Thank you, Rev. Winzer. Personally I'm more comfortable with affirming God's freedom and speaking in terms of what He has decreed than of what He 'had to' or 'might have' decreed.

I did have a further question though. You explained that 'there is a difference between saying God must be true and then saying He must act in this or that way in order to be true' and referred that back to His justice: we can say that God is just, as I understand it, but we cannot say that He 'has' to act this or that way in order to be just. Yet 'truth' in the sense of not being able to lie does necessarily mean (or there doesn't seem to be much content) some kind of action. I can say that God must not say something which is false or opposite of what He said previously because He can't lie. I don't know if I'm expressing this very well.... I was wondering where you would place the distinction between His truthfulness and His action in the sense that we can say He is truthful and this means He 'must not' lie?

[Also, do not many of the words we use to describe God in the catechism have no meaning apart from actions He must or must not do? Such His being immortal? Do we have very much approach to describing His Being apart from necessary action? Am I confusing two kinds of action?]

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.