Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