Random Questions; Bible-based answers
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Because I have never heard anyone state the answer to this question and very few seem to recognize that the root cause of society's cancer are the Marxist professors who are corrupting the next generation with atheism, as someone who is concerned about this issue I will go ahead and share the obvious logical solution: fire those demons and prosecute them for treason!
I realize that firing and prosecuting treasonous professors will not be easy because our society is so far gone the way of Marxism,
but it begins by voting for MAGA candidates in the midterm elections. Don't equate Trump's foibles with the evils of communism!
Stop finding moral equivalence between Trump's exaggerations and the Satanic lies of those with TDS!
Your claim that “God can be evil” is impossible because God is light and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5), God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13), God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13), and His nature is holy, holy, holy (Isa 6:3); you appeal to Romans 9 as if God’s sovereign freedom means moral mutability, but Paul is speaking of God’s freedom in mercy and hardening, not the ability to become wicked, and Scripture grounds righteousness in God’s unchanging character, not arbitrary choice (Deut 32:4; Ps 119:68); your statement that God “could have chosen to anoint Satan instead of Jesus” is blasphemous because Christ is God (John 1:1; Col 2:9), and God cannot choose to make Himself evil; your argument that “might makes right” contradicts the fact that God’s holiness is essential, not optional, and His immutability means He cannot change His mind (Mal 3:6; James 1:17); the Father cannot become unjust, the Son cannot sin (Heb 7:26; 1 Pet 2:22), and the Spirit cannot become demonic because He is the Spirit of truth (John 14:17) and the eternal Spirit (Heb 9:14); your system is philosophical voluntarism, but Scripture’s system is divine immutability, sinlessness, and essential holiness, and no verse in the Bible supports your claim that God could ever be evil, change His will, or sin. I have said it before, you are probably one of the smartest people I have had the pleasure of sparring with, but that makes you the most dangerous with assertions like this.Yes.
If God cannot do what He has decreed to be evil, then He would not be as free as volitional humans created in His image, 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 (Himself) to win our redemption from hell. Thou shalt love (Matt. 22:37-40).
The cliché “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’s decision to be all-loving is rational, because God is pleased by doing good for creatures, and it is free because God could have chosen to anoint Satan to embody evil logic/lies rather than Jesus to manifest love and truth (John 1:14, Phil. 2:9-11), and this earthly existence would be hell (Rev. 19:11-13, 20:7-10 & 21:6-8).
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 (although we are unable to imagine an alternative moral reality in detail, cf. Kant). 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 Psa. 66:1: “Shout with joy to God, all the earth! Sing to the glory of his name; Offer him glory and praise!”
I appreciate you taking this issue seriously, going where few have dared to go (in fact, I have never discussed it with anyone), but your reply does not quite address the premise/logic prompting my question: If God cannot do something, why is not doing it praiseworthy?
Here are some parts of the issue:
1. If cannot is/means will not, then God's will to love and change not is indeed worthy of praise.
2. Was God free to not say, "Let there be light?" Who/What forced God to create light?
3. Jesus is God, but He was tempted by evil per Heb. 4:15.
4. God is omnipotent, so 2Tim. 2:13 can mean God cannot not be God/Almighty.
5. Rom. 9:16-21 may indeed mean that God has MFW, which is why humans in His image also have MFW.
6. Without MFW God would be a mere machine, forced to act in a loving manner.
7. Thus, Scripture implicitly grounds God's righteousness in His unchanging choice to be good.
8. This assertion is "dangerous" only for those who doubt God's promise never to choose to do/be evil.
Your premise is flawed because Scripture never treats God’s “cannot” as a lack of freedom but as the perfection of His nature, so your entire argument collapses at the foundation.
God’s “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2),
“cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim 2:13), and
“cannot be tempted with evil” (James 1:13)
are not mechanical constraints but revelations of what God is—“God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5).
That means your question, “If God cannot do something, why is not doing it praiseworthy?” is built on a category mistake:
God is not praised for choosing not to do evil; He is praised because evil is contrary to His nature, and righteousness flows from who He is, not from a decision He could reverse.
Your points about Jesus being tempted, God creating light, Romans 9, and MFW all assume holiness is a voluntary posture rather than an essential attribute, but Scripture never grounds God’s righteousness in His “unchanging choice to be good”—it grounds it in His unchanging nature (Deut 32:4; Ps 119:68; James 1:17).
