But here is the big question:Why did God create us?

[EssentialSacrifice]

deist - a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it

Paul, does this definition of deist ring true. I am stumblingly inept in this topic, but can compute what I have read in comparison....

I think Jac is saying exactly the opposite of deism...

Jac wrote:
He has willed to create, not out of any necessity nor for any reason, but simply because that is what God has willed to be. That, of course, is for our benefit (not for His, I cannot stress that enough). He gains nothing from that willing. It is just what He does, and we call that grace.

I don't think there is any reason for grace if not for the eternal desire for our continued participation, which suggets His eternal desire to participate, not abandon.

Is that way off target ? I know it could be, I'm still trying to find some of my marbles

[Philip]

Take the following logical dilemma...
To say God could truly create free beings, seems to impinge upon God's sovereign power to be in control of our choices and like.
And yet, to say God could not create truly free beings, also impinges upon God's sovereign power since God now seems restrained by His very own "sovereign power". = Contradiction

The reality is that people typically view the above wrongly. Is God sovereign in ALL things or not? Absolutely! Does He give us truly free will? Yes He does - this is why we can sin - or not. HOWEVER, God pre-ordained and locked the parameters surrounding how we can exercise our free will. He also set and locked the consequences of our free will decisions. For example, one cannot reject God and avoid hell and eternal punishment. We cannot come to God except through Jesus. We cannot follow whatever religious belief we so desire without terrible consequences. We cannot fly, become invisible, walk through walls, etc. So, God gave us sovereignty and truly free will, albeit within very strict parameters that HE has set and in which we can never override. Is GOD limited by the free will decisions of man? Of COURSE NOT! At Calvary, men had a very evil agenda. But God nonetheless gloriously used their agenda for HIS eternal and always-known purposes.

One last thought is that God sometimes directly overrides/intervenes in the decisions and actions of man - just because one attempts, intends and acts in a certain way is not a given that they will accomplish their intentions. So, while they are free to try and even act, they are not free to, nor do they have the ability to, micromanage OUTCOMES. God can well intervene as He sees fit, per His purposes. So, when He does this, He still has allowed man to act out - or attempt to act out - their purposes and intentions, but that doesn't mean the outcome cannot be orchestrated by the Lord. One man intends to commit suicide by driving off of a cliff - and horrifically succeeds. Another man tries to do the very same, but his car is miraculously stopped by the smallest of shrubs, growing at the very edge. Did God maybe nudge the car for the shrub to catch it? Perhaps there is a child in the back seat that God wants to raise up for some important purpose. Or perhaps He is merely showing His mercy, grace and protection to the second driver. Point is, God can and often does intervene while changing the outcome to one different or even opposite of the one intended by the free will actions of a man.

[PaulSacramento]

deist - a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it

Paul, does this definition of deist ring true. I am stumblingly inept in this topic, but can compute what I have read in comparison....

I think Jac is saying exactly the opposite of deism...

Jac wrote:
He has willed to create, not out of any necessity nor for any reason, but simply because that is what God has willed to be. That, of course, is for our benefit (not for His, I cannot stress that enough). He gains nothing from that willing. It is just what He does, and we call that grace.

I don't think there is any reason for grace if not for the eternal desire for our continued participation, which suggets His eternal desire to participate, not abandon.

Is that way off target ? I know it could be, I'm still trying to find some of my marbles

Oh yes I know that Jac doesn't MEAN that God is like the Deist God.
What I mean is that we can easily be taken there if we believe that God creates because He simply IS and doesn't care one way or another.
That doesn't sound like the personal God that is revealed in Jesus Christ.
While I agree that God needs nothing and certainly doesn't have to do anything, I don't think that God should be understood as indifferent and that is where we can get if we are not careful.

[Jac3510]

Anything can be misconstrued, Paul. By your argument, "we can easily be taken" to process theism. I know that's not what you mean either, but the fact that people can draw false conclusions due to their reading in unstated premises isn't the fault of the position but rather of the interpreter.

The problem you seem to have is with a serious description and embracing of divine impassibility. It bothers a lot of people, but it goes hand in hand with God's sovereignty and aseity. We either embrace it or we reject God as God.

edit:

For those interested in the question of in what sense God cares for us, in what sense God has any emotions or emotional investment in creation (either the act or the product of), I highly recommend thisarticle. It's a little lengthy, but very well worth your time.

