gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:

>> > God is saying, "WHAT MORE COULD I DO?"
>> > Now according to your theology, God could do everything!
>>
>> And according to yours, He can't do everything?
>
> That's correct. God cannot create another God. God
> cannot lie. God cannot change. There are three things right there
> that God cannot do.

I made this clear, that we aren't talking of logical impossibilities
here, but things which are clearly possible. I can save a kid,
against his will, from walking into the street, but your God
_can't_ could save someone from Hell against their
free will. This is an entirely different category of thing
from "God changing", (which screws with the definition of
"God" in the same sentence in which He is mentioned.)


>> Here you limit His power,
>> and not in the illogical way by saying He can't make
>> a rock so big He can't pick it up, or by some problem
>> with definitions as in the "Can God lie" subthreads,
>> BUT you limit Him from doing something which is completely,
>> physically, spiritually, possible.
>
> God is the one who made the retorical statement
> "What more could I do?" The understood answer
> being, nothiing.

And it's a sentence about God, not about men. So
how can you infer a trait (free will) of men from
a statement about God?



>> > The wills of the grapes or vines are inconsequential.
>>
>> Not inconsequential, but _not free_. Haven't you listened
>> to a word I've said? Are you so caught up in your demonic
>> tirade against the Calvinists that you're not even willing
>> to listen while the other side is speaking? Both Bob and
>> I say that man has will. The issue is whether that will
>> is _free_.
>
> What can man will in your understanding?

Lots of things. He's born willing to follow Satan and
his own stomach and crotch. Baptism and the preaching
of the Gospel create faith in him and convert him so
that he then wills to love God. Duh.


>> You can change that into saying that we say "will is
>> inconsequential", but then you'd be lying and slandering.
>
> Is the will inconsequential as far as salvation is concerned?

Who knows what "inconsequential" means here. Can man
merit some tiny portion of salvation by dint of what his
will is? No.


>> You refuse to address my objection here that just because
>> they "free choose" to be in Hell doesn't let your sort of
>> God off the hook for causing it, since He made them all
>> with full knowledge of their future. If He is "not pleased"
>> with that future, He could have created the people otherwise.
>
> Really? Who says? Now you are telling us what God can do?