Could Christ have theoretically failed His mission?

[ArtGuy]

It plain to see that you do not understand God, nor do you understand omnipotent, nor do you understand the character of Jesus Christ, but don't fear, if you are born again, you will know one day.

Please, Solo, enlighten me as to what sort of omnipotence disallows one from exercising free will. I think you're conflating the ability to do something with the desire to do something. Could God do something that might be considered sin, if he really wanted to? Yes. Would he ever want to? No.

What you're saying is that if, hypothetically, God decided he wanted to commit a sin, he would be barred from doing so by cosmic forces beyond his control. When you say, "Oh, it's not part of his nature," you're not saying that he can't, you're saying that he wouldn't - which is undeniable. You just don't seem to grasp the distinction.

Also, your self-righteous "if you're born again, you'll get it" tripe isn't an argument. It's a dismissive attempt to avoid having to provide cogent justification for your opinion. And I'm pretty certain that this post will be deleted faster than you can say "abuse of power".

 

[Solo]

It plain to see that you do not understand God, nor do you understand omnipotent, nor do you understand the character of Jesus Christ, but don't fear, if you are born again, you will know one day.

Please, Solo, enlighten me as to what sort of omnipotence disallows one from exercising free will. I think you're conflating the ability to do something with the desire to do something. Could God do something that might be considered sin, if he really wanted to? Yes. Would he ever want to? No.

What you're saying is that if, hypothetically, God decided he wanted to commit a sin, he would be barred from doing so by cosmic forces beyond his control. When you say, "Oh, it's not part of his nature," you're not saying that he can't, you're saying that he wouldn't - which is undeniable. You just don't seem to grasp the distinction.

Also, your self-righteous "if you're born again, you'll get it" tripe isn't an argument. It's a dismissive attempt to avoid having to provide cogent justification for your opinion. And I'm pretty certain that this post will be deleted faster than you can say "abuse of power".

Can God create a rock too big for himself to pick up?

PS God's righteousness does not allow him to sin, therefore he cannot sin.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Ajax 777,

I am glad you liked the satire....

I could just see it like some West Side Story gang war with superhuman Angels and Christ on His throne representing the Father....

It would make the most intense comic book ever if we could actually percieve it....

 

[ArtGuy]

Can God create a rock too big for himself to pick up?

Yes.

And then he could pick it up.

More seriously, you're asking about a logical paradox. Can God do both A and !A? He could not both send Jesus to die for our sins and not send Jesus to die for our sins. He could not both create Adam and Eve and not create Adam and Eve. At least, not in the sense that we understand such concepts. Perhaps he could transcend such logical pitfalls in ways that we can't fathom, because he is, after all, omnipotent. But it's not a diminuation of his power to presume he can't do that which would violate notions of causality.

It is, however, a diminuation of his power to presume that he can't do something just because we have decided that thing is against his character. Now, perhaps you're operating under a post hoc definition of "could", such that if an eternity transpires and X has not happened, then X can't happen. But I think such definitions, while useful in describing mortal issues of calculus and probability, fail when they concern the will of an omnipotent deity.

Could God have decided not to send down Jesus? Sure, he could've, because he's omnipotent. But he didn't, because he loves us. Could God have decided to say to hell with the lot of us and wipe the universe clean in a cataclysm of divine wrath? Sure, he could've, because he's omnipotent. But he didn't, because he is omnibenevolent. Could God decide that being good is a pain, and he'd like to get drunk and frolick with women of loose virtue? Well, yeah, because he can do whatever he pleases. But he never would in all of eternity, because he chooses not to do things that are sinful.

In claiming that God is fundamentally incapable of doing certain things, you've reduce him to a mindless automaton, bound by fate and constricted by cosmic forces beyond his control. A God who can do sinful things but elects not to because they are, in fact, sinful is a much greater, more majestic, and altogether more admirable being. As God is the greatest of all possible beings, it stands to reason that this must be the case.

You may disagree. That's fine. But realize that it's not because you love God more, or you're more mature, or you've been given the keys to the celestial washroom because God likes you more. Reasonable people, equally mature in their relationship with God, can disagree about the finer points of Godhood. See, this is because none of us are God, and thus none of us know for sure. When we die, we can go ask him, and whoever's wrong can buy the other guy a heavenly drink. (Henry Weinhardt root beer, of course, because in heaven this sweet ambrosia is all that exists.) In the meantime, we should be respectful of differences of opinion regarding such minor trivia as why, precisely, God doesn't sin.

 

[Solo]

Can God create a rock too big for himself to pick up?

Yes.

And then he could pick it up.

More seriously, you're asking about a logical paradox. Can God do both A and !A? He could not both send Jesus to die for our sins and not send Jesus to die for our sins. He could not both create Adam and Eve and not create Adam and Eve. At least, not in the sense that we understand such concepts. Perhaps he could transcend such logical pitfalls in ways that we can't fathom, because he is, after all, omnipotent. But it's not a diminuation of his power to presume he can't do that which would violate notions of causality.

