God Changes?

Waiting on him · May 17, 2020

APAK said:
Thanks for your reply Mungo. I just see in scripture that there is only one that is in charge and not all 'three persons' as you believe. It is only the Father and his active (Holy) Spirit from eternity past, today and tomorrow that is the beginning and the end of any decision made. Although today his Son has been given authority and is in charge of many of his affairs, especially for mankind and other spirits including the angels.

Blessings, take care for you and loved ones

APAK

At the last supper we see Jesus stating that as often as you do this do it in rememberance of me, could it be that what he is telling his disciples is that as often as you surrender your own will in obedience to the will of the Father do it in rememberance of my example?

I know everyone wants to eat a wafer and take a sip of wine, and I understand this is easy, but is this truly what is in focus here?

Waiting on him · May 17, 2020

@marks love doesn't say obey me, rather it says trust. Obedience follows trust.

DNB · May 17, 2020

@Mungo , @APAK
Mungo, you need to start making some sense and showing some true profundity in your reasoning and insights, if you want to bring any glory to God, and stop defaming Him.
It is an extremely ignoble proposition to claim that there are three identical, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient persons within one Godhead. This is the absolute quintessence of redundancy and implausibility, as their is absolutely nothing to differentiate one from the other, except for their names. If only one person can create and maintain the universe, manage all providential matters that pertain to His creation, address all the prayers of every human that ever lived, and so on (as the three attributes imply), then why have another person within the same Godhead, let alone another two? You have bastardized the ontology of God, with your utter incomprehensible and implausible nonsense.

How exactly does the atonement work, when the requirement for perfection implies love and obedience? If Christ became eligible to become our atoning sacrifice, how in the world can one ascribe wisdom and jurisprudence to God, when all that He accomplished on the cross, according to trinitarian theology:
was to love and obey Himself (which He can't defy either),
and then raise Himself from dead (which He can't remain dead if He's God, anyhow),
and then seat Himself at the right-hand of Himself (which is already His prerogative in the first place, atonement or not)?

And, we can go on with other deficiencies and absurdities (Biblical attestation, faith vs credulity, ...).

Thus, the absolutely insane, ignoble and defaming doctrine and creed that you subscribe to, clearly does more damage than good to all who may adhere to it.

APAK · May 17, 2020

Waiting on him said:
At the last supper we see Jesus stating that as often as you do this do it in rememberance of me, could it be that what he is telling his disciples is that as often as you surrender your own will in obedience to the will of the Father do it in rememberance of my example?

I know everyone wants to eat a wafer and take a sip of wine, and I understand this is easy, but is this truly what is in focus here?

This is a great way to say that those in the Spirit do his/its will of the Father and always REMEMBER you are doing it because of ME, our Lord and Savior.

Thanks for the keen insight. I will incubate it and expand it and use it in the future. Incidentally I do not partake of any Mass and its ritual of the physical nature as in a communion of Roman Catholicism or even of a Protestant version. What you said though is a spiritual matter from the heart through and through, and I agree with this thought that doing our Father's will, we always acknowledge why the Father came to us in the first place, because of his Son and our belief and faith in him.

Blessings,

APAK

Waiting on him · May 17, 2020

DNB said:
@Mungo , @APAK
Mungo, you need to start making some sense and showing some true profundity in your reasoning and insights, if you want to bring any glory to God, and stop defaming Him.
It is an extremely ignoble proposition to claim that there are three identical, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient persons within one Godhead. This is the absolute quintessence of redundancy and implausibility, as their is absolutely nothing to differentiate one from the other, except for their names. If only one person can create and maintain the universe, manage all providential matters that pertain to His creation, address all the prayers of every human that ever lived, and so on (as the three attributes imply), then why have another person within the same Godhead, let alone another two? You have bastardized the ontology of God, with your utter incomprehensible and implausible nonsense.

How exactly does the atonement work, when the requirement for perfection implies love and obedience? If Christ became eligible to become our atoning sacrifice, how in the world can one ascribe wisdom and jurisprudence to God, when all that He accomplished on the cross, according to trinitarian theology, was to love and obey Himself (which He can't defy either), and then raise Himself from dead (which He can't remain dead if He's God, anyhow), and then seat Himself at the right-hand of Himself (which is already His prerogative in the first place, atonement or not)? And, we can go on (Biblical attestation, faith vs credulity, ...).

