Do Our Prayers Make a Difference?

At STR Place (Stand to Reason's student site), we were asked if it makes sense to pray for things since God has already sovereignly planned history from beginning to end.

This is a thoughtful question, and I think a big part of the answer is that God uses certain means to accomplish His plans in order to bring Himself the most glory. When we pray for something and God gives it, He unquestionably gets the glory. This is why “we have not because we ask not,” as James 4:2 puts it. Were God to always give us what we need apart from our prayers, I guarantee you we would quickly lose sight of Who was behind those gifts. We would either take in the gifts unnoticed or, worse, conclude our own great abilities were responsible for obtaining them.

God uses the means of prayer because He wants us to remain dependent on Him, to remind us that we’re creatures in need and that He’s the giver, and to help us recognize His work in the world (that is, we see and know He’s working when specific prayers are answered, and we know this in a much deeper way than if He were to act behind the scenes without our thinking about it). Our prayers keep us connected with all these things and cause us to rightfully worship and appreciate Him in awe and thanks.

When we say, “But Your will be done,” at the end of a prayer, that’s yet another way of recognizing our place as creatures beneath God, our fallibility even in praying for the right things, and our willingness to see Him glorified in the way He chooses.

So our prayers really do make a difference—not only because they change us and the way we view God, but because they’re the means God uses to intervene in the world. “We have not because we ask not,” therefore God moves when we ask. Our prayers are part of His plan. Yes, I also think the Holy Spirit moves us to ask in accordance with God’s plan, but that’s happening behind the scenes and is not something we need to figure out or try to learn to recognize. Our job is to go ahead and pray about everything, knowing that our prayers are making a difference because that's the way God has chosen to work.

(You can see Brett's video response to this question here.)

Comments

[Jesse]

LHRM,

To the first point, I see your words shift from "we are not in God's image" to "we are made in God's image," and I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling these apparently contradictory statements.

To the second point, I was not referring to whether or not Jesus chose the cross. I won't dispute whether Jesus could have chosen to avoid the cross. I actually agree with you here, but that was not what I asked about.

Instead, I was referring to Jesus' perfect obedience to the Father in all his 30 (or so) years leading up to the cross. In the chapter of Hebrews that I pointed to, it is written that Jesus "was tempted every way--just as we are--yet he did not sin." It seems to me that Jesus, being God, is holy, and therefore can not sin. His choices are thus constrained; one might say that Jesus was pre-determined to commit no sin.

Does it follow from this pre-determination that Jesus had no choice in the matter when it came to temptation? If he had no genuine choice, then what would it even mean to have been "tempted in every way--just as we are"?

[LHRM]

Jesse,

Yes you are correct: We are created in God's Image. I just said that and then tried to show you that my choice of words, while imperfect, referred to the fact that we ARE in God's Image, AND we are marred/fallen. Is God fallen/marred? No etc... Can Man sin? Yes etc... Can God sin? No Etc....

Are you saying the two Images, right now, as they now are, if we stand them side by side, are the SAME?

Yes, we are in God's Image. Yes, we are fallen/broken.

Both.

So that is all I was driving at there, and in that there is no contradiction.

Is God Fallen/Broken? Is Man?

Can Man Sin? Can God?

We cannot say that there is ZERO difference in the two Images; or we would be saying that God is [ALSO] fallen/marred.

That was, and still is here again, my explanation for my poor choice of words, my explaination of what I MEANT, and I guess I cannot do more to explain this yet again.

Must I be perfect in every word-choice in every sentence I type on a holiday weekend ;)

Am I not allowed to have the labor day pizza overload and sag my metabolism and hence mind? ;)

Clearly we are created in God's Image.

And then, thrown in on top of that, the fall and etc....

But, the Images are not, right now, the SAME, but, one day, they WILL be (Image of Christ.... Paul's 'I've not arrived yet but I press on' etc).

I don't think you mean to argue that the two images, as they NOW are, if stood side by side, are the same. (not yet arrived etc) Or do you mean to argue that? I know you don't etc but that is what I'm driving at....

The choice of Jesus/God [in] Gethsemane is the same as all other choices of Jesus/God [in] Time. He could have said My-Will instead of Thy-Will, and, He Feels, Tastes, the Weight, the Pull, the Pain of all that is Human, back there, from before Time, and He, there, or [then], Chooses, when, had He said to the Father, "My Will and not Thy Will" this would be without Sin (as per those topics) and so Choice Lives within God [AS DOES] the [FULL TASTING] of Humanity's Appetitite [AS DOES] the inability to Sin. Our mistake/confusion is we think all of this happens in/with God FIRST/ONLY here on Earth rather than from before the Foundation. The whole life of Jesus is as the hours of Jesus in Gethsemane on the issue of God-Choosing. So those two posts / topics (thousands of words!) cover the whole life of God in Time, not just that single evening in Gethsemane.

From before the Foundation God's unsearchable Mind searches All-Things, the A to the Z, and Sees, Knows, Tastes, Swallows, Becomes, Defeats: “God the Son takes the body and human soul of Jesus, and,
through that, the whole environment of Nature, all the
creaturely predicament, into His own being. So that "He came
down from Heaven" can almost be transposed into "Heaven
drew earth up into it", and locality, limitation, sleep, sweat, footsore weariness, frustration, pain, doubt, and death, are, from before all worlds, know by God from within. The pure Light walks the earth; the darkness, received into the heart of Deity, is there swallowed up. Where, except in uncreated Light, can the darkness be drowned?” C.S. Lewis

[Gentiles saved before Christ] and [God's Free Will] topics on this STR site.....too much to type again....

[LHRM]

Jesse,

God could have chosen [Cross] or [No Cross]. He is not obliged to save. He does not Program the saved to be saved. This is an important issue b/c God chooses us, saves us, loves us, not by the mechanical act of a Blind-Force like Gravity, but via and through that Being who Is-Love Himself. I think that if God had looked into Time and seen this Creation Fall, and tasted, back then, the Cross, and had chosen [No Cross] then He would [ALSO] have chosen not to create this particular reality, for, Love would desire to rescue His Beloved, if She should fall, and, He is not obliged to, He chooses to. He is not Blind-Choiceless Gravity. He is Blazing-Desire. He is Love. He chooses to open His arms wide, and Give Himself Away, utterly, for His Beloved.