[PaulSacramento]

Anything can be misconstrued, Paul. By your argument, "we can easily be taken" to process theism. I know that's not what you mean either, but the fact that people can draw false conclusions due to their reading in unstated premises isn't the fault of the position but rather of the interpreter.

The problem you seem to have is with a serious description and embracing of divine impassibility. It bothers a lot of people, but it goes hand in hand with God's sovereignty and aseity. We either embrace it or we reject God as God.

edit:

For those interested in the question of in what sense God cares for us, in what sense God has any emotions or emotional investment in creation (either the act or the product of), I highly recommend thisarticle. It's a little lengthy, but very well worth your time.

Oh, I don't have any issue at all.
I know that God loves me and I understand that love as I know it as a human is infinitesimal to His Being Love.
I know that God creating is an act of pure love, not because He HAD to or WANTED to but because He IS God and IS love.
I know that through His Son Jesus Christ and the HS.
BUT me KNOWING and being able to explain it to a non-believer, that is the tricky part and I have seen many skeptics struggle with the concept.
Of course it tends to be an emotional problem, not an intellectual one.

[Jac3510]

Oh, I don't have any issue at all.

Perhaps not, but your language suggests some resistence. So take that for whatever it's worth.

I know that God loves me and I understand that love as I know it as a human is infinitesimal to His Being Love.
I know that God creating is an act of pure love, not because He HAD to or WANTED to but because He IS God and IS love.
I know that through His Son Jesus Christ and the HS.

But no one doubts this. The debate is over what this means about God's nature.

BUT me KNOWING and being able to explain it to a non-believer, that is the tricky part and I have seen many skeptics struggle with the concept.
Of course it tends to be an emotional problem, not an intellectual one.

Not just to a non-believer, but to believers as well. As I'm always promoting my book these days, let me quote from it to emphasiz the point you are making about the emotional nature of the struggle:

• If nothing else, I want you to know that of all the objections against DS, this is the one that I think is the most potent. It is the most serious because we have an emotional investment in how we answer it. It is so powerful because it goes to our assumption about who and what God is, about what kind of being or thing He is. None of us have really seen God directly, so He is the ultimate blank canvas. Psychologically, we tend to attribute to Him the best of what we love (or the worst of what we hate, in some cases). In the language of Jungian psychology, we project on Him all that we want to be and deny Him all that we push into our “shadow,” which is all that we don’t want to be and refuse to admit that we are. In many ways, we actually make God into our own image. And DS, above all, destroys that. For whatever God is, He is certainly not human!
  
  In short, this objection gets down to two irreconcilable pictures of God. One—the one we are most comfortable with, I think—paints Him as a Cosmic Superman, an all-powerful creature that knows everything and can do anything and is loving and just and righteous and all the rest. He is different from us by matter of degree. We have power. So does He, only He has more of it. We have knowledge. So does He, only He has more of it. We love. So does He, only He does more, and so on. The other view of God says that He is not a creature at all, cosmic or super. He is not even a being. He just is Being Itself. He does not have power. He is power. He does not have knowledge. He is knowledge. He does not have love. He is love. But what does that even mean, that God is knowledge and power and love? And what good is it to say that God is love if I can’t say that God is affected by me or what I’m going through? These questions are so serious that the only really new philosophical development (in my opinion anyway) over the past two thousand years came out of them! (p. 74)

The new development, for the record, is process theism and its poor excuse for a rip-off in open theism. You'd be surprised how deeply these ideas have infected evangelical thinking (witness none other than Bruce Ware's article, "An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 4 (1986): 431-446). And for more on process theism, I refer you (or whomever) back to the article linked in my post above.

[PaulSacramento]

Yes, in my last year of Theology studies we touched upon open theology and process theism.
IMO, they exist because, while incorrect, are less "intellectual" and more "emotional" and when we are dealing with an emotional argument against God, some believe that an emotional response is needed.
I disagree BUT I also disagree that a purely intellectual one works too.
It must be a balance of both and this is why, even though I agree with what you say, I know that it doesn't resonate on the level that some people need it to.
In short, while some arguments are too emotional, yours seem not emotional enough and I have heard people say that they find "your God" to impersonal.
We need to find that balance between God being Love ( an emotional thing) and God NOT needing Love or too love ( an intellectual understanding of what it means to say God IS love).

Know what I mean?

[Jac3510]

I do, which is doubly noted in that I identified this argument as not only emotional in nature but the most potent one Christians have to deal with. I just disagree with your prescription.

[melanie]

I don't take it personally, mel, and I don't think there's any worry about being popular. I appreciate what you are trying to say, but I just don't think it holds water in the end.

Second, while your intentions are certainly pious (and that in the best sense, nothing derogatory intended there), your argument is self-refuting. Do you not see that you are trying make an argument--which necessarily is to use reason--to show that reason isn't applicable? Why, if your argument is correct, then it disproves itself, because the very reasoning you appeal to in order to prove your argument is, by your argument, invalid.

If you have a problem with what I've suggested, with God as I have painted Him, then might I suggest one of two paths forward?

1. Consider the possibility that the picture I've painted is actually correct, and your objections are actually misplaced; or
2. Grapple with the reasoning I've provided and point out where you think I have gone off track.

Either of those are fine with me and make for good discussion. And if you're objections are correct and I have said something about God that is not true, then my arguments must be invalid somewhere. You would, then, do me (or others who are reading me) a double favor in showing those flaws: one, to prevent me (them) from speaking falsely about God, and two, to demonstrate for me (them) where the arguments I've put forward are incorrect so that I (they) no longer rely on them. But a well intentioned blanket condemnation of reason (when applied to God) is not acceptable and is, may I very gently submit, actually an unbiblical attitude.

Appreciate your response Jac, and I have read over your repsonses on here as I have read over much of what you have written on various threads past and present and I have a genuine respect but we differ interestingly not so much on theology but delivery.
This is not the first time that you have responded to my posts as 'pious'. This is a mistake. Not that I have any outward objection to piety but it really is a rather poor assertion and assumption to my position. The basis of Piety is religious observance and a desire for religious obligation either you haven't been listening or paying attention but I could never be accused as such.
Being open and not being being 'bound' by any observance whether it be Calvinistic, open deism, indoctrinated into Aquinas theology or any of the like I come to my position based solely on scripture and personal interpretation. Whilst this may indeed be deemed by yourself and whomever as inaccurate it can not be accused as being 'influenced' by piety or a preconvienced ideology.

I am genuinely interested in your position and your take on such but what I require is scriptural evidence.
I am in no way condemning 'reason'. You have misunderstood. Reasoning is indeed biblical when applied accordingly. God has granted us the ability to use intellect and reasoning to determine the world around us. To make sense intellectuality of our set parameters. But here is where you lose me.
Jac said
Do you not see that you are trying make an argument--which necessarily is to use reason--to show that reason isn't applicable? Why, if your argument is correct, then it disproves itself, because the very reasoning you appeal to in order to prove your argument is, by your argument, invalid.
[/quote]

I have not shown that reason isn't applicable to that which is applicable to us. Knowable.
Your argument is assuming that I am saying we can't reason about God because I have reasoned it as unreasonable.
But what if we have an authority outside of our 'reasoning'

Perhaps said reasoning is held to higher standard, a divine standard.
Isaiah 55:8
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.…

We are not talking about using reasoning to determine whether we take this this turn or that turn in life, whether we would prefer a Vegemite sandwich to a jam sandwich, we are talking about the will and attributes of the Almighty.
Scripture tells us.....
We don't know Diddly squat
His ways are not knowable.

So however profound it may sound to assert that the philosophical argument that we can not use reasoning to counter an argument for an inability to reason may hold weight if not in the light of scripture and the pretty reasonable argument that we do not know the ways of God.
The argument used to prove Anthropomorphisms in scripture as proof towards impassability is actually something I don't entirely disagree with but what I do disagree with is the extent to which it is taken and the rather sloppy understanding of literature and the use of 'reasonable' metaphors.

[Jac3510]

Mel, when I say you are being "pious," I'm not referring to the religious movement. I thought that was clear when I pointed out that in so describing your position, I wasn't intending any negative connotations but mean it in the best sense of the word. Do note that the religous movement was so named because "pious" has a meaning in and of itself, which is "having or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for God." Such piety is a good thing, and I wish we all had more of it, starting with myself. It is something you excel in, so take my characterization of your posts as they are intended: as a compliment!

On the other hand, piety alone is not sufficient for proper doctrine. Proper doctrine is certainly pious, but not all that is pious is proper doctrine, as I'm sure you understand. With all that said, and with all due respect, I don't think Scripture teaches that we can't know such things about God, that his ways are not knowable. I am at work so I don't have time to discuss the Isaiah passage in detail, but please take ten minutes and read the first few pages of chapter five of my DS book. I talk about that verse specifically (along with another in Job and another in Psalms) that people often use to espouse your position. The long and short of it is that you've taken that verse out of context. God is not saying His ways are not knowable. The "your" in that verse is referrring to evil people, not to believers in general. Again I lay it out in some detail in chapter five of the text.