Thus, the absolutely insane, ignoble and defaming doctrine and creed that you subscribe to, clearly does more damage than good to all who may adhere to it.

I think I like what you saying, but I'm not certain I possess the vocabulary to understand it. Sometimes I wish you'd dumb it down a little.

Mungo · May 17, 2020

DNB said:
Mungo, you need to start making some sense and showing some true profundity in your reasoning and insights, if you want to bring any glory to God, and stop defaming Him.

It is an extremely ignoble proposition to claim that there are three identical, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient persons within one Godhead. This is the absolute quintessence of redundancy and implausibility, as their is absolutely nothing to differentiate one from the other, except for their names. If only one person can create and maintain the universe, manage all providential matters that pertain to His creation, address all the prayers of every human that ever lived, and so on (as the three attributes imply), then why have another person within the same Godhead, let alone another two? You have bastardized the ontology of God, with your utter incomprehensible and implausible nonsense.

You are trying to understand God in human terms and ]according to human logic. But God is utterly other. We can only understand God according to what he has revealed to us. And he has revealed himself a three persons in one Being.

Who said there is nothing to differentiate the three persons except in their name? I did not.
The three persons are distinct in their existence and in their actions.

DNB said:
How exactly does the atonement work, when the requirement for perfection implies love and obedience? If Christ became eligible to become our atoning sacrifice, how in the world can one ascribe wisdom and jurisprudence to God, when all that He accomplished on the cross, according to trinitarian theology, was to love and obey Himself (which He can't defy either), and then raise Himself from dead (which He can't remain dead if He's God, anyhow), and then seat Himself at the right-hand of Himself (which is already His prerogative in the first place, atonement or not)? And, we can go on (Biblical attestation, faith vs credulity, ...).

You are omitting the fact that the second person of the Trinity became man - took on human nature. As man he suffered and died and was able to offer his suffering and death as a propitiatory sacrifice to the Father. As God his offering was of infinite value and thus sufficient to atone for the sins of all mankind.

Eph 5:2 [Christ] gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
1John 2:2 he [Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

DNB said:
Thus, the absolutely insane, ignoble and defaming doctrine and creed that you subscribe to, clearly does more damage than good to all who may adhere to it.

I disagree It is not insane or defaming. It is believed by the vast majority of Christians through the ages.

DNB · May 17, 2020

Mungo said:
You are trying to understand God in human terms and ]according to human logic. But God is utterly other. We can only understand God according to what he has revealed to us. And he has revealed himself a three persons in one Being.

Circular reasoning.
Besides, we are created in His image, we understand wisdom and holiness. We may not be able to appreciate the magnitude that God bears of these qualities, but we surely have the ability to discern nonsense and heresy when presented before us. Do you care to challenge this notion?

Mungo said:
Who said there is nothing to differentiate the three persons except in their name? I did not.
The three persons are distinct in their existence and in their actions.

That is my point, you don't even understand what you are professing, by formulating such a convoluted definition of the Godhead. I demonstrated how fundamentally your doctrine and creed invariably defines redundancy. If each is God, and therefore perfect in every way, neither lacking or adding anything one from the other , then clearly nothing differentiates one from the other outside of their names. You did not say this, as no trinitarian ever does, because again, you people have no comprehension of what you so recklessly formulated.

Mungo said:
You are omitting the fact that the second person of the Trinity became man - took on human nature. As man he suffered and died and was able to offer his suffering and death as a propitiatory sacrifice to the Father. As God his offering was of infinite value and thus sufficient to atone for the sins of all mankind.

God required perfection from a human, in order to atone for all humans. He established a covenant of holiness between Himself and man, only love and obedience will suffice to fulfill this demand, ....and then consequently, allow for the Law to be abrogated. To love God with all one's heart and being is the greatest commandment, and is tantamount to perfection. Christ could not have attained to perfection without this disposition. Do not mock God's wisdom and justice by claiming that He was propitiated by having Himself, love Himself, or obey Himself.
Please, you see the point right?

Mungo said:
I disagree It is not insane or defaming. It is believed by the vast majority of Christians through the ages.

Popularity is no guarantee for truth (Christmas day, Latin Vulgate, purgatory, ...).
Many are called, few are chosen.

Waiting on him · May 17, 2020

DNB said:
Circular reasoning.
Besides, we are created in His image, we understand wisdom and holiness. We may not be able to appreciate the magnitude that God bears of these qualities, but we surely have the ability to discern nonsense and heresy when presented before us. Do you care to challenge this notion?