It is, however, a diminuation of his power to presume that he can't do something just because we have decided that thing is against his character. Now, perhaps you're operating under a post hoc definition of "could", such that if an eternity transpires and X has not happened, then X can't happen. But I think such definitions, while useful in describing mortal issues of calculus and probability, fail when they concern the will of an omnipotent deity.

Could God have decided not to send down Jesus? Sure, he could've, because he's omnipotent. But he didn't, because he loves us. Could God have decided to say to hell with the lot of us and wipe the universe clean in a cataclysm of divine wrath? Sure, he could've, because he's omnipotent. But he didn't, because he is omnibenevolent. Could God decide that being good is a pain, and he'd like to get drunk and frolick with women of loose virtue? Well, yeah, because he can do whatever he pleases. But he never would in all of eternity, because he chooses not to do things that are sinful.

In claiming that God is fundamentally incapable of doing certain things, you've reduce him to a mindless automaton, bound by fate and constricted by cosmic forces beyond his control. A God who can do sinful things but elects not to because they are, in fact, sinful is a much greater, more majestic, and altogether more admirable being. As God is the greatest of all possible beings, it stands to reason that this must be the case.

You may disagree. That's fine. But realize that it's not because you love God more, or you're more mature, or you've been given the keys to the celestial washroom because God likes you more. Reasonable people, equally mature in their relationship with God, can disagree about the finer points of Godhood. See, this is because none of us are God, and thus none of us know for sure. When we die, we can go ask him, and whoever's wrong can buy the other guy a heavenly drink. (Henry Weinhardt root beer, of course, because in heaven this sweet ambrosia is all that exists.) In the meantime, we should be respectful of differences of opinion regarding such minor trivia as why, precisely, God doesn't sin.

I know that God's Word disagrees with your position, and many times it is difficult to throw out our understanding in order to replace it with God's understanding, and the more difficult as we become less teachable by His holy Spirit.

God says that Jesus will not sin, nor can he sin. If God's son is governed by that, then He himself is governed by that.

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

 

[ArtGuy]

I know that God's Word disagrees with your position, and many times it is difficult to throw out our understanding in order to replace it with God's understanding, and the more difficult as we become less teachable by His holy Spirit.

:roll:

Fine. I know that God's Word disagrees with your position. Therefore I am right and you are wrong. Huzzah.

See how unproductive that manner of argument is?

God says that Jesus will not sin, nor can he sin. If God's son is governed by that, then He himself is governed by that.

Why?

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

These are limitations placed on men, not on God Himself. Men, last I checked, were not omnipotent. The limitations placed on them are not placed on the Lord. God is not born of God, he is God. See the difference?

 

[Solo]

I know that God's Word disagrees with your position, and many times it is difficult to throw out our understanding in order to replace it with God's understanding, and the more difficult as we become less teachable by His holy Spirit.

:roll:

Fine. I know that God's Word disagrees with your position. Therefore I am right and you are wrong. Huzzah.

See how unproductive that manner of argument is?

God says that Jesus will not sin, nor can he sin. If God's son is governed by that, then He himself is governed by that.

Why?

[quote:faf2b]
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9

These are limitations placed on men, not on God Himself. Men, last I checked, were not omnipotent. The limitations placed on them are not placed on the Lord. God is not born of God, he is God. See the difference?[/quote:faf2b]
Jesus is born of God, and all of those that are born again are born of God. Read John 3 and 1 John 3.

 

[ArtGuy]

Way to not address the question. Bravo.

Arguing in your own words conveys understanding. Arguing via bible passage conveys intellectual laziness. Wake me if you'd like to have an actual discussion.

 

[Solo]

Way to not address the question. Bravo.

Arguing in your own words conveys understanding. Arguing via bible passage conveys intellectual laziness. Wake me if you'd like to have an actual discussion.

Refusing to accept the Word of God speaks volumes on your understanding and wisdom. I will let the Holy Spirit wake you up, it isn't my job to teach the unteachable.

 

[cubedbee]

Way to not address the question. Bravo.

Arguing in your own words conveys understanding. Arguing via bible passage conveys intellectual laziness. Wake me if you'd like to have an actual discussion.

Refusing to accept the Word of God speaks volumes on your understanding and wisdom. I will let the Holy Spirit wake you up, it isn't my job to teach the unteachable.

Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye

 

[Ajax 777]

Look, why does any of this even matter? Instead of stirring up trouble between friends (e.g. ourselves), why don't we instead exhort one another, as the Word instructs us to?

As for the hypothetical "can God sin, yes or no" stuff, don't you know that the Bible clearly states that He cannot disown Himself?

The Bible also states that any action NOT based on faith is a sin.

Like, potentially, this thread...but feel free to flame me for pointing this out. If it'll help you two settle down, I'll let you vent your growing hostilities upon me. :angel:

"Dear friends, let us try to love one another, for love comes from God."

 

[lovely]

This thread could go so many different directions, but the question is, could Christ have failed in His ministry to reconcile man.

