Replies

God is God. I don’t think that applying a human term such as “personality” would be of any use whatsoever. Jesus, on the other hand, was human and His personality does come through in Scripture.

I am using "personality" to show that God is "of or relating to a person". That person is identifiable and knowable to a certain extent. That person is also rational. This is all to distinguish from the "impersonal" God that has been proffered to me. That God is unknowable and irrational. He could do anything at any time for no reason whatsoever and apparently followers of that faith would not even notice, much more change their beliefs. To me, that relationship with God is the same relationship I now have with "the government". Totally impersonal and irrational. On a purely personal basis, is your relationship with God like it is with "the government"? (And going through other men is what we do with the government :)

***Matt 16:15-17 : 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

FK: Nothing about free will here, or having something “proved” to him.***

[Re: Matt 16:15-17] Revealing something to someone with free will means that they have the ability to react to it. Revelation has nothing whatsoever to do with free will or robotic frogmarching. It is simply that one knows something that one didn’t know before.

What are you saying? Is it that God revealed the truth to Peter, and then Peter used his free will to verbalize it???!!! Therefore we should focus here on Peter's ability to recognize it???!!! I'm lost. My answer was in response to you saying:

How many people saw Christ in the flesh, saw miracles, heard Him teach and still didn’t believe? Just more evidence for the free will of men.

I refuted that with showing that free will did not concern coming to believe. While you didn't address that, you appear to agree with me by shifting the subject to something new. However, in your last sentence that "something" that one now knows through revelation would be the truth of Christ. So, I would agree (I think) with you that this knowing has nothing to do with free will.

***I am using "personality" to show that God is "of or relating to a person". That person is identifiable and knowable to a certain extent. That person is also rational.*** Anthropomorphizing, aren't we? Answers.com says that: Dictionary: personality (pûr'sə-năl'ĭ-tē) n., pl. -ties. The quality or condition of being a person. The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person. The pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person: Though their personalities differed, they got along as friends. Distinctive qualities of a person, especially those distinguishing personal characteristics that make one socially appealing: won the election more on personality than on capability. God isn't a person; Jesus was and had His own human personality. The Holy Spirit sure isn't a person. ***What are you saying? Is it that God revealed the truth to Peter, and then Peter used his free will to verbalize it?*** No, I'm saying that Peter had the truth revealed and then chose to act upon it. Belief without action doesn't mean much. He didn't choose to not act, and he didn't choose to forget it or dismiss it. ***So, I would agree (I think) with you that this knowing has nothing to do with free will.*** Belief is something that we do; like love or hate. ***I refuted that with showing that free will did not concern coming to believe.*** Without the Grace of God, noone will believe. With the Grace of God, we CAN believe.