So the danger isn’t doubting God’s promise; the danger is redefining God’s holiness as a mutable preference instead of an eternal attribute. By the way, I think I’ve mentioned before that it’s not you personally I disagree with, but the system you’re trying to place above scripture. You and I, despite our arguments, are both seeking the truth, and all the rhetoric we throw at each other is just that. I respect you as a person and the effort you put into this, but I have to disagree because my stance comes from scripture alone.
Well, anyone who views "cannot" as freedom is nutso!
They have reversed the very logic of the Logos.
They are akin to those who call evil good.
I also respect your opinions--usually (except tulip),
but so far you deny Heb. 4:15 and STILL refuse to explain why a divine machine would be worthy of praise.
Similarly, robots are not worthy of hell.
Scripture "alone" does not explicitly consider this issue of why God's nature does not change,
but it logically implies divine MFW every time it deems God's goodness to be worthy of glory or praise.
So, please reply again without looping. Thanks.
I'm confused, Are you saying God is a Divine Machine?
“Scripture alone doesn’t explicitly say why God’s nature doesn’t change… but it logically implies divine MFW every time God gets praised,” which is basically the theological equivalent of Deadpool saying, “The comic never explicitly says I can’t regrow my head, but it logically implies it every time I get blown up.” Cute.
But here’s the problem: Scripture explicitly grounds God’s praiseworthiness in His unchanging nature, not in some cosmic coin‑flip where He heroically chooses not to become evil today.
“I the LORD do not change” (Mal 3:6),
“God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5),
“He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim 2:13),
“God cannot be tempted with evil” (James 1:13).
That’s not “divine MFW,” that’s divine immutability.
You’re trying to turn God into a morally free‑range chicken who gets praise because He could have gone full supervillain but bravely didn’t.
Scripture says He’s worthy of glory because His nature is perfect, unchanging, and incapable of evil.
So no, the Bible doesn’t “logically imply divine MFW”—it logically implies that your system needs God to be morally mutable so He can be “worthy of praise,”
The only verse you cited that explicitly denies God's MFW is Jam. 1:13, which does not jibe with Heb. 4:15,
but if it and your illogic is true, then there is no reason to praise God for being good, because He has no other choice.
Perhaps you are reluctant to admit this truth because you doubt God's promise per Mal, 3:6 never to change His will/mind?
That would be consistent with tulipism, because a Machine that denies some folks the opportunity to be saved
might lie as well as be unfair and unloving.
Your argument assumes that God must possess moral free will in order for His goodness to be praiseworthy, but Scripture never grounds praise in God’s capacity to choose evil; it grounds praise in His unchanging nature, which is why James 1:13 (“God cannot be tempted with evil”) does not conflict with Hebrews 4:15, because Hebrews speaks of Christ’s human nature being tempted, while James speaks of God’s divine nature being incapable of evil, and the incarnation unites both without collapsing them.
Malachi is not talking about God’s will being free to choose evil or good but about God’s unchanging nature, the very thing Scripture repeatedly says cannot shift, mutate, or reverse.
Your reply merely repeated what you already said aka looping,
so I will repeat my points for you to address with something that actually attempts to refute them specifically.
(I remind you to quote me, not to paraphrase with your imports.)
1. Christ should not be viewed as schizo or having two divorced natures when harmonizing Jam. 1:13 and Heb. 4:15.
2. What reason is there to praise God for being good if He is mechanical and must do whatever?
3. The only reason to be reluctant to admit God has MFW is if one doubts God's promise per Mal, 3:6 never to change His will/mind.
4. Viewing God as a liar is consistent with viewing God as unloving and unfair toward folks He denies the opportunity to be saved.
