Salvation is a Gift....now what?

[Scott McCumber]

Exodus 3:13-15
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.  And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

"I am that I am" could be said in reverse: "I am because I am."  The essential meaning being that God decides his own existence.  It's as if he is saying that he created himself.  The question about God changing his mind is illogical because God doesn't make mistakes.

"He created himself."  ?  

I am that I am doesn't mean I am because I am which doesn't mean I created myself.

It means He is eternal, immutable, always was, always will be, forever the same, never changing. No option to change, never was. Never will be.

Not to mention "created" is past tense. God does not exist on a timeline. He has not evolved into his present form and there was never a time (past or future as we reckon it) when He was not who He is.

S

[jesusfreak]

"He created himself."  ?  

I am that I am doesn't mean I am because I am which doesn't mean I created myself.

It means He is eternal, immutable, always was, always will be, forever the same, never changing. No option to change, never was. Never will be.

Not to mention "created" is past tense. God does not exist on a timeline. He has not evolved into his present form and there was never a time (past or future as we reckon it) when He was not who He is.

Hehe, Scott - you bring out the annoyingly technical in me

You pretty much killed your first statement with your second.......Since God does not "live" in reference to "Time", how can there exist a "never"?  

More seriously, this is a similar question to asking "Can God create a rock so big that He could not lift it?"   The easiest way to think about this is to understand that God exists in our reality but is not exclusive to it.  His existence is therefore not mandated to having a commencement (the sentiment upon which we base our entire scientific understanding)

--
lucas

[Scott McCumber]

"He created himself."  ?  

I am that I am doesn't mean I am because I am which doesn't mean I created myself.

It means He is eternal, immutable, always was, always will be, forever the same, never changing. No option to change, never was. Never will be.

Not to mention "created" is past tense. God does not exist on a timeline. He has not evolved into his present form and there was never a time (past or future as we reckon it) when He was not who He is.

Hehe, Scott - you bring out the annoyingly technical in me

You pretty much killed your first statement with your second.......Since God does not "live" in reference to "Time", how can there exist a "never"?  

More seriously, this is a similar question to asking "Can God create a rock so big that He could not lift it?"   The easiest way to think about this is to understand that God exists in our reality but is not exclusive to it.  His existence is therefore not mandated to having a commencement (the sentiment upon which we base our entire scientific understanding)

--
lucas

Hey, Lucas,

I had hoped by putting in the paranthetical "(past or future as we reckon it)", it would discourage someone like you from pointing it out.  

God certainly exists outside of time/in all times/apart from time but it is helpful to use "never" and "always" when trying to describe eternity. Pull out a concordance and see how the writers of the bible often used "never" when speaking of eternal things. Think "audience!"

As far as the rock question, it's fun to throw it at my kids (the question, not the rock ) but I agree with Tom's earlier post that it doesn't have much value other than that.

Since God's existence does not have a commencement how can he have been created? "He created himself" is contradictory.

So are Stephen and Al trying to say God had a decision to make? Did he ask himself, "Do I want to be truthful, honest, righteous, etc.?"

No, he didn't have to make that decision. His existence defines those attributes not vice versa.

S

[jesusfreak]

Since God's existence does not have a commencement how can he have been created? He created himself is contradictory.

Shoot. Gotta go.

S

Nah, depends how you look at it

He created this Universe within Himself in it - therefore, in the reference frame of the Universe, He created Himself.....  

My point about commencement was simply that God is outside all the rules we hold to the Universe as we percieve it.....including mandatory creation  

--
lucas

[Scott McCumber]

Nah, depends how you look at it

He created this Universe within Himself in it - therefore, in the reference frame of the Universe, He created Himself.....  

--
lucas

In that regard maybe you can say he created his identity or persona in reference to the Universe.

But again, I don't believe his attributes or identity can be said to have been put on by him or chosen by him. His existence defines those attributes or identity, not vice versa.

S

[d3z]

More seriously, this is a similar question to asking "Can God create a rock so big that He could not lift it?"

Best answer I've heard given when posed this question by a skeptic:

  "Yes, he created you...  (pause)... and me"

Obviously not a reformed answer, but definitely puts the person on their toes.

[jesusfreak]

Nah, depends how you look at it

He created this Universe within Himself in it - therefore, in the reference frame of the Universe, He created Himself.....  

--
lucas

In that regard maybe you can say he created his identity or persona in reference to the Universe.

Assuming there was nothing of "God" within an uncreated Universe, the first "piece" of God to be placed within this Universe once it was created would be the Creation of God "in reference to the Universe".  Since God is constant in reference to Time, He has not changed since that "first piece".