That is my point, you don't even understand what you are professing, by formulating such a convoluted definition of the Godhead. I demonstrated how fundamentally your doctrine and creed invariably defines redundancy. If each is God, and therefore perfect in every way, neither lacking or adding anything one from the other , then clearly nothing differentiates one from the other outside of their names. You did not say this, as no trinitarian ever does, because again, you people have no comprehension of what you so recklessly formulated.

God required perfection from a human, in order to atone for all humans. He established a covenant of holiness between Himself and man, only love and obedience will suffice to fulfill this demand, ....and then consequently, allow for the Law to be abrogated. To love God with all one's heart and being is the greatest commandment, and is tantamount to perfection. Christ could not have attained to perfection without this disposition. Do not mock God's wisdom and justice by claiming that He was propitiated by having Himself, love Himself, or obey Himself.
Please, you see the point right?

Popularity is no guarantee for truth (Christmas day, Latin Vulgate, purgatory, ...).
Many are called, few are chosen.

But it's simple to stand with the pagans and take the easy sip.

Candidus · May 17, 2020

According to Scripture concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Was it:

A) Jesus? (John 10:18, 2:19)

B) The Holy Spirit? (Rom. 8:11)

C) The Father? (Gal. 1:1)

D) All of the above? (Acts 2:24)

The answer is "D", and A, B, and C! All Three are responsible, and all Three are God, yet none of them are the same! This unity while maintaining singular personalities is what is commonly known in theology as the TRINITY.

"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19

APAK · May 17, 2020

DNB said:
Circular reasoning.
Besides, we are created in His image, we understand wisdom and holiness. We may not be able to appreciate the magnitude that God bears of these qualities, but we surely have the ability to discern nonsense and heresy when presented before us. Do you care to challenge this notion?

That is my point, you don't even understand what you are professing, by formulating such a convoluted definition of the Godhead. I demonstrated how fundamentally your doctrine and creed invariably defines redundancy. If each is God, and therefore perfect in every way, neither lacking or adding anything one from the other , then clearly nothing differentiates one from the other outside of their names. You did not say this, as no trinitarian ever does, because again, you people have no comprehension of what you so recklessly formulated.

God required perfection from a human, in order to atone for all humans. He established a covenant of holiness between Himself and man, only love and obedience will suffice to fulfill this demand, ....and then consequently, allow for the Law to be abrogated. To love God with all one's heart and being is the greatest commandment, and is tantamount to perfection. Christ could not have attained to perfection without this disposition. Do not mock God's wisdom and justice by claiming that He was propitiated by having Himself, love Himself, or obey Himself.
Please, you see the point right?

Popularity is no guarantee for truth (Christmas day, Latin Vulgate, purgatory, ...).
Many are called, few are chosen.

Regardless of the person you addressed here, @Mungo, as he, and as I are dearly loved by our Father, this was well said and true in my estimation.

I hope folks do read this comment/response of yours, over and over again, more than once. It says we have only One divine Father, the chief decision-maker, and only ONE Son of Man and of the one same Father. This man, born of YHWH, 100% human being as the last Adam, willingly and selflessly sacrificed his life in shedding his blood to cause his own death, so our marked-for-death sentence became a sentence or verdict of life, to eternal life, once and for all!

.....be blessed always..APAK

DNB · May 17, 2020

APAK said:
Regardless of the person you addressed here, @Mungo, as he, and as I are dearly loved by our Father, this was well said and true in my estimation.

I hope folks do read this comment/response of yours, over and over again, more than once. It says we have only One divine Father, the chief decision-maker, and only ONE Son of Man and of the one same Father. This man, born of YHWH, 100% human being as the last Adam, willingly and selflessly sacrificed his life in shedding his blood to cause his own death, so our marked-for-death sentence became a sentence or verdict of life, to eternal life, once and for all!

.....be blessed always..APAK

Thank you APAK, very much appreciated, ...and a compliment, as I also highly regard your clear and rational (and glorifying), understanding of God's pure and unconfused ontology, and sound wisdom.

Mungo · May 17, 2020

DNB said:
Circular reasoning.
Besides, we are created in His image, we understand wisdom and holiness. We may not be able to appreciate the magnitude that God bears of these qualities, but we surely have the ability to discern nonsense and heresy when presented before us. Do you care to challenge this notion?