You are accusing me of looping yet that's exactly what you have been doing. So harmonizing James 1:13 and Hebrews 4:15 does not require “schizo” Christology;
Scripture itself distinguishes divine nature (incapable of evil, Jas 1:13) from human nature (capable of being externally tested, Heb 4:15) while insisting they are united in one Person (John 1:14), so recognizing two natures is not “divorcing” them but obeying the Incarnation
You praise God because His goodness is unchanging, not because He might have chosen evil, since Scripture says His goodness is praiseworthy precisely because it is steadfast, eternal, and incapable of failing—“Give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; His steadfast love endures forever” (Ps 136:1)—which means God is not “mechanical,” He is perfect, and perfection is more worthy of praise than volatility
Malachi 3:6 does not say “God never changes His will/mind,” but “I the LORD do not change,” meaning the verse is about God’s unchanging nature, not about God possessing a libertarian moral free will, so reluctance to grant God MFW is not doubting Malachi — it is believing Malachi’s claim that God’s nature cannot shift, mutate, or reverse
Calling God a liar or unloving because He judges sinners is impossible to reconcile with Scripture, because God explicitly says He cannot lie (Titus 1:2), cannot deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13), and is good to all (Ps 145:9), and Scripture places the blame for lostness on human refusal of light (John 3:19–20), not on God “denying opportunity,” so the claim that divine judgment implies divine dishonesty or lovelessness is a direct contradiction of the very texts that define God’s character.
These are biblical answers. What more are you looking for? Stop talking in shadow sentences, just say it plainly.
I view the incarnate God as Jesus with no split personality.
It is obvious to me that praise for being good is not given to robots or machines, even a "divine" one.
It is also obvious per Genesis 2-3 that humans created in God's image are not robots or machines but rather have MFW.
What has become rather obvious to me as a result of discussions with tulipists on CC is that they seem brain-washed,
unwilling to believe that God loves everyone and favors no one, and their heresy is the true danger.
I doubt it is wrong to accuse God of being absolutely free, and I think divine volition is indicated by Jesus in John 8:32
as well as omnilove and justness in 1Tim. 2:3-4 and 2Thes. 1:6 (cf. 2Thes. 2:10), so I doubt those beliefs will be burned up
either (1Cor. 3:13-15).
Your claim fails because Scripture says God cannot be tempted with evil (Jas 1:13), so His goodness is essential, not the result of moral free will, and Jesus’ human temptability (Heb 4:15) alongside divine non‑temptability is the hypostatic union, not a “split personality,” meaning your robot analogy and MFW argument contradict the biblical nature of God
It’s not that tulipists are “brain‑washed,” but that **their system forces them to reinterpret clear texts about God’s universal love (John 3:16; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9) and impartiality (Rom 2:11), so the danger isn’t their minds but the tradition that blinds them to what Scripture plainly says.
Your doubt collapses because “absolutely free” is not a biblical category for God’s moral nature—Scripture says God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), cannot deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13), and cannot be tempted with evil (Jas 1:13), meaning His goodness is essential, not volitional, and none of the texts you cite (John 8:32; 1 Tim 2:3–4; 2 Thess 1:6–10) teach divine moral free will, so the belief that God must possess MFW will be burned up because it contradicts the very nature of God revealed in Scripture.
My claim is that God chooses not to do or be tempted by evil will fail only if God changes His mind and repents of being good, loving, and just--and I have confident faith that He will never do that.
"Hypostatic union" may appeal to you, but I prefer "God incarnate".
Although folks can be brain-washed (witness the Dems in the USA today), I doubt that means they lack sufficient MFW to avoid being accountable (Rom. 6:16), although perhaps 1Cor. 3:13-15 indicates unintentional heresy/blasphemy is a venial sin, forgiven when they confess known sins (1John 1:8-9). (I never made these connections before, so write them down, quick :^)
I note that you omitted Scripture indicating divine MFW, including John 8:32, Gen. 2-3, Rom. 9:18-22, and every verse claiming that God is worthy of praise for being good/loving.
Calling me a “tulipist” doesn’t magically turn none of your verses teaching divine moral free will into “actually they do,” and pretending we’re at an impasse is just you rage‑quitting the boss fight after realizing Scripture grounds God’s goodness in His unchanging nature, not in some cosmic coin‑flip ability to choose evil; but hey, if you want to holster your hermeneutical Nerf gun and ride off into the sunset, happy trails to you too, and may your next theological duel involve fewer category errors and more actual Scripture.
No, I merely discerned from you saying "Until you come to grips with that what else can be said?" that we are at the same impasse I have had with every/many tulipists on CC before you, so if you also will not see/admit that the tulip interpretation of Scripture makes God favoring the elect and hateful toward the non-elect--as any eight-year-old child would perceive if their parents treated them that way-- then I am at a loss for words! (I think only one tulipist admitted that his view does that, but he still was unwilling to amend his view!)
So, unless you have a suggestion for an argument I could use that would be more persuasive/enlightening,
what else can be said indeed?