Holy Spirit is a person.
d) God is three persons (the Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
e) Jesus is God
f) Jesus is God the Son (one of the three persons)

There is nothing illogical in this deduction that is obvious to me.

I believe your answer would be, “It’s a semantic difference that is necessary in order to avoid a logical inconsistency.” “The trinity is one God in three persons, each of whom are God as long as we understand that we’re using 'God' in two different ways here."

That wouldn't be my answer. If the difference were only semantic, then there wouldn't be a difference at all!

I do not think that God is being used in different ways in as far as changing its meaning. Only it's application, or the "sense" in which it's used. I just think that it can be applied to any person in the trinity, or to them all (and I gave biblical examples). I am using the word "God" the way that scripture does.

So to avoid a logical inconsistency we introduce a semantic one??? I would say that if we’re forced to redefine the terms of our statement before we even finish making it, then we’re not really presenting a logical case. You may object to this point, but, if I’m allowed to redefine my terms before even finishing the statement, then I can make any statement at all and claim that it is logical.

I agree. I don't think that I'm introducing a semantic difficulty at all. What terms am I redefining? I have not redifined "God" that I am aware of. If I call the past "time" am I redifining "time"? When I call the future "time" does it take on a different meaning than when used of the past? Yet another when applied to the past, present and future?

Your interpretation of John 1:1-2 sounds surprisingly like what the JW’s say… big GOD the Trinity, and little god the persons of it. While the JW’s insert the word “a” in front of one of the words for “God”, what you’re inserting is a rather hidden usage of the word “God” itself.

I'm not sure I am following you here. I think that Paidion's interpretation, (which is different than mine) sounds closer to the JW's.

I think that "The Word is God" in just the same way that the Father is ("big God"). I just think that He's distinct from the Father. This is why John says that He was "with" God.

I'm not sure which usage you think is "hidden" in my interpretation.

That the Father is in mind in the first usage, is not unusual, as "the Father" and "God" are frequently used interchangably. Indeed, even in this context (1:18).

That the last usage is "God the Son" is shown by the fact that John says He was "with God", showing Him to be distinct from what is meant by the first usage. What else could it mean? It's not like the bible doesn't call Jesus God. In fact, it does many times. Sometimes more outright than others. But it does call Him that.

It's as if John is seeking to show that Jesus has always existed (in the beginning), that He was with God, showing Him to be distict from the Father, but to show that He is not less than God, or a "little God" as you put it, He goes on to say that He is God as well.

I am aware that the definite article is used the first time, and some make a big deal out of the fact that it's not there the third time. (God was the Word). However, opinions differ among scholars as to its implications in this verse. Since I am basically at the mercy of the scholars when it comes to Greek, I see no great need to place a lot of emphasis on the lack of the article in reference to Jesus.

Whether or not your interpretation is valid, it’s not trinitarianism as I understand it.

What is trinitarism as you understand it? So far you have expressed it in things like "3=1". This is not trinitarianism. Perhaps if you lay out just what it is that you think trinitarianism is, we can come closer to a ressolution.

Point 5.

In the interest of keeping things manageable for both of us, I’ll postpone comment on point 5 for now, except to say that I don’t think we’re very far apart here.

Good to know.

I must say, I don't think we are coming any closer to proving that trinitarianism is illogical. I really don't think that it can be done. The best way to discuss it is by looking at the relevant scriptures. Not that this isn't fun and all!

God bless you brother!

[Guest]

There are several instances of the expression "God the Father" in the Bible. How many instances do we find of "God the Son"? None!
How about "God the Holy Spirit"? None!

[_Derek]

There are several instances of the expression "God the Father" in the Bible. How many instances do we find of "God the Son"? None!
How about "God the Holy Spirit"? None!

I am not aware of ever saying that we did find such instances. However, The Son is called God, and The Holy Spirit is called God. It doesn't matter to me if we use that terminology ("God the x") or not.