1. Not circular reasoning.
2. We were created in his image but you are ignoring the fall.
3. Yes we can recognise heresy (like God not being Trinity) when presented before us - IF we know the truth. Obviously you do not.

DNB said:
That is my point, you don't even understand what you are professing, by formulating such a convoluted definition of the Godhead. I demonstrated how fundamentally your doctrine and creed invariably defines redundancy. If each is God, and therefore perfect in every way, neither lacking or adding anything one from the other , then clearly nothing differentiates one from the other outside of their names. You did not say this, as no trinitarian ever does, because again, you people have no comprehension of what you so recklessly formulated.

The three persons are distinct in their existence and in their actions. That does not involve redundancy nor does it imply imperfection.

DNB said:
God required perfection from a human, in order to atone for all humans. He established a covenant of holiness between Himself and man, only love and obedience will suffice to fulfill this demand, ....and then consequently, allow for the Law to be abrogated. To love God with all one's heart and being is the greatest commandment, and is tantamount to perfection. Christ could not have attained to perfection without this disposition. Do not mock God's wisdom and justice by claiming that He was propitiated by having Himself, love Himself, or obey Himself.
Please, you see the point right?

You make claims without evidence.
Where does the Bible say "God required perfection from a human, in order to atone for all humans"

What is this covenant of holiness between Himself and man in the Bible?

Something that is tantamount to perfection is, by definition, not actually perfection.

You say "Do not mock God's wisdom and justice by claiming that He was propitiated by having Himself, love Himself, or obey Himself."
Where did I claim that? Answer I didn't. So please do not lie about what I claim

DNB said:
Popularity is no guarantee for truth (Christmas day, Latin Vulgate, purgatory, ...).
Many are called, few are chosen.

Nothing to do with popularity, Christmas day, Latin Vulgate, purgatory or "Many are called, few are chosen"
A veritable battalion of straw men.

DNB · May 17, 2020

Hi Mungo, this is my last reply. I've made my points already, and I feel that they're not being understood or addressed.

Mungo said:
1. Not circular reasoning.
2. We were created in his image but you are ignoring the fall.
3. Yes we can recognise heresy (like God not being Trinity) when presented before us - IF we know the truth. Obviously you do not.

1. Do you understand the principle of circular reasoning? I don't believe that you do, thus, hard to continue.
2. Man has never lost the image of God. For, that's how we know that He exists, and that's how we are able to pray to, and obey Him, as both He demands and deserves. (Genesis 5:3, Genesis 9:6, Genesis 18:23, Genesis 15:6, Job 1:1, Genesis 6:8, ....)
3. You just did it again (unbelievable)?

Mungo said:
The three persons are distinct in their existence and in their actions. That does not involve redundancy nor does it imply imperfection.

You don't appear to understand the meaning of redundant, thus, hard to continue. There are many dictionaries online.
In other words, simply attempting to defy the principle with mere words, does not mean that you've succeeded. Meaning, a simple statement claiming that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, does not substantiate the premise. I can't believe that I need to say this, I do not find you reasonable or serious, at all.

Mungo said:
Where does the Bible say "God required perfection from a human, in order to atone for all humans"

The Levitical Law demanded that there be no blemish in any of the oblations presented to God, otherwise the offering was not accepted (Leviticus 22:20). In order for Christ's sacrifice to have the efficacy required for atonement, perfection (according to the Law*) was requisite. *This is why the Law was able to be abrogated (it had to be fulfilled first).

Mungo said:
What is this covenant of holiness between Himself and man in the Bible?

Every single ordinance ever decreed by God, from Adam to Christ. Over-arching principle of the entire Bible, be holy, as I am holy. The Ten Commandments. Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Mungo said:
Something that is tantamount to perfection is, by definition, not actually perfection.

Do you not understand what God's idea of perfection is Mungo? It is not works, in and of themselves, they do not reveal the heart. It is Loving God with all one's heart, mind and soul. And since one cannot love God and simultaneously hate His creation that He created in His image, this principle defines perfection (Galatians 5:14). You're extremely difficult.

Mungo said:
You say "Do not mock God's wisdom and justice by claiming that He was propitiated by having Himself, love Himself, or obey Himself."
Where did I claim that? Answer I didn't. So please do not lie about what I claim

Again, you are so credulous in your beliefs, that you don't even understand what you profess. Your ridiculous doctrine incriminates you, must I explain how, again (I won't)?