But, this may not make sense unless you read the TONS of words in those two topics (gentiles...free will). I just don't want to type them again... copy/paste is not needed as they are there to read. It's how I see things...if you don't agree then that is fine, you probably won't and there are a lot of supporting words there from others who disagree with me so you may find like-minded thoughts in those if in fact you do disagree with me, but, if you ask a question on it, and the answer is 500 words further down in one of those two topic-sites, I will not reply...or, if I do, I will just copy/paste, because, after all, this pizza is KILLING me!! :)

[Jesse]

LHRM,

So to the first point (on being God's image bearers), you did not mean to say "we are not in the image of God"; rather, you meant that we are not yet perfect, as God is perfect. Is that correct? I think I know what you're getting at. (Though an imperfect image is an image nonetheless; artwork and even photographs aren't identical copies of their subjects, but they are still image-bearers.)

As for the second question (on the free will of Christ), I'm having a hard time seeing how your extensive reply addresses my questions.

First you wrote saying that if Jesus said to the Father "My will, but not Thine be done," this would be no sin. Is this to say that Jesus would not have sinned no matter what he would have chosen? If this is what you mean, we come right back to my unanswered question--what would it even mean in that case for Jesus to be tempted? If this is not what you mean, then I fail to see what this has to do with my question.

Then you wrote that God knows all things, and on, in the incarnation, Jesus being pure Light, drowns out all the darkness. How does this connect with the questions I asked?

Then in a follow-up post, you wrote a paragraph explaining that God is not obliged to save us. Yet I already acknowledged I agree with this, and clarified that God's freedom in choosing to save us is not what I was asking about.

If none of these responses seem relevant to the questions I asked, why should I think sifting through 500+ words in two other topics will be relevant?

I'm sorry if it appears I am being dense or unfair. However, that I just do not see how your elaborate replies address the questions I asked is an honest admission which I owe to you.

[John Hileman]

Is there a way to contact you by e-mail? Thanks.

Grace and Peace
John Hileman

[lhrm]

Jesse,

You obviously didn't read my posts (long as they are) in those two topics....all of that is addressed, and, clearly, you did NOT read them.... don't forget today's pizza problem over on my end....... :)

[lhrm]

Jesse,

They didn't see the relavent answer b/c they were NOT AN ANSWER. As I said, my own answers/views on that is in those long-winded topics, and so I pointed you THERE. THAT is where my own thoughts on your questions lie; GREAT questions, and which merrit much thought, and which I enjoy pontificating on, and which I at least started a response to in those two topics. There. Not here. And, I do not think it is fair for you to ask me to re-type all of that....or even to copy/paste PAGES (Many PAGES) here......Again, the pizza problem here on my end......Gotta love holidays!

[LHRM]

John is addressing jesse i assume..... dont know of any private method though :)

[Jesse]

So if your ANSWERS to my QUESTIONS are THERE and not HERE, what was all that about HERE? ;)

Ok, I'm done for now... good night, everyone.

[Daron]

Hi Louis,
I've read many of your comments on this thread. Good work and well done.

[LHRM]

Jesse ha! I know ......I put some thoughts here... but I DID end it with, "But none of this will make any sense unless you read the tons of words in those 2 topics...." just to warn you of its incomplete nature here...... In the Triune we find God having actual choice about the cross and actual tasting of the temptations and an inability to sin etc.... but its long winded and in those 2 topics....

[LHRM]

.... oh I forgot.. in those two topics there are many well written discussions from people who disagree with me so you will find very well written support 4 a view that is different than mine and if you do agree with me I would offer that maybe my own exploration and pontifications are not too sloppily written I hope.....

[Jesse]

Agreed, Daron.

I thought Louis' comments were very well thought-out. That is, at least in part, why it bothered me to see LHRM go on and on and on and on (and on), completely missing what Louis so clearly articulated.

[lhrm]

Jesse,

Did God give us permission to eat of the Tree of Life in Eden?

I think Louis said "no" but I'm not sure, as he never specifically said. I say as scripture tells us, "You may eat of any Tree in the Garden, but one..."

"It can't be otherwise" here embraces Choices as real, and means to me that Man CAN'T make a choice that is not provided to him by God, but that God does give him choices. So God stays in [TOTAL CONTROL] and gives to man [real agency] etc....

In otherwords, it could have been otherwise in Eden, we could have eaten of that Tree called Life, but, it could not have been otherwise in Eden in that we never could have made a choice which He did not afford to us, but, clearly, He gave us choices etc.... So I think at the end of the day Louis and I disagree on how to use the phrase "it can't be otherwise". Which is fine....it is what it is I guess.... that whole topic is coverd by me in "God's Free Will" topic as I pointed to you earlier....and really a little in "Gentiles saved before Christ" too somewhat... Fun to explore all of that. I have no right to disect what would have happened had we eaten of that tree then, instead of in Revelations, as, we are not told anything along that line....but, I do reserve the right to quote scripture where God tells man, before he fell/sinned, that man may freely eat of the Tree of Life.....Somehow I think Louis thinks that if God gives man choices then God is no longer in total control, and man is now somehow guilty of "unbriddled" freedom, as he puts it.... so it makes good sense to him to default to God programming us in a way that leaves us with zero choice in his very Hard "it cannot be thwarted" (saying yes or no to God).

We disagree here, and on how to use the phrase, "it can't be otherwise".

But, you will find a good defense of his view in those two topics I pointed you to as Daron gives very well written and thorough explanations for that view (which I do not hold)....or at least I think Daron and Louis agree... I don't want to mis-speak on that.

But, the case is strong and well presented by Daron and others over in those two topics...they are long but fun to explore, despite my two cents ~~~~

[Jeff]

Daron and Jesse,

Louis stated, "The real question that we are tackling here is if salvation of an individual falls under the sovereign will of God or his moral will. It seems obvious to me that the bible teaches that we cannot save ourselves and therefore, it is not something that God expects us to do(salvation is not by works). This being the case and unless I am offered another viable alternative, I must conclude that it falls under God's sovereign will and from what I understand of the nature of God's sovereign will, it cannot be thwarted."

I understood his reasoning. As we've gone over and over here, there is no reason to say God has multiple wills just to preserve a theological system.

Understood the reasoning. It was clear. Just wrong, in my opinion.
Pretty clear from the Bible that God's will, what He wants to happen, doesn't always happen.

[Daron]

Thanks Jesse,
I agree and have shared that frustration.

------

Hi Jeff,

Pretty clear from the Bible that God's will, what He wants to happen, doesn't always happen.

That is very clear, I agree.

So it makes perfect sense to describe differently what it means for God to want something which He does not cause to come to pass and what it means for Him to want something that He does cause to come to pass. The Bible is pretty clear there as well that He cannot be thwarted and that none can oppose Him in these cases.

Here's a resource I may have shared earlier on this.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

[LHRM]

Darron I would almost agree with you here: "...The Bible is pretty clear there [as well] that He cannot be thwarted and that..."

"as well"

But, to this date, your approach as been [ONLY] the un-thwartable [exists]. Zero choice "ever", or, if it does exists, it exists not as Real Agency, but as something much less.

I think that is the difference here....

Clearly God has Plans and He will not fail, and [can't thwart] exists.

I am perhaps too weak in my defense of that side of the coin.

But, I have yet to see you allow Man to make a real choice to either freely embrace love or refuse love with God permitting that choice to stand as He allows/permits Man to have Real Agency as [PART] of His Plan which will not fail. I think the "as well" is better than an "only" statement. I think perhaps you even deny this choice existed [part of the plan] in Eden, when clearly it did. But, I do nearly agree with you on "as well", as, I think clearly [we] both have latched on to a "side" of what the Truth is and now simply play tug of war with the other half of the Truth. And I do mean WE here, not YOU ;)

[LHRM]

Clarification:

When I said: I am perhaps too weak in my defense of that side of the coin.

I meant that I am perhaps too weak in my defense/inclusion of the [Can't Thwart] side of the coin.

[Daron]

Hi LHRM,

But, to this date, your approach as been [ONLY] the un-thwartable [exists].

You don't know what you're talking about so please don't address my comments. Thanks.

[Daron]

For others, I quote myself:

Again, LHRM, I can only glean some of what you are saying in your latest dissertation.
What I don't see is an answer to my question.

Have I missed it? Or are you not going to answer it?
If you have no intention of answering or dialoguing with me please say so because I'd really like to quit wading through your stuff if that is the case:

Here it is again.

But you have affirmed that God is love.
So, does God have a choice to love or not?
As I asked before, can the Father not love the Son?
Or is it necessarily true that the Father loves the Son?
If you think the Cross and Gethsemane are vital to your ya or na could you explain why that is so before you publish another 1000 words on the topic?

Now you are also making claims about the theology of a mysterious "some". For whatever reason you are asking yourself and then "answering" this Tree of Life question you have raised my curiosity.
Do you think God thought that Adam was going to eat from the Tree of Life?
Do you think God thought Adam would not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

If not, can you tell me what you are talking about or why you are doing so? Don't forget that everyone here is agreeing that Adam had a choice and you are not proving anything to anyone if that is what you intend to demonstrate.

""""

The link is not quite accurate, but that is from the end of a "discussion" here.

[LHRM]

Hmmm..... I thought I had that clear but perhaps Man does have un-thwarted choices in your writing.....specifically in Eden was the couched context I was looking at.

If Man could have eaten of Life then, rather than in Revelations, it's just that I didn't get that impression from you.

Both of our "it could not have been otherwise" phrases were (I thought) different in that arena. We both use that phrase in Eden for various [Can't Thwarts] which clearly existed there, but I didn't see them as the same usage on our part, as I have Man's Agency as the [Can't Thwart] and so we could have eaten of that Tree then, while I THOUGHT you had [Will Fall] as the [Can't Thwart] in that we never could have eaten of that Tree (then).

I think [Can't Thwart] exists, and, I think God's gift to Man (one of many) as part of his Nature is Agency, which is Choice un-thwarted by God aka (Tree Life / Tree Knowledge) specifically.

Not every choice goes Free, as that is Libertarian, which I disagree with, for God will thwart Man/Men, but when it comes to Eden, and to our Embrace of Him or Refusal of Him, which is Love/Consumation, that enters [Agency] and so I put that under that other umbrella of mine as our choice.

Of course [God DOES Thwart Man] on the whole as Man has Zero-Options unless God opens a Door for that Option to be "grasp-ible" in Reality. And so [we both] have Zero-Choice, and [we both] have Cant-Thwart, and [we both] have Cant-Be-Otherwise, but I thought in somewhat different usages. And, again, my own inclusion of the Harder Thwart is perhaps too weak, and, here I am trying to incorporate some Harder limits on both God and Man to accomodate such.

Zero Choice in Eden, and, or, Zero Choice on embracing God / refusing God, are, I think, [Too Hard] and so I don't move THAT far over.

But, clearly, God Thwarts the evil plans and evil choices of evil men, and etc. Does God "cause" them to be the evil man or to refuse Him? I do not think so. I think if they/we set ourselves up against Him, by choice, then, God sets Himself up against us, and, He may even then harden us, for He knows we have reached a point of no return, and so that "hardening" comes in judgement, and, He will Thwart, He will win.

[LHRM]

God can't sin Daron. Can Love Hate Love? Of course not.

Now it is you misquoting me I think.

Where we differ is on the Choice within the Triune of Self, Other, and Us. My Will and not Your Will. Your Will and not My Will. Our Will.

We find all three moving UN-created in Him, and here is where CHOICE lives UNcreated and here is where you and I disgree.

Choice is intrinsic to Love Himself and to Love itself.

Without Choice, we are not in Love's Image.

Hence Choice is tied eternally to Love for both are intrinsic to Love's Movement Among and Between Real Selves with the Triune.

On this I think we may agree or not, but I am not sure.

And, my answer to this was in "Gentiles Saved Before Christ" and also in "God's Free Will" here on STR.

They are long-winded, but you were there answering me every step of the way, refusing what I just summarized, I think.

God will not violate Man's Agency, for He does not violate His Own Agency within Himself wherein Choice and Love live as One Movement Among and Between Real Selves.

[LHRM]

And, when it comes to Created-Selves having to Choose Self vs. Other, it is different, for here to choose Self and not God must lead to Death, for any Created Self is not Self-Existent, as is God, who can choose Self (My Will) and Live, for all choices in Him are Perfect/Life. But there is a fuller/better description of this in those two topics I mentioned and even in STR recent topic of Hell or "what will the saved feel of those in hell" or something like that.......but this TOO was addressed as the "choice between self and other" being ACTUAL CHOICE. But again the description is better/fuller in those three topics here on STR......

[LHRM]

I think I have you as God having No-Choice within Himself, and so when we see "My Will and not Thy Will" (the Father honors the Son) or when we see "Thy Will and not My Will" (the Son honors the Father) or when we see Let Us Create in which the Will of Us/We moves, or when we see the Spirit Honor the Son, or the Son honor the Spirit, I see this as Real Selves giving Actual "No, You and not Me, please", whereas, I think, you have this is a Monolithic I in which there is no such thing other than "I". And, if you do concede a "You", you do so, I think, in a way which really does not make them Different Selves, for "My" is not another Self than "Thy" as you paint it, I think.

Suprapersonal (a cube is six squares etc) brings in the beauty of Choice between Selves, and Love, and Dignity, and Agency. And, again, there are differences between the Uncreated Triune and all other Selves who are Created and thus not Self Existent nor Immutable, for, should they sever themself off of Life Himself, any Good they have will be Mutable/Broken/ Fallen.

But there are better/fuller descriptions of ALL of this in those three topics [already]......

[LHRM]

Possibly, but again I am not sure, we may view our choice to embrace God or to refuse God as a choice we can make unthwarted by God, or as a Movement we make because God's Choice to have us refuse Him or to embrace Him will not be thwarted, and so He programs us to say ya/na.

In God the movement of My/Thy is a Voluntary Movement between Distincts, and this Choice of Self/Other. God can say of Other: "Na, not Thine but Mine" and in the Triune this movement is between Actual Distincts, as "thy" and "my" and "ours" are not "I, I, I". Lucifer's "I, I, and I" etc are here fundamentally different than God's Inner Movements.

Ya/Na between Self/Other and You/Me in God is Real Choice with Real Agency. And, in His creation, it is this too, although, with Created-Selves, any move towards Self-Only must lead to Death, as, Created Selves are not Self Existent etc....

You have, I think, all such Ya/Na's in God as Un-Free because you say "God can't sin" and you use that to say a Self cannot say of another Self (in God) "My will and not Thy will". Yet clearly we see that movement in Him. Of course, in Him, to choose Self is to choose Life, whereas, for me or you to say to Life Himself, "Me and not You" is to exit the only source of Life there is, hence Death. Or Fall, or etc....

This Ya/Na question is a good one, and, again, this IS better/more fully discussed in those other three topics...it's just alot to go find it and copy/paste the relavent parts.

[LHRM]

It is fasinating, for in God there is no Sinful Choice, in other words, the choice towards My, or the choice towards Thy, or the choice towards Us/Our etc are all Sinless and Perfect Selves. It's sort of like Mercy and Justice, when they are from God, are both Sinnless and Beautiful and Life-Giving, yet one aborts the other (Mercy aborts Justice and etc). Within the Triune we find this odd movement between Real and Divine Selves (Triune) and then another wonderful layer in Him is His Perfect Attributes (Mercy / Justice) from among which He freely chooses. And so we find/see inside Him all of these echoes of choice and I and You and We and Will and on and on....into who knows how many unsearchable layers.....and, of course, He loves.....

[LHRM]

Is it necessary that God love?

God cannot sin.

Does this abolish choice Daron?

You seem to think so.

Can choice live in God if Love cannot Hate Love?

You seem to think not.

Of course choice does though, and it is in the Three Distincts we find in Him, who cannot Hate/Sin against the Other, yet, clearly choose between Self and Other and move therein uncreated.

Even further we see in Him choice between Justic, Mercy, and a myriad of other Perfect, Sinless Lovely moves.

Choosing is not the same as HATE.

Choosing IS tied to LOVE and His inner movement.

Choosing Thy / My/ We/ and Self / Other / is not Sin nor Hate nor Non-Love but infact seems to be intrinsic to Love Himself within His Triune.

And, also here, we see that Choice to embrace self/other is UNcreated. If you make it Robotic and without Choice then so be it, but we disagree IF you do so.

And, also here. we see that for God to move towards the Self (My Will) ends in Life for He is Uncreated and Life Himself who has within Himself no Wrong-Choice, whereas, for any Created-Self to move ultimately towards Self (my will) and away from Him is to make a Fatal-Move (Death) for the Created is I think dependent on the Uncreated for existence. We see such a fatal choice in Eden.

Does God choose to have Mercy? Justice? Or is this the blind, choiceless act of a Force, like that of the choiceless Gravity?

Is God Triune? Does Triune mean Three [EXACTLY IDENTICAL] "I"'s? What is My? What is Thy? What is Us? Who says "Us" to whom? Who says "My" to whom? But, all Three here are Perfect and Sinless, and there is no Wrong-Move in any direction whatsoever. But clearly there IS directional movement from one self towards other selves within Him.

He cannot Not-Love, and here we see the result of a move towards Self (Me and not You) which, for Created-Selves, is a move away from Love, but is, for Him, merely one more move Towards-Love. Every Move too/away from a Self is a Choice and every Choice is towards Love Himself. He cannot Not-Love, yet, He clearly chooses.

Me and you are in that image too.... the way I relate to reality/others is that very pattern.... I know/taste/experience "I". I know and taste and experience "You". I know and taste and experience the community of the "Us" or "We". This is the Image He is making in Mankind and He prays for something similar in John 17, but, of course, the Created will never be quite the same as the Uncreated.

I will not answer the question on if we will ever acheive the status of immutable, ....but... maybe I think for every Created-Self the move towards Self and not Other will always be Fatal, for we are not, nor ever will be, Self-Existent. But I guess here and really have no idea at all.

It is clear that uncreated choice and uncreated love live inside that Triune Person who cannot love-not and cannot sin and cannot make an ugly move in any direction.

Any Choice He makes towards or away from any Self Whomsoever is a Love-Filled-Choice.

And that is what we find: Love-Filled-Choice.

There are better/fuller explanations for ALL of this in "Gentiles saved before Christ" and in "God's Free will" and in "How will those saved by God's Grace view hell?" all three here on STR.

[Daron]

Now it is you misquoting me I think.

That would be easy to demonstrate and you need not just guess about it. Where did I quote you? If I did so, how was it a misquote?

[LHRM]

And so that choice between self & other exists in Him and also between He & us His Beloved. I think at the end of the day you ablate all of that because you seem to think that an inability to love-not means an inability to move freely in choice between selves. And so, I maybe wrong, but I think you have no free choice between the Three inside of God... And you have God ENSURING CHOICE in individuals ,by programming, that bob will refuse him and jill will accept him....( the non elect and the elect etc...). I claim no sureness here and very well may be totally wrong about your view. You seem to think choice is not necessary/intrinsic to love's motions inside him-selves and therefore inside his movements with other selves. I'm probably totally wrong about the way you view this...... and if so I'm sorry.

[Daron]

Show me the misquote.

[LoveHimselfRescuedMe]

Daron it's not a quote; its a statement or implication by you of me suggesting that I am accusing God of sining because I give Love within Him among the Triune real choice.

Have I ever held that God can sin?

If Love hates Love within Himself then he sins.

Why would you think I would say God can hate God?

You miss-represent me by even asking the question.

It is you who offer that [abscense of hate] equals [abscense of choice] inside of Love.

Really?

Are you sure?

Do the two equate?

Is it necessary that God love? Of course.

God cannot sin.

Does this abolish choice Daron?

You seem to think so.

Can choice live in God if Love cannot Hate Love?

You seem to think not.

Choosing is not the same as HATE.

Choosing IS tied to LOVE and His inner movement.

More on this a littel further down....but first....what does your analysis of [abscence of hate] equals [abscense of choice] inside of Love lead to?

It leads to the other half of this coin if there is no choice:

What is God and what is "movement between real selves" if in fact there is no Choice inside of Love? It may be as I described perhaps, or not....I think it is though.

But, if it is not, then what are we left with..... somehow there really is no choice in this whole wide world, in this entire universe, nor in God Himself, and all seems to fall to a bedrock of Blind-Force. I use Gravity as a sort-of mirror there, but who knows how to describe such a reality.

Choice-less love? What is my love of my wife? I may leave her; but I have no choice? I may honor her and not me, but I have no choice? Really? Do we believe that?

Created-Selves must choose here (man / wife / all of us..) between Self and Other, for we are not as God is, who can choose Self and yet taste life. Man, for now at least, while between these two trees, must choose Self/Other, from the highest to the lowest....from God and it seems all the way down to even strangers we do not know. This is our Now.....for now....

Choiceless Love? What does this make of my love for my children? For my God? What is His love for me? For us? What is a Friend?

Is this sort of Choiceless-Love really what we believe?

How does Perfect Mercy abort Perfect Justice? "Well whichever produces the most Glory" or "Whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest numeber" or some other Blind Magnet which pulls and pulls all Real Things towards it will simply "make" the event move in "that" direction and so if Mercy produces that "greatest glory" or "greatest good" then it, blindly, beats-out Justice because God is unable (within Himself) to actually Choose between Mercy or Justice or any other "act" He "does". God does not "do" anything really; just as Gravity does not "do" anything really: it just is, and we dance to its music.

It does not "choose". It just is, and we dance to its music.

What?

Is that God?

Is that Love?

Is that Ulimate Reality?

It may be, its just that I think when Real Will and Real Intent and Real Choice and Real Love come in they bring in a more, well, person-like, nature to actual beings.

I do not think God and Man are Choiceless, and, this statement is tied to Love being Real Love.

Choice exists uncreated inside the Triune between Three Perfect and Life Filled Selves.

Love lives uncreated within the uncreated God who is love.

No matter which direction these Three move in, they land on love, and so, even to choose Self, or Me and not You, is Love. God cannot "not love".

For the Created-Self to choose Self is to cleave itself off of the only source of life there is (God) and is a Fatal move, for Created-Selves are not, and I think never will be, Self-Existent.

To live, man must choose God, for God is Life.

The inability to Hate (within God Himself) is not the destruction of moving between selves, and of choosing between selves. Choice is not Hate. [Abscence of Hate] does not equal [Abscense of Choice] within the Triune.

[Abscence of Love-Not] does not equal [Abscense of Choice] within the Triune.

In fact, Love inside of Him actually DEMONSTRATES Choice and Preference and Movement between Real Selves.

The Uncreated cannot Sin. Every move inside of Him in any direction starts in Love Himself and lands/ends in/on Love Himself.

That Movement Among and Between Real Selves houses within it that beautiful and lovely Honoring of Selves by/with/to Other Selves wherein One shouts "You and not I" and Another shouts "No, not I, but You" in simple and true Delight-In-The-Other, and back and forth forever.

That choice towards Other, birthed in love, houses within it the very fabric of what love is inside of these movements, and the very act of love itself brings with it that Delightful Shout offered up from one Self towards another Self housed within a real choice housed within a real 'worship' housed within a real love. All of this is One and Many, as is Love Himself.

God cannot Not-Love in Himself.

Love cannot Hate Love in Himself.

Choice lives within the Triune, and in fact is demonstarted WITHIN THE INABILITY TO NOT-LOVE.

Justice and Mercy and other "attributes" of God are within His Nature and from among these He chooses. He commands Mercy: Mercy does not command Him, for He may choose Justice.

God does not program some to refuse Him and some to embrace Him.

God does thwart the will of Man for His ends.

Love does not thwart Love, and Love moves within God via the vehicle of Choice, and moves from God towards Man via Choice.

God is not "obliged" to resuce us; He does not "have to" resuce us" as Gravity "has to" pull. God loves us, and therein He chooses to rescue us.

This is the nature of what love is.

Love is not choiceless.

God is bound/limited by His Nature.

Man is bound by his nature, and also to the reality which God chooses to expose him to. Man's choice is not unbriddled, for Man cannot pick an option which God does not first put in front of him.

Man has Real Agency, Real Choice, which God will not thwart (any tree in Eden).

Love does not Thwart Love.

[RELATIONAL] is the very Nature of the Divine, for God is not a Monolithic "I", but is Love's Triune I, You, We. [RELATIONAL] defines for us the God who is Love, who is the Voluntary Movement Among and Between Real Distincts/Selves.

God is love, and I think we all taste real choice inside of our loves. A Choiceless Love is so foreign to what we see inside of God, and even in His created world, as damaged as it is. Inside of Him we see all of those incredible things found between Real Persons who Love One Another, for [Relational] defines the very Fabric or Essence of the God who is Love.

John 17 echoes this Relational-Essence wherein "You and I are One" and "We are One" and "Me in them and them in Me and We are One" and that beautiful flow of the Singular/Pleural and Pleural/Singular which is that odd cluster of Persons called the Trinity.

[LHRM]

Consider this page only a half-answer.... There are BETTER/FULLER explanations for ALL of this in "Gentiles saved before Christ" and in "God's Free will" and in "How will those saved by God's Grace view hell?" all three here on STR.

[LHRM]

Oddly some say that god cannot choose and that God irresistibly "asks" some to choose Him and irresistibly pushes some to refuse him and also tell us that god is not obliged to save us and that although he is not obliged to save us he must now save us because he is forced to because he has no choice. So although god is not morally obliged to save us he has no choice and saves us.... but he does have a choice to program some to refuse him.... and he does have a choice to program some to accept him.... and he is not morally obligated to save us... but the next sentence is that love has no choice so he must save us.... none of these things make sense together.... God Hates satan....... Love Cannot hate within himself... But clearly had god his choice within himself. And love himself chooses to love us... He is not morally obligated to save us.... So unless gods inability to choose Overrides his lack of moral obligation to save us and therefore makes his choiceless force override his morals, god must have a choice.... and so we see that love saves by choice..... love chooses to love and thereby aborts justice.

[LHRM]

Notice that mercy aborting justice is not sin. 2 perfect options, yet 1 choice, just as within the triune My can trump Thy etc and there is no sin..

If we ask how Love is necessary And yet man must choose We must realize that got also chooses among self and other and this brings no bad choice within god. With Created Others however as above we see clearly that god chooses to love them and they choose to love 1 another and they choose to love god. The created is not like the uncreated for in god the choice of self is good and with the created the choice of self is fatal. In both the movement between selves is voluntary, and in both love is. What is different is that the created has choice and has love just like the uncreated, but in the created we find a wall where the move into self is a move of isolation 4 man is not triune, although john 17s prayer may lead us there 1 day. The difference is not choice and it is not love, it is in the lack of mans capacity to house a move toward Self/I that, if taken wholly, is not fatal to the I-You. In Eden we see Death here as this is severed. Choice & Love both live in God, and in man, and god made man to be like him here, but where god did NOT make man to be like Him is in being LIFE no matter which direction he turns ( as god is in the triune). Somehow the business of life is different... and god even makes a tree of life for us.... but what eating that tree does I do not know.... I do not think it makes us immutable 4 I think the created will always be dependent on the Uncreated somehow...... but I guess at that.

[LHRM]

Sorry I stopped.... but god is not obligated to save us and therefore we know that he saved us because he chooses to.... love chooses is to love the created-other whereas within the uncreated love cannot hate love. The confusion comes when we do not realize the difference between the created and the uncreated and the difference in how god moves within himself and with/between his created others. If god MUST save because he must love, then his choiceless force overrides moral obligations and leaves us
confused on why that choiceless force programs some to refuse him since love must love and cannot choose. So the love that must love and must save then programs some to refuse him...... this is all a series of self contradicting statements.... clearly real choice inside real love in TWO directions ( god and man) makes real sense and more sense.

[LHRM]

God moves toward all created others is by choice For they do not even exist unless he chooses to create.... if love has no choice and must save even tho he is not morally obligated to save then this blind "must" would proceed to save all for he must save for he must love for he cannot choose. Of course this is not so.... god chooses.... love chooses... we become confused when we forget the difference between movement within the uncreated and movement among/between every created self among themselves and god. Within himself god cannot Hate, Out of himself god hates such is satan etc.... but how can god hate outside of himself when he cannot hate within himself? God even chooses to save some whom he hates..... yet within himself he never chooses to save..... the confusion comes when we don't remember the difference between the un created in the created..... and again to say love has no choice and saves because it has to means that an all powerful god would be blindly saving everything it could save.... but all is not saved ....because god has choice...and because man has choice.... and man has choice because god has choice and because god gives man choice because love chooses to love.

[LHRM]

If love has no choice then an all powerful god would be blindly running around saving everything is good save....Then love would save everyone ....But it does not. Why is this? Inside himself god must love.... must he also not love outside himself? Why does love let someone go? Clearly the only alternative is to make a slave of that person and love will not do that because real love, Gods love, houses within it real choice. There is a difference in god's movement within himself and his movement exterior to himself and we find the solution to that in the nature of the created as I briefly touched on above..... again those other 3 topic links here on str are better written....

[Daron]

LHRM,

Daron it's not a quote; its a statement or implication by you of me suggesting that I am accusing God of sining because I give Love within Him among the Triune real choice.

Okay, so you don't know and you admit you don't know my position although you keep attributing claims to me, and now you admit I did not misquote you.
So, now show me where I stated or implied that you accused God of sinning.

[Jeff]

Daron,

Interesting that you go straight to Piper for your Calvinist apologetic....

He said, in your link,

"The difference between Calvinists and Arminians lies not in whether there are two wills in God, but in what they say this higher commitment is. What does God will more than saving all? The answer given by Arminians is that human self-determination and the possible resulting love relationship with God are more valuable than saving all people by sovereign, efficacious grace. The answer given by Calvinists is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in wrath and mercy (Romans 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation"

I guess the question of whether God has one will or 30 is largely semantic. We define will differently. But I would agree with Piper on our difference concerning what we think trumps God saving all.

We read the same Bible through a different lens; me through the lens of God desiring a love relationship with man through man's libertarian free choice, you through the lens of God desiring His maximum glory to be had through His wrath and limited mercy and His humiliation of mankind. (I'm assuming you are in agreement with Piper here)

Both of us give different weight to various scriptures that bolster our view while seeking to find alternate interpretations for verses that don't fit well with our presuppositions.

While I don't agree with your viewpoint, I don't think you are an idiot, or have a "low view of scripture", or cannot reason rationally, or are intellectually lazy, etc.

Some Christians I admire very much have held Calvinist viewpoints, some that I admire have held non Calvinist viewpoints.

We agree that God doesn't save everyone and that He could if He wanted to. We disagree about why.

We disagree on whether libertarian free will exists. We disagree about what it would imply about God's character if He actually causes and controls everything.

Hopefully we would agree that being a disciple of Christ is more important than our viewpoint about exactly how God interacts with the cosmos.

I won't get into a proof text war here because it is futile. Plenty of ammo on both sides, Rational framework and explanations on both sides. Good Christians on both sides.

It just gets me a little riled when the deterministic side is depicted as the only "Biblical", rational or orthodox view.

A little longwinded. Sorry about that...

[Jeff]

LHRM,

I really have no idea what you are saying.

Do you come down on the libertarian free will side or the deterministic side of the debate?

You should be able to answer that in one sentence.

[LHRM]

Jeff,

I think neither. I usually agree with your posts, but my defiinitions may be wrong:

As I understand Determinism: God will actually get inside someone's will/head/etc and use "irrisistable" means to move that soul to His-Grand-Plan, and so His-Grand-Plan does not house WITHIN it here actual choice, or what I call Real-Agency, and hence actual love becomes a sort of puppet at best or slave at worst. This is a Puppet Master and His Puppets, b/c God will not stand back and allow a Man to freely choose to embrace Him or refuse Him.

Libertarian: As I understand this view, man's choice is not bound by God on "Any Front". God "never" thwarts man or men, such as evil men and their best laid plans or even satan and his plans, b/c "Real Agency" or [actual choice] is not housed WITHIN God's Plan but is instead pretty much [THE PLAN].

I even addresed this a few posts up....on the "thwart" items I discussed.....

I have yet to find a Compatibilist who does not EVENTUALLY have God thwarting, not evil men, not satan, but pretty much everyone in getting the Non-Elect to refuse Him and getting the Elect to embrace Him. This is Hard Determinism, not soft, and it is a Puppet Master. God says of Bob, "My plan/will has Bob refusing me, Bob will not find me, I will cut myself off from him, etc...." And God says of Jill, "My plan/will has her in heaven, so, should she refuse me, well, I'll get inside her head and fix that."

That "process" is described differently by them, but that is the "process" at the end of the day.

This aborts Real Agency, Choice, and Love.

I THINK Daron says Love cannot Choose, or that Love does not need Choice to be love, and I addressed that in the last several posts.... If Love can't choose, then why does God not save some? He is almighty, but clearly He makes Choices in as you say "he interacts with his cosmos". In otherwords, Love rescues, but, there are choices by God within Himself, and there is Real Agency in Man, and all of that ends in both God and Man making choices which leads to things contrary to God's Love, b/c God knows/acts in a way where Love must be chosen to be real, and so, choice is allowed to ruin some, if the will, for Love will not make puppets nor slaves.

Libertarian: as I said, clearly this side allows REAL AGENCY, but I do not think they have God doing much else other than defending this Real Agency. And so God's Plan is [choice] RATHER than what I think is a LARGER plan which has WITHIN IT actual choice, and as you say, that choice allows real love and actual relational movement (as in the Triune) and I do see God thwarting Wills, but the He does it is not Determiistic: for example: If God will thwart me, He does NOT change/alter my Desire (that's determinism) but rather, He continues to honor Real Agency (b/c that is what Love moves in even within Him) but instead He puts up a brick wall, and He leaves me free to bang my head against it. He may even tell me to stop banging my head etc, but He will not get inside my head and "irristibly" move me to desire to sit on the couch instead. So here God DOES control, and yet Choice/Love is maintained. The farthest reach I see here is when God sees/knows a soul has gone beyond a point of no return, such as lucifer or pharaoh etc and hardens hearts, but this is simply God doing what He does to EVERYONE, which is to finally give to each their chosen destiny, either Love Himself or the Cold Outside of the Isolated-Pure-Self. He does not make us make that choice, but He, as Judge, DOES make that call "finally" once we finally make that call.

And so my definitons may be wrong..... this quote of yours is interesting:

"Arminians is that human self-determination and the possible resulting love relationship with God are more valuable than saving all people by sovereign, efficacious grace."

Now, I have no idea what arminian is....but I agree with that part, but not with the libertarian part you seem to include in that. I mean if my defiinition of Lib is correct.

God must be BOTH in TOTAL CONTROL and also He must be REAL LOVE and hence He must not make either Slaves nor Puppets on ANY level. I think the Lib/Determin both error a bit too far here.....one sacrifices Total-Control, while the other sacrifices Real-Love.

Your posts and Darons Post (and others) are slowly educatinog me in all of this, and the back and forth here, while frustrating for all of you I'm sure, is my own little school room....I push back, but, I consider all of you guys pushing back on ME actually educational....that armanian thing you listed is interesting....but again I make no claim to favor it b/c I don't know much about it....every day is school day here on STR :)

Daron: my posts last night were via phone...hence all the periods and broken sentences. The nature of how the Uncreated Moves within Himself does translate to how He moves outside of Himself with the Created, but there are difference, and, there is in His Love, or housed within it, real choice, and we see this in His choice to not save all, and many other things. Love has Choice, and I find in God no Slaves nor Puppets and [abscence of hate] does not equate to [Can't choose], as per all those broken sentenced phone-posts last night.

[Daron]

Hi Jeff,
Is that so interesting? What if I didn't go straight to Piper but found him among many a long time ago and book marked him because he spoke most clearly to the issue? Is that still interesting?
Don't you even thank your Christian brother for sharing and helping us arrive at agreement?

I guess the question of whether God has one will or 30 is largely semantic.

Exactly.

We read the same Bible through a different lens; me through the lens of God desiring a love relationship with man through man's libertarian free choice, you through the lens of God desiring His maximum glory to be had through His wrath and limited mercy and His humiliation of mankind. (I'm assuming you are in agreement with Piper here)

Aw, now why did you have to go and make those into pejoratives? Is that loving?
Speaking of agreeing with Piper, indeed I do agree with the citation I offered:

Therefore as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent, and that he has compassion on all people.

and

God's emotional life is infinitely complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend. For example, who can comprehend that the Lord hears in one moment of time the prayers of ten million Christians around the world, and sympathizes with each one personally and individually like a caring Father (as Hebrews 4:15 says he will), even though among those ten million prayers some are broken-hearted and some are bursting with joy?

and

God's infinite wisdom regulates his whole will and guides and harmonizes (not suppresses) all its active principles."

In other words, God has a real and deep compassion for perishing sinners. Jeremiah points to this reality in God's heart.

Do you not affirm that God is wrathful, hating sin?
Do you not affirm that the mercy shown to all is not the same, whereby some are saved and some are not?
Do you not agree that you must humble yourself and not boast before the LORD of the universe?
I'm pretty sure you don't deny these simply because God is also Love.
Do you deny them because you have an extra-Biblical view of man's libertarian free will?
I'm pretty sure you don't deny these at all.

Piper again:

Both Calvinists and Arminians feel at times that the ridicule directed against their complex expositions are in fact a ridicule against the complexity of the scriptures.

Speaking of lenses:

God has the capacity to look at the world through two lenses. He can look through a narrow lens or through a wide-angle lens. When God looks at a painful or wicked event through his narrow lens, he sees the tragedy or the sin for what it is in itself and he is angered and grieved. "I do not delight in the death of anyone, says the Lord God" (Ezekiel 18:32). But when God looks at a painful or wicked event through his wide-angle lens, he sees the tragedy or the sin in relation to everything leading up to it and everything flowing out from it. He sees it in all the connections and effects that form a pattern or mosaic stretching into eternity. This mosaic, with all its (good and evil) parts he does delight in (Psalm 115:3).

=====
You again:

While I don't agree with your viewpoint, I don't think you are an idiot, or have a "low view of scripture", or cannot reason rationally, or are intellectually lazy, etc.

Fantastic. Nor have I said any of this about you. Do try to keep your WCF and Spurgeon worshiping piper cubs straight.

Some Christians I admire very much have held Calvinist viewpoints, some that I admire have held non Calvinist viewpoints.

Me too! Whaddya know?
Do you recommend now that I go find the blog of a non Calvinist and hang around to be riled up and disagree?

We agree that God doesn't save everyone and that He could if He wanted to. We disagree about why.

Exactly. As you said earlier, there are things God wants but He doesn't get because there are things He wants more. It is no great sin of theology to attach different words to the "will" in each case. It is not a dishonest attempt to "preserve" that theology to do so. Piper tells us why we actually talk about God as though He has two wills:

But in spite of these criticisms the distinction stands, not because of a logical or theological deduction, but because it is inescapable in the Scriptures.

====
You again:

Hopefully we would agree that being a disciple of Christ is more important than our viewpoint about exactly how God interacts with the cosmos.

Nice. We do agree.

Good Christians on both sides.

It just gets me a little riled when the deterministic side is depicted as the only "Biblical", rational or orthodox view.

This is very kind of you to say. So in all honesty, and no rancor or sarcasm, why are you hanging around this blog if it so riles you? Why don't you spend your time at the blog of good Christians who don't rile you up?

[Daron]

LHRM,
You made up a position for me that you are ignorant about and have admitted that I did not misquote you when you claimed I had.
Now show me where I stated or implied that you accused God of sinning.

[jeff]

Daron,

"So in all honesty, and no rancor or sarcasm, why are you hanging around this blog if it so riles you? Why don't you spend your time at the blog of good Christians who don't rile you up?"

Well, a diversity of opinion makes the comment section more interesting.

It teaches me to control my temper.

I want to understand the other side. This helps with that.

Actually, Greg is only a compatibilist with regard to salvation. Unlike most who comment from the deterministic side he seems to hold that God is inside of time and that man has libertarian free will with regard to most of his actions.

If the moderator of the blog requested that all posts be of a certain disposition and/or viewpoint...........

[jeff]

LHRM.

"God must be BOTH in TOTAL CONTROL and also He must be REAL LOVE and hence He must not make either Slaves nor Puppets on ANY level. I think the Lib/Determin both error a bit too far here.....one sacrifices Total-Control, while the other sacrifices Real-Love."

LHRM, you just can't have your cake and eat it too. You can either have total control OR you can have real agency (libertarian freedom). They cannot co exist.

We can't be in control and God be in control of our actions at the same time.

Of course, if you change the definition of freedom than compatiblism works.

Most, however, would agree that a "choice" with only one pre determined outcome is no choice at all. And that such "freedom" is a sham.

[lhrm]

My child in his play pen has many choices to choose from, all of which I afford him, and he has non which I did not afford him or put in front of him. I allow him to choose which toy to play with, so I am in total control: there is nothing he can pick up which I do not permit, and, he still has real choice. So, you see, the parent has control over his childs choices, yet, does not make the choice for the child. I think the Determs say EITHER God will make the child have a desire and so force the choice, OR they will say there is only ONE choice presented to the child, and so that is as you say a sham choice.

The Libers say, I think, that God will never step in and take a toy away, nor will he ever step in and present a new toy; God just winds up the play pen and sets in in motion and allows man to go WHOLLY un-touched.

And, the way I see God thwarting man's will is NOT by changing his will/choice/desire, but by simply putting up brick walls and telling the guy to stop beating his head against it. He wont make the man want to stop beating his head; He will just stand in teh way of man's will, and therein WIN, but not by changing actual choices, simply by being stronger than man and so this [BATTLE OF WILLS] actually takes place as we see it in the real world with us and God.

Non-compatibilit.
Non-libertarian.

As I understand their definitions....

[LHRM]

I think, I may be wrong, that the Determs have me the parent getting inside my childs head and arranging nuances so as to cause the child to pick up this toy and not that toy, or, they have me putting only ONE choice in the play pen. And so there is no real Agency for the child.

The libers say, I think, that as the parent I never step in and FORCE a change in direction, or I never put up those brick walls I just described, rather, the ONLY priority is that, once the Globe called Earth is set in motion, I will stand back, hands off, until the End of Time (when this world ends) and THEN I will FORCE a change in direction utterly for I will create then a New Creation. But really it is hands off until then.

I disagree with both of those views, and, as I have said I think four times now, this is based on my understanding of these views, which may need tweeking.

God has total control of all our choices, b/c He creates reality, and places all the toys in the play pen, and He accounts/arranges for whatever chioce I may make; but, He affords real Agency by letting me choose. Real Agency co-exists with Total Control. I have my cake, and, I enjoy eating it :)

((sorry...couldnt resist!!))

.... Be gentle now.....

[Daron]

LHRM,
Are you going to support or accusations?
Or withdraw them?

[LHRM]

Daron, it is as if I asked you something like, "So, Daron, do you really believe Jesus and the Cross are at all meaningful? You seem to contradict this premise with your various other views. Tell me, just HOW do you think the Cross is meaningful, and tie it to Eden if you can, in a logical way."

I know full well you know the Nature of God, and of the Cross, and etc, and so to ask the question is to imply. To suggest. To hint.

Your question tasted, to me, like that question I just put up would have tasted to you. If your question does not seem, to you, like it should taste that way to me, then, well, what can I say? It does.

We all hint and push here....I do often...sometimes to hint a bit of "you're illogical" without actually saying the words. I do that more often than I want. But we do it....or I do it. My guilt here allows me to perhaps over-read or say it takes one to know one...which of course I am guilty of far too often. But, that is how it tastes to me.

[LHRM]

You actually asked me if God can hate God, or words to that affect. "God must Love within the Triune, right LHRM? Are you SURE God must love within himself LHRM? Can He HATE Himself within the Triune LHRM?"

"Yes Daron, I really belive that God can sin."

Do you see?