Unless you are suggesting that it is not God's will that we love Him then I'd say, yes, you did.
Sorry, Clete. I forget how broadly you generalize and how badly you read your preconceptions into the opinions of others. Let me clarify. And I'll try to type really slowly for you...
It isn't necessary to assume that by 'will' I mean the totality of all that encompasses. It is possible for us to understand God's will on this or that issue and evaluate it apart from the totality of those things which are under His will.
For instance, let's assume that God wanted a man to prophesy to the Ninevites and that man willed otherwise. Is God capable of bringing that man into conformity with His will? Is He capable of changing His mind?
Or consider another situation. Let's assume that God wanted a man to preach the gospel to the gentiles. Hypothetically, of course. And let's further assume that man, though He loved God, was a zealous persecutor of the Church and thus wanted nothing to do with the Gospel. Could God bring that man's will into conformity with His own on that issue? Could God change His mind?
Really.
Define sanctification for me, Clete. What does it mean to be conformed to the image of Christ?
There is nothing in the entire Christian paradigm that is not self-contradictory from a Calvinist perspective - nothing.
Then I have nothing to worry about.
lain:
assuranceagent said:
Do you believe that God, who's triune nature is established as Father, Son, Holy Spirit, for eternity can take on a form contrary to His nature, thereby adding a fourth member of the godhead such that He is now Fahter, Son, Holy Spirit, And Frog?
Clete said:
No, that would be irrational.
Clete said:
There is nothing inherently self-contradictory about God taking on the physical form of a frog
:doh:
If that was the point being made concerning God becoming a frog then CJ37 needs to express himself more clearly. I do not believe that was the point he was making though because he followed it up immediately with the concept of making a donkey speak. I don't believe he was attempting to suggest that God could become something other than God.
Unless it was a frog?
I would point out, however, that if you had a scale where God is on one end and frogs are on the other, we are much closer to the frog side of that spectrum (i.e. we are creature not creators). And God the Son chose to become a man and remains one to this very day. He remains God the Son but He wasn't always a man and His becoming a man wasn't in any way irrational (i.e. self-contradictory) or else it could not have happened.
Neither was it in contradiction with His revealed nature.
No. The fact that it is absurd means that it cannot be done - period.
And by this I can only assume you mean except in cases where it is a rational thing to do, like you pointed out above... :freak:
Then I have nothing to worry about.
Apart from consistency and intellectual honesty, I wholly agree! :thumb:
Actually the Cleteism is "Saying it doesn't make it so!"
My mistake. I messed up the wording and left off the exclamation point.
lain:
And I made no bald assertions. If/then statements are arguments by definition, perhaps not formal ones but arguments nonetheless. If you would like to refute them then I invite you to do so.
You baldly asserted that God could not make you love Him which, without arguing the issue, begs the question.
Care to provide basis for that bald assertion?
Doing mental gymnastics in Him,
Clete
:e4e:
