Of course not.
![]()
Aaah, so you also restrict God from being free.
So, who is the real tyrant?
Well...can God sin? Can he lie? Can he deny himself?
And do you think anyone in New Eternal Order will be able to sin?
The third problematic issue is not as commonly debated as the others; it concerns the freedom of God.
Can God be evil? Is God the Father able to change His will, is God the Son free to sin, and could God the Holy Spirit become demonic? Is it possible for God to be tricky? If God cannot do what He has decreed to be evil, then He would not be as free as volitional creatures, and there would be no basis for praising His holiness. Paul (in Rom.9:16-21) upholds the freedom of God to love or hate as He chooses. Just as God created physical laws such as gravity, so He created moral laws such as “love everyone” and determined a plan of salvation involving the atoning death of Messiah to win our redemption from hell. Thou shalt love (Matt.22:37-40).
The cliche “might makes right” is true; it is because God is almighty that only He can determine what is right ultimately. There is no super-divine authority that determines God; God is self-determined. The only basis humans have for evaluating whether God is just is understanding how God’s acts and judgments are consistent with the moral principles He has ordained for those created in His image (Rom.3:22-26). God determined that His nature would be eternally all-loving, although it is free because God could have chosen not to anoint Jesus to atone for sins.
If God were ever to change His mind, it would mean that God is tricky and that morality is ultimately arbitrary. Thus, ultimate reality would indeed be a farce. This is why we should not take God and divine love for granted. Instead, we should be eternally grateful that God has decreed loving to be right, and He promises never to change (Mal.3:6). Let us praise God in the spirit of Psalm.66:1: “Shout with joy to God, all the earth! Sing to the glory of his name; Offer him glory and praise!”
Are you saying that God is not immutable? He can act contrary to his good, holy and righteous nature, even though, unlike us, He is Light and there is no darkness in Him?
And what about the resurrected saints in the New Order: Will they be free to choose to sin?
And when Jesus said, "If the Son shall make you free, you will be free indeed", what do you think he meant?
I believe GW teaches that He is sovereign and can do whatever He determines to do, except not be and not be God/omnipotent.
I believe GW teaches that God created humanity with MFW, which will be retained in heaven, and that God is righteous and rightly praised because He has promised never to change His good nature.
I believe Jesus meant that God is able to perfect human souls via the plan He determined before He created the Old Order:
free to sin but free from sin because of lessons learned during the earthly/mortal experience.
You didn't answer any of my three questions except in the vaguest of terms! I guess you don't like the attribute of God's Immutability very much. But since God cannot sin because his thrice holy nature is immutable, then I have to think that you believe God is a robot, correct?
Also, if saints retain "freewill" in heaven, how is it that no saint will be capable of sinning? You do realize that Christ's redemptive work entails a total restoration of this earth back to its pre-fall pristine, Edenic glory, right, and that this earth will longer be under any curse? And no curse means no sin whatsoever. And no sin means no one will ever die. So...given these facts, if you're consistent with your soteriology, then you must believe that the eternal, visible Kingdom in the New Order will be filled with robots, correct?
(emphasis and edit mine)Of course you disagree with my answers and fail to realize that Christ IS [right now] capable of sinning as were A&E pre-fall,
which means no robots.
The evidence that one has become one of Jesus' sheep is that they are now believing in Him. If someone is not presently believing in Him, it is evident that they are not presently His sheep. However, should they start to believe in Him, they will become His sheep. And if they continue to believ in Him, they will continue to be His sheep. This is what the Greek of John 10:26 means.
Makes perfect sense to me. A sheep adopts a particular shepherd when it trusts him to lead them to pasture, or back into his fold. It can wander away from its shepherd but that doesn't necessarily mean that it does this to look for another shepherd. That is, if another shepherd shows up at any time, it would not follow him, since he is not that sheep's shepherd. So, Jesus' sheep trust Him and so it would seem that belief precedes trust, rather than the other way around, considering if an other shepherd who is a stranger to them called to them it wouldn't trust to follow after him so readily, unless he is able to convince them to believe in his faithfulness to care for them. In Jesus' case, He exhibits that care as much as He declares it, whether they believe it or not, while the wolf shepherd, the hireling, only declares it in order to draw the sheep away to slaughter.
So you don't agree. Ok. Noted.The only reason why it's only God's sheep who hear the Shepherd and believe is because the Father gave HIS [chosen] sheep to the Good Shepherd in the first place (See John 6). These elect sheep stand in sharp contrast to those who never belonged to God (Mat 7:23), for Christ never knew them.
So you don't agree. Ok. Noted.
(emphasis and edit mine)
I didn't ask you whether or not God-Incarnate could sin! You don't pay attention very well, do you? But I am glad that you answered as you did because it reveals how much you hate the doctrine of God's immutability, holiness, goodness and righteousness. For even though Christ now possesses a spiritual, glorified body, you still believe that He IS still capable of sinning and will have that capability throughout all eternity. Wow! What a comforting thought to know that one day Jesus Christ could very well go rogue and rebel against his Father!
And the implications to your insipid theology is that since the saints' Federal Head IS capable of sinning and He will always have that capability forever, then the saints in the eternal New Order must equally be as capable of sinning! As the Head of the Body goes, so goes the entire Body, right? His disciples are not greater than He is, are they? Everyone in the universe is FREE TO sin at any time in any place for any reason (Do I hear a loud and hearty AMEN from all FWers!?) , including God in whom there is NO DARKNESS! And all this further implies that no one in the universe is truly free FROM sin or the world or the devil. And all this in turn implies that the human race could fall a second time! Yet, your man-made theology is a lie, for it contradicts scripture.
And the final implication to this heretical view of God and his Christ is that sin and death have not been conquered by Christ! God's power is insufficient to overcome sin and death once and for all -- because if Grace isn't greater than these two principles and they are an eternal possibility, then of what value is eternal salvation? All the saints throughout all eternity will be living under the dark, foreboding specter of Sin and Death. Christ hasn't truly conquered death for all eternity if sin (death's cause) is still a real and palpable possibility.
Quite a theology you have there...![]()
I lean toward the Received Text as more trustworthy, but it is worthwhile considering what difference the other versions of the Greek text introduce into a passage. I am completely unimpressed with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.If you have the time and will, I'd like to go through the John10:26 with you and try to hit it with many questions and observations. I'm going to be signed off quite a bit today and tomorrow and I'd like to try to be focused. Care to cooperate as we are able? It seems like an important hill of never-ending battles.
First question: Are you siding with hoti and not gar?
I'm not following you, probably because I don't believe you... See what I did there?And you don't agree with Jesus' teaching in his Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. Also duly noted.
Indeed, the first thought that initially occurred to me upon seeing that cc had been parked was the peculiarity of its coincidence with the commencement of Passover...See, folks, there is a God in heaven! He raised this CC Forum up from the dead after two days!
I believe GW teaches that He is sovereign and can do whatever He determines to do, except not be and not be God/omnipotent.
I believe GW teaches that God created humanity with MFW, which will be retained in heaven, and that God is righteous and rightly praised because He has promised never to change His good nature.
I believe Jesus meant that God is able to perfect human souls via the plan He determined before He created the Old Order:
free to sin but free from sin because of lessons learned during the earthly/mortal experience.
When you say that "God cannot determine not be God/omnipotent," do you mean that no Person in the Community we call God can become "not omnipotent " Or just that it cannot be that all members of the divine Community surrender omnipotence at one and the same time ?
I lean toward the Received Text as more trustworthy, but it is worthwhile considering what difference the other versions of the Greek text introduce into a passage. I am completely unimpressed with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
The RT goes with gar. The MGNT goes with hoti.
Gar, as I understand its present status in linguistic analysis, having researched this more, is a discourse marking particle indicating that what follows is providing further support for what immediately proceeds it: in conveys "after all" or "you see". But hoti is a subordinating conjunction that introduces a reason for what comes before or after it.
Jhn 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said to him,
"How long are you keeping us in suspense? If You be the Christ, tell us plainly."
Jhn 10:25 Jesus answered them,
"I told you, and you believed not: the works that I am doing in my Father's name, they are bearing witness of me.
Jhn 10:26 But you are not believing, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said to you.
Jhn 10:27 My sheep are listening to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. "
Received Text John 10:26-27 ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε οὐ γὰρ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν καθὼς εἶπον ὑμῖν
τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούει, κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσίν μοι
But you are not believing Me. After all/ You see, you are not my sheep, just as I said to you. My sheep are listening to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (You are not listening to My voice and following Me, so it is evident that you do not believe Me.)
i.e. You are not believing what I just told you, but called it nonsense. Why should I expect you to believe me, if I tell you something else plainly). Additional evidence that you are not believing Me is that you are not My sheep, because sheep listen to and follow their shepherd, and you are not listening to and doing what I tell you to do.
Morphological GNT 10:26-27 ἀλλὰ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε ὅτι οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν
τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούουσιν κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσίν μοι
!0:26-27 But you are not believing me, because you are not my sheep. My sheep are listening to My voice, and I know them, and they are following Me. "
On the face of it this could mean,
"The reason you are not believing Me, is that you are not My sheep. My sheep listen to Me and do what I tell them to do.
i.e. "You need to become a sheep before you can believe Me. But you are not my sheep, which is why you are not believing Me. If you had become a sheep, you would be listening to My voice and following Me."
However, it could be read as an elipsis for,
" But (I can tell) you are not believing Me, because you are not My sheep. My sheep are listening to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."
i.e. "The reason (I can tell) you are not believing Me, is that you are not My sheep. My sheep are listening to Me and doing what I tell them to do. Therefore, you are not My sheep."
This would mean,
"My sheep are listening to my voice and following me: doing what I tell them to do. (I can see that) you are not believing Me, because you are not listening to Me and doing what I tell you to do. (I can see that) you are not my sheep, because you are not behaving as My sheep behave.
Both Greek texts allow for an understanding that Jesus is presenting not listening and not following/obeying as evidence for the deduction that "You are not believing Me." But The Received Text says this more directly.