Therefore, God created Himself  

However, if you are seriously wanting to get into a discussion including that which is outside our Universe (ie, God creating a "persona" for Us, so who is He really?)........you start, i got nothin'

But again, I don't believe his attributes or identity can be said to have been put on by him or chosen by him. His existence defines those attributes or identity, not vice versa.

By way of His existence, attributes are able to be shown.  Ok, so take away all the attributes....does God exist?  


ps - I hope you realize I am serious in logic throughout this whole thing, but joking in intent  
--
lucas

[Scott McCumber]

Nah, depends how you look at it

He created this Universe within Himself in it - therefore, in the reference frame of the Universe, He created Himself.....  

--
lucas

In that regard maybe you can say he created his identity or persona in reference to the Universe.

Assuming there was nothing of "God" within an uncreated Universe, the first "piece" of God to be placed within this Universe once it was created would be the Creation of God "in reference to the Universe".  Since God is constant in reference to Time, He has not changed since that "first piece".

Therefore, God created Himself  

However, if you are seriously wanting to get into a discussion including that which is outside our Universe (ie, God creating a "persona" for Us, so who is He really?)........you start, i got nothin'

But again, I don't believe his attributes or identity can be said to have been put on by him or chosen by him. His existence defines those attributes or identity, not vice versa.

By way of His existence, attributes are able to be shown.  Ok, so take away all the attributes....does God exist?  


ps - I hope you realize I am serious in logic throughout this whole thing, but joking in intent  
--
lucas

Yeah, I know, but I'm trying to figure out how I could have misinterpreted Al and Stephen's comments.

And no, I don't have anything either as far as God creating a persona for a Universe. Nothing based on anything other than my very fertile imagination anyway.

For instance, when I was an AK I'd daydream during meetings about things such as: Maybe God chose this reality as a way to reveal himself. But what if there are other realities, completely alien to us in which he has chosen to reveal himself in a different way.

Again, just a bored mind wandering through Stated Ministry!

S

[sfortescue]

The reason for using the words "as if" is that the word create normally implies change from non-existence to existence.  "As if" indicates a figurative usage since the normally implied change didn't actually happen, but the decision-making aspect of the word create is intended.

[sfortescue]

"I am that I am" could be said in reverse: "I am because I am."  The essential meaning being that God decides his own existence.  It's as if he is saying that he created himself.  The question about God changing his mind is illogical because God doesn't make mistakes.

What do you think of this? (It is a quote from a friend's theology dissertation that I have been thinking about for a while now)

"It is not to God (to) whom we relate, but to the effects of His being; grace, love, and perfection.  While Our perception of each is subject to subtle change resulting from environmental elements, the reason for their existence, their effect upon Our existence, and the applicatory nature of their existence universally remain the same."

--
lucas

Effect -- noun -- a result
Effect -- verb -- to cause to be
Affect -- verb -- to influence
Affect -- verb -- to aspire to -- (archaic)
Affect -- noun -- an emotion -- (archaic)


Your quote of your friend reminds me of Acts 17:23, about the altar "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD."
He calls some attributes of God effects of God, as if God was some kind of impersonal force.
If their effect on us is universal, then that would seem to imply universal reconciliation.


Some verses about the attributes mentioned:

I John 4:1,15-16
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. ...  Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.  And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.  God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

II Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.  Amen.

Job 11:7
Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?

Psalm 50:2
Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.

Psalm 119:96
I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.

Hebrews 7:11
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

[Scott McCumber]

The reason for using the words "as if" is that the word create normally implies change from non-existence to existence.  "As if" indicates a figurative usage since the normally implied change didn't actually happen, but the decision-making aspect of the word create is intended.

Stephen,

Bear with me! " . . . the decision-making aspect of the word create is intended."

Are you saying God chose what his nature is?

S

[al Hartman]

Al,

You wrote,

"    God's very nature is of His own choosing.  He is not holy, righteous, just, merciful, good because it is required of Him or imposed upon Him, but of His own volition, because He chooses to be so.  Anything that God "is not free" to do is because He Himself has deemed it so.  No other power could have."

I don't believe that there is any basis upon which to make statements like this.  All we know of God is what we can glean from what He has revealed of himself in His word.

The Bible just doesn't say anything about this.  So, we cannot know.

One of the uncommunicable attributes of God that theologians describe is His unchangeableness.  And He has said, "I change not".  So it would seem that this is not a possibility.

If God could and did decide to change, He would make the earlier statement false.

So, I just don't think enough is known about this to make draw the kind of conclusions you seem to have drawn.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom, and All,

     I don't pretend to speak with any authority, and it is quite right to point out that there is no foundation upon which to lay my statements regarding God's "origin."  What I said in my last post on this thread was purely my opinion, and I apologize for not so stating.