Will write more later!

[melanie]

Mel, when I say you are being "pious," I'm not referring to the religious movement. I thought that was clear when I pointed out that in so describing your position, I wasn't intending any negative connotations but mean it in the best sense of the word. Do note that the religous movement was so named because "pious" has a meaning in and of itself, which is "having or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for God." Such piety is a good thing, and I wish we all had more of it, starting with myself. It is something you excel in, so take my characterization of your posts as they are intended: as a compliment!

On the other hand, piety alone is not sufficient for proper doctrine. Proper doctrine is certainly pious, but not all that is pious is proper doctrine, as I'm sure you understand. With all that said, and with all due respect, I don't think Scripture teaches that we can't know such things about God, that his ways are not knowable. I am at work so I don't have time to discuss the Isaiah passage in detail, but please take ten minutes and read the first few pages of chapter five of my DS book. I talk about that verse specifically (along with another in Job and another in Psalms) that people often use to espouse your position. The long and short of it is that you've taken that verse out of context. God is not saying His ways are not knowable. The "your" in that verse is referrring to evil people, not to believers in general. Again I lay it out in some detail in chapter five of the text.

Will write more later!

I will read it Jac, with an open mind
This verse I quoted is one of many that I believe attests to such, but let's get through one at a time.

Jac said

I will write more later!

I do hope we can continue this discussion. I have much to say and no doubt much to learn

[Jac3510]

So a couple more comments. I'll take it you read the section I referred you to already. You'll see the clear fact that Isaiah is talking about the wicket. The "your" in "your ways" and "your thoughts" refers to the sinner with reference to what they call good and evil. God is saying that what sinners think is good and evil is not what God thinks is good is evil. God is inviting Israel to change their thoughts so that they do think like God. Tom Constable puts it concisely this way:

• Sinners need to forsake their ways and thoughts (actions and attitudes, v. 7) because they are not God's ways and thoughts. God's way is forgiveness and His thoughts are compassionate (v. 7), as far different from those of sinners as the heavens are higher than the earth. Sinners must make a break with their thoughts and ways to have fellowship with a holy God. The Servant's work makes relationship with a holy God possible, but our work, having appropriated the Servant's work by faith, makes intimate fellowship with a holy God possible.

So all this means that we can't use this verse to say that we don't know anything about God or that "human logic" doesn't apply to Him. Perhaps we don't, and perhaps it doesn't, but you would need to argue that from another passage. Isa 55:9 doesn't help.

In fact, I would submit to you that Isa 55:9 actually strengthens my position. If human logic (whatever that means) didn't apply to God, then what would it mean for God to say, "My thoughts are not your thoughts"? Presumably, you think you know what that means. You have an idea of what this God is doing the talking. You have an idea of what it would mean for Him to think. You are making claims about Him (i.e., that human logic doesn't apply to Him). But if Isa 55:9 means what some people says it does, then that would prove that such logic is meaningless, too. If human logic doesn't apply to God, then arguments (which are logical statements) that conclude that logic doesn't apply mean that the argument itself doesn't apply!

It seems to me the real issue is whether or not and to what extent general revelation reveals God. I would say a lot. Consider these verses:

• In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1)
  
  The heavens declare the glory of God. (Ps 19:1)
  
  What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. (Rom 1:19-20)

So creation itself tells us that God exists. Creation is available to all people, so all people can know that God exists. In other words, you don't need the Bible to know that there is a God. You don't need a Bible to know that this God is the Creator of all things. You don't need a Bible to know about several of His attributes, such as the fact that He is sovereign, all powerful, omniscient, good, etc. That's all stuff we can figure out just by looking at creation.

My point, then, is that I don't think I'm going beyond Scripture or ignoring Scripture or trying to think human thoughts about God. I'm trying to show what God has said about Himself in nature, which is biblical.