Mungo said:
Nothing to do with popularity, Christmas day, Latin Vulgate, purgatory or "Many are called, few are chosen"
A veritable battalion of straw men.

It has everything to do with popularity, as this is what you made an appeal to in order to justify your position. 'The masses have accepted it, therefore... ', Thus, I made a remark about the opinion of the masses (fallacies), and about the standing of the masses themselves (many are called, few chosen).

Again Mungo, you are attempting to refute elementary and fundamental principles, with nothing but obstinance and blatant defiance (not a single sound defense from you).
I'm not even asserting at this point, that my contentions are a patent confutation of trinitarian theology, ...just yet. But, I am without reservation, affirming that they are viable and entirely undermining fundaments, that no serious and competent exegete can deny. Which you are attempting to do without any logic, wisdom or comprehension about either, what you believe, or what I've said.
Thus, this is getting labourious without any progress.
I'm done, thanks!

Mungo · May 18, 2020

DNB said:
Hi Mungo, this is my last reply. I've made my points already, and I feel that they're not being understood or addressed.

1. Do you understand the principle of circular reasoning? I don't believe that you do, thus, hard to continue.
2. Man has never lost the image of God. For, that's how we know that He exists, and that's how we are able to pray to, and obey Him, as both He demands and deserves. (Genesis 5:3, Genesis 9:6, Genesis 18:23, Genesis 15:6, Job 1:1, Genesis 6:8, ....)
3. You just did it again (unbelievable)?

You don't appear to understand the meaning of redundant, thus, hard to continue. There are many dictionaries online.
In other words, simply attempting to defy the principle with mere words, does not mean that you've succeeded. Meaning, a simple statement claiming that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, does not substantiate the premise. I can't believe that I need to say this, I do not find you reasonable or serious, at all.

The Levitical Law demanded that there be no blemish in any of the oblations presented to God, otherwise the offering was not accepted (Leviticus 22:20). In order for Christ's sacrifice to have the efficacy required for atonement, perfection (according to the Law*) was requisite. *This is why the Law was able to be abrogated (it had to be fulfilled first).

Every single ordinance ever decreed by God, from Adam to Christ. Over-arching principle of the entire Bible, be holy, as I am holy. The Ten Commandments. Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Do you not understand what God's idea of perfection is Mungo? It is not works, in and of themselves, they do not reveal the heart. It is Loving God with all one's heart, mind and soul. And since one cannot love God and simultaneously hate His creation that He created in His image, this principle defines perfection (Galatians 5:14). You're extremely difficult.

Again, you are so credulous in your beliefs, that you don't even understand what you profess. Your ridiculous doctrine incriminates you, must I explain how, again (I won't)?

It has everything to do with popularity, as this is what you made an appeal to in order to justify your position. 'The masses have accepted it, therefore... ', Thus, I made a remark about the opinion of the masses (fallacies), and about the standing of the masses themselves (many are called, few chosen).

Again Mungo, you are attempting to refute elementary and fundamental principles, with nothing but obstinance and blatant defiance (not a single sound defense from you).
I'm not even asserting at this point, that my contentions are a patent confutation of trinitarian theology, ...just yet. But, I am without reservation, affirming that they are viable and entirely undermining fundaments, that no serious and competent exegete can deny. Which you are attempting to do without any logic, wisdom or comprehension about either, what you believe, or what I've said.
Thus, this is getting labourious without any progress.
I'm done, thanks!

You are attempting obfuscation by obscure verbiage that has no intrinsic meaning.
If you cannot make your points without bloviating it is hard to continue.

Huperetes · May 18, 2020

I believe in the Trinity but I never want to be caught trying to explain it beyond a few simple statements.
The Father is YHVH. The Holy Spirit is YHVH. The Son is YHVH.
How can this be so? God is one (as in echad..unity out of plurality,ie; Adam and Eve became one(echad)flesh.)

Any speculation further than what the scripture actually states leads to trouble.

Candidus · May 18, 2020

While you can never adequately display the spiritual realities with the physical, but a children's illustration is a good place to start.

What is this?

An egg...

What is this?

An Egg Shell, An Egg White, and an Egg Yolk

All three are distinct and perform different functions; yet all three are Egg.

marks · May 18, 2020

DNB said:
I'm sorry, are you arguing for, or against yourself here?
You're the one that is saying that God requires an object of affection in order to either prove, or actualize his love. I'm saying, for the third time, that God intrinsically is love, for He is deity, and deity necessitates perfection. And that is whether He be 1,2, 3, 7, or 87.5 persons. Of which, of course, He is only one person, the Father.