     Even before I knowingly accepted Christ, I never understood the ways in which people tried to define the God whom they all seemed to agree was infinite, nor why they attempted to do so.

     If we can recognize that God's ways are past finding out, why do we insist upon establishing parameters for His capabilities?  We say that nothing, nothing is impossible with Him, then quibble over His lifting unliftable rocks and moving the immovable... Why?  This thought process is understandable in the minds of the lost.  But are the redeemed, being born again and indwelt of His Holy Spirit, so earthbound in our thinking that we cannot conceive of God's description exceeding our capacity to comprehend, at least for the present?

     To me personally, it is inconceivable that God cannot alter His nature if He so desires.  That He will not (I change not) is, to my mind, a pledge that expresses the greatness of His character rather than a restriction which limits His choices.  I take it that with God nothing shall be impossible is literally true regardless of its context.  As for His "inability" to lie; because He is God, if He were to declare that "Black is white," it would be so.  Let God be true...

     In the military I served beside a cynical fellow who, although himself professing no particular faith, loved to enter into discussions of religion just so that he might answer a philisophical question by sneering, "If I knew that, I'd be God, wouldn't I?"  Knowing more about God than my Bible reveals is something I will only accept from God Himself in the world to come, and will not scrabble to establish in this lifetime.  (no credit to myself-- I am humbled, not prideful, because of the impossibility)

     As to the kindness of those who have assured me that I am neither light years nor millennia behind themselves in knowledge, I thank you.  
     I shall content myself, then, to follow by mere thousands of miles and hundreds of years...

al

[al Hartman]

The reason for using the words "as if" is that the word create normally implies change from non-existence to existence.  "As if" indicates a figurative usage since the normally implied change didn't actually happen, but the decision-making aspect of the word create is intended.

Stephen,

Bear with me! " . . . the decision-making aspect of the word create is intended."

Are you saying God chose what his nature is?

S

Scott, personally, I would put it in the present tense (as being more in keeping with the concept of timeless eternity):  God chooses...

And why not?  Surely nobody else can have made such a designation for Him.  Is there any less reason to believe that God chooses His own nature and character than to believe He does not?  Does it make any difference?  (genuine questions)

Surely these things have no bearing upon the Gospel...

al

[Scott McCumber]

The reason for using the words "as if" is that the word create normally implies change from non-existence to existence.  "As if" indicates a figurative usage since the normally implied change didn't actually happen, but the decision-making aspect of the word create is intended.

Stephen,

Bear with me! " . . . the decision-making aspect of the word create is intended."

Are you saying God chose what his nature is?

S

Scott, personally, I would put it in the present tense (as being more in keeping with the concept of timeless eternity):  God chooses...

And why not?  Surely nobody else can have made such a designation for Him.  Is there any less reason to believe that God chooses His own nature and character than to believe He does not?  Does it make any difference?  (genuine questions)

Surely these things have no bearing upon the Gospel...

al

I think the biggest problem here is my inadequacy in expressing a concept that is not fully formed in my mind.

Saying that God chooses his nature/character/attributes, implies that things such as truth, righteousness, holiness exist separately from God. It supposes that these are things that exist in eternity outside of God.

Conversely, he must also have the opposite choices.

What that says is that there are forces in the universe, good and bad, and this immensely powerful being we call God chooses which force he represents.

I've been saying that God IS truth, righteousness, holiness and they are NOT attributes that he puts on or chooses or sides with or aligns himself with.

And the opposite of truth, righteousness, holiness are not attributes either. They are the ABSENCE of God.

Therefore, he CANNOT lie. He CANNOT be unfaithful. He CANNOT be stained. Because then he would not be who he is and he has said, "I am that I am."

So this does not limit him in any fashion.

And yes, I believe it has a significant bearing on the gospel.

However, I must grudgingly admit that there have been at least 2 or 3 times when I was wrong. And I could very well be wrong now.

S

[sfortescue]

Saying that God chooses his nature/character/attributes, implies that things such as truth, righteousness, holiness exist separately from God. It supposes that these are things that exist in eternity outside of God.

God says what's true, right and pure.  Their existence is his choice.

What that says is that there are forces in the universe, good and bad, and this immensely powerful being we call God chooses which force he represents.

God is more than immensely powerful.  There is no force that he didn't create.

I've been saying that God IS truth, righteousness, holiness and they are NOT attributes that he puts on or chooses or sides with or aligns himself with.

The Bible teaches that God is a person, not merely abstract qualities.

Therefore, he CANNOT lie. He CANNOT be unfaithful. He CANNOT be stained. Because then he would not be who he is and he has said, "I am that I am."

So this does not limit him in any fashion.

There is no contradiction here.