On a final note, I would caution you against any interpretation of any passage that suggests that we can't know things about God or that He is beyond logic or such nonsense. Those statements are, as I just suggested, self-refuting. In doing so, you would be making the Bible contradict itself. As it happens, no verse says that reason doesn't reveal much about God. Many verses say the opposite, though. God is constantly holding people accountable for speaking falsely of Him; cf. Job 42:7, in which God blasts Job's "friends" for speaking falsely of Him, and keep in mind, they did not have Scripture to rely on--the point: God expected those men to know truth about Him and that apart from special revelation! But to cite a verse saying that we can't reason about God after all . . . well, then that verse would prove itself wrong, since such a verse would have us reasoning about Him. And if you say such a verse just means that we can't reason about Him apart from Scripture, then you run afoul of the other verses I've offered here.

Your thoughts?

[melanie]

Hey Jac,
Yes I have read it twice actually
I can't give you a proper response now, I am too busy but I just wanted to touch base. Hopefully later on tonight I will have an opportunity to give you my thoughts. I have spent some time reflecting on this, mostly on the impassability of God and there are aspects I do and don't agree with or are not sure about.
Just a quick note though. I do think we can use logic and reasoning when it comes to understanding God. I ponder about such all the time but in doing so I also know that my finite mind just cannot grasp God fully, that doesn't mean that I or others should therefore not bother. But we need to know that any of our assertions and thoughts/beliefs are limited by the very nature of who we are. That is what omniscient means, to have complete and unlimited knowledge. We are too limited to fully grasp God. That doesn't mean that we don't know God or have an understanding but not a complete understanding.
I have so much more to throw out there and also in regards to the Isaiah verse but I have to go.
Will get back to you

[Jac3510]

Very good. Looking forward to your reply. When you get a minute, read this one page (starting from the second paragraph), if you don't mind (and the first paragraph of the next). It should take you less than one minute. I would type it, but it would take me a lot longer than that! It's with respect to in what sense God is knowable and unknowable.

https://books.google.com/books?id=d2O1V ... &q&f=false

[B. W.]

I am not sure if I can bring any clarity to this conversation but what I think I am hearing Jac say is found in John 17:23,25,26 and summed up nicely in Revelation 4:11 NKJV.

This comes back to the subject of worship and piety - not in the modern sense but rather what the bible reveals on these subjects. A good idea of what defines worship is found on the Got Questions - What is Worship link provided.

Go back to John 17:23,25,26 - best way I can describe worship and piety from the scriptures is to be swallowed up within God and He in you. In other words so united with the Godhead Trinity that a person, is consumed with him in a manner that words just cannot describe. So swallowed up within him is rational, reassuring, life changing, peaceful, intelligent, natural, and so non-weird. Yes, it is true that we, as mere mortals in this earth bound life cannot stay in this unity all the time but we can enter in this realm and stay there for longer periods of time. Each time we do, the more we are transformed into the likeness of the Lord as the scripture teaches in Romans 8:29.

It is here, in this state that one begins to grasp why he created us as well as why he created anything at all when he never had too Revelation 4:11 NKJV.

At one time before the fall of humanity, Adam and Eve, lived in that unity of the Godhead Trinity and walked with God. In doing so, they governed (worshiped) correctly. However the fall came, and humanity became independent agents separate from God and embarked on a journey manipulating good and evil to achieve their own ends. God foreknew this - yes. Why did he allow it? His own attributes and nature discovered in the bible provide the answer to that, as, what does he have to fear?

We live in this fallen world and so many Christians remain independent from God never taking the time to ask, seek, and knock just to be embraced by him as a little child embraces their earthly father and taking the time to wait to be ushered into his consuming presence by His grace despite our failures and dysfunctions. He embraces still the longing heart.

I just returned Tuesday form the Reservation in South Dakota and dealt with folks who were robbed of love from their parents and never held by them. But to pray them through the abandonment, trauma, abuse, neglect, rejection, they suffered from their own families by having the Lord reveal himself to them - embrace them - sing to them a song - the effect was profound. I say this to make a point, many here have been robbed from experiencing a reassuring embrace from our own mothers or fathers in many different ways that it convinces us that God does not care to embrace us now. That he is as unfeeling, uncaring, distant as some families are to each other. Such human Independence cost us dearly. However, thru what Jesus Christ did on the cross and resurrection reconciles us back to experiences God's embrace to again walk in the cool of the day with him.

Let us not forget the message of John 3:15,16, 2 Co 5:18,19,20,21, and Col 1:20

I have not seen or experienced a move of God as I did last weekend in South Dakota that has more deeply impacted me, therefore, may the Lord pour it out on you all soon...
-
-
-