The simple answer is NO. He could not have, because God will do, and can do, all of His HOLY will. Ephesians 1:11 God is faithful.

"It pleased God to bruise Him" Isaiah 53 Read it. This is what God has done for you through His Son.

It was part of His plan to bruise the REED. God's plan will not be thwarted by anything, because He knows all things...past, present, and future. He knows the sin you commited yesterday, and the one you will commit tomorrow. He sent His Son to die knowing this, and His Son died willingly knowing this. When Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers he was able to forgive them so easily, how? Because he understood that God had a plan, and what they intended for evil, God meant for good. It saved his entire family, shaped the redemption plan, and served as an arrow that, for the modern day believer, reveals Christ. This was, and is, and will be how God continues to execute HIS WILL, and shapes the history of mankind, and the history of a single soul who has eyes to see His Gospel. This is how we know that Christ could not, and would not, and will not fail...meaning that God is faithful to keep His promises, and carry out His plan.

The idea that God's Holiness, Powerfulness, LOVE, and Mercy, are considered by many mere parlor tricks should outrage the believer who sees, and hears, Him through the gracious touch of the Holy Spirit. John 16:12-15 Can God make a Rock too heavy too lift? Does God think as men do? Psalm 147:5 Does He not have infinite understanding, and an abundance of power? Has God Himself not created the very laws that create this 'profound' quandry for men? Genesis 1 (Time, space, matter, and energy...all in the first several sentences.) Did God not respond to Job, when Job questioned Him..."Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?" Job 38:4

Get to know HIM, and His attributes. The Word will make these things clear to you if you seek Him truly. 1 Chronicles 28:9 (love Him with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, all your strength). I think, if someone is a believer, that they should spend all these energies used to build arguments, getting to know God...this is how one is able to truly give an answer. The Lord bless all of you today.

 

[lovely]

Ajax,

I posted before I saw your post, and I just wanted to say that I was encouraged by your very simple, but to the point words. We should be exhorting one another as the Word teaches. Thank you for this reminder. The Lord bless you.

edited: because I used the word post a few hundred times it seemed. :

 

[Ajax 777]

Thank you, lovely. May He bless and keep you as well. :angel:

 

[Solo]

Look, why does any of this even matter? Instead of stirring up trouble between friends (e.g. ourselves), why don't we instead exhort one another, as the Word instructs us to?

As for the hypothetical "can God sin, yes or no" stuff, don't you know that the Bible clearly states that He cannot disown Himself?

The Bible also states that any action NOT based on faith is a sin.

Like, potentially, this thread...but feel free to flame me for pointing this out. If it'll help you two settle down, I'll let you vent your growing hostilities upon me. :angel:

"Dear friends, let us try to love one another, for love comes from God."

It is nice that you have changed your position to get along instead of attacking a person for his position as you did in your previous post to me. Perhaps now you will be able to defend your position instead of using logical fallacies to ignore the debate.
Thanks for "waking up".
Perhaps you can "wake up" cubedbee as well.

 

[Soma-Sight]

It is nice that you have changed your position to get along instead of attacking a person for his position as you did in your previous post to me. Perhaps now you will be able to defend your position instead of using logical fallacies to ignore the debate.
Thanks for "waking up".
Perhaps you can "wake up" cubedbee as well.

Yes cubedbee..... It is time for the "wachet auf" of the unenlightened that do not adhrere to the "Solo theology".......

-------------------------------------------------------
photo link deleted and post edited to include this:

9 - Please keep posts down to a respectable length and provide source and/or links for your info. We want to respect copyrighted material. Refrain from all caps and bold, large fonts. Hotlinking of photos is frowned upon. We have a thread which explains how to post a photo.

 

[Ajax 777]

I'm sorry, Solo, if I ever attacked you, but could you please refresh my memory? I honestly don't remember any time when I attacked you...but if I did, then please forgive my ill manner at the time. I have been going through some heavy spiritual battles I only wish I could brag about.

But some days, it's less about abundantly receiving, and more about patient endurance. "The road to hell is wide and well-traveled, but the path to life is narrow and hard."

 

[ArtGuy]

I'm sorry, Solo, if I ever attacked you, but could you please refresh my memory? I honestly don't remember any time when I attacked you...but if I did, then please forgive my ill manner at the time. I have been going through some heavy spiritual battles I only wish I could brag about.

I believe he's confusing the two of us.

 

[Solo]

I'm sorry, Solo, if I ever attacked you, but could you please refresh my memory? I honestly don't remember any time when I attacked you...but if I did, then please forgive my ill manner at the time. I have been going through some heavy spiritual battles I only wish I could brag about.

But some days, it's less about abundantly receiving, and more about patient endurance. "The road to hell is wide and well-traveled, but the path to life is narrow and hard."

Ajax,
Artguy is correct. I mistakenly confused you and he. You had not attacked me.
Sorry for the mistaken identity.
Michael

 

[Ajax 777]

Hey, no harm, no foul. 8-)

Group hug! :-D