I was restating your idea as I understood it,

Latent Love, that is, the unrealized love within. The innate love of God. No object to receive that love, yet. But the love is in God just the same, as God is love, with or without someone or something TO love. That's your thinking, right? Please let me know if I get something wrong.

It comes back to the question of "what is love?"

The Bible says, "this is love, that a man lay down his life for his friend." God's introduction of His love is that "even while we were enemies, Christ died for us."

This to me says that Love is giving one's self to another, in love for your friend, or in greater love for your enemy. Love is giving, I have a difficult time understanding how one can give anything when one is alone, therefore I call this "latent love", that is, the love that gives, the love God has, but before there is anyone to give to.

But then when Jesus comes into being, now God can give His love - to - someone.

So then latent love is manifested in the giving to another, latent love becomes manifest love.

The love that remained ungiven is now given to another.

And this is what to me seems to be describing God having latent qualities, that remain unrealized until the Son is created, there being none to give His love to. Then the Father makes the Son, and now the Father can begin to give His love to the Son. Love, again, being, "giving yourself for another". "Everything I have is yours! Even my life!"

So then loving the Son would be a new experience for God. Having never loved another before.

Much love!

marks · May 18, 2020

Waiting on him said:
@marks love doesn't say obey me, rather it says trust. Obedience follows trust.

I think in God's love for us He tells us to do both, to trust Him, and to do what He tells us to do. Because He knows the eternal path we're to be walking, that path that leads to reward and glory and eternal riches if we walk according to His Way.

Much love!

DNB · May 18, 2020

marks said:
I was restating your idea as I understood it,
Latent Love, that is, the unrealized love within. The innate love of God. No object to receive that love, yet. But the love is in God just the same, as God is love, with or without someone or something TO love. That's your thinking, right? Please let me know if I get something wrong.

Yes, you're right, sorry, I misunderstood your point there initially.

marks said:
The Bible says, "this is love, that a man lay down his life for his friend." God's introduction of His love is that "even while we were enemies, Christ died for us."

To me, this is just one aspect or manifestation of Love. Love reveals itself in countless ways, as in rebuke and exhorting discipline, in expounding the truth, in compassion and mercy, in justice and judgement, etc...
Your profound error is that you have isolated the definition to mean the one thing, or that it is a byproduct of a relationship, not an intrinsic quality or attribute of one's ontology.

I agree with your latency principle, in that it is a good analogy to describe what I'm attempting to convey. But the latter part of your post, again, I'm not sure if your attempting to expose the problems that you see in my thought, or are explaining your own. For, if the latter, you seem to be agreeing with me?

marks said:
So then loving the Son would be a new experience for God. Having never loved another before.

Thus statement appears to be you, attempting to show the necessity of having something to love, prior to creation, in order to have the attribute at all?

My point is that God, by definition, is Love, irrespective of whether or not He can physically manifest it.
But, to rebuttal point, I would declare emphatically that God has truly and patently evidenced His love by creating the universe and man. This was not an obligation on His part, nor a frivolous or misguided endeavour. He created us and all things, in order that we may partake in His goodness and love. His pure motivation for creation was love, it was by no means for his sake! He offered us both life, and the ability and opportunity to love. No one is here by their own volition, and God was not under duress or had ill-intent by creating the universe and all that it contains. This was derived solely from love.
Thus, there is no need to, implausibly, extend His personhood in order to substantiate God's intrinsic attribute of love.

...now, just to clarify, and as a more advanced thought, we all know that God the Father's motivation to create all things, was for the sake of His anticipated love for His son, the first-born of all creation. And we are here, for Christ.
God's decision to create the son, is the manifestation of His love.

marks · May 18, 2020

DNB said:
I agree with your latency principle, in that it is a good analogy to describe what I'm attempting to convey. But the latter part of your post, again, I'm not sure if your attempting to expose the problems that you see in my thought, or are explaining your own. For, if the latter, you seem to be agreeing with me?

This is the implication of your thought.

My assertion is that God is always a loving Father, eternally loving the Son. Your thought seems to be that while God is love, that upon the creation of Jesus, were He to have been created, that would be when God would begin to love another.

My assertion is that God has always loved another, and, in Christ, we now share in His eternal love.

Much love!

God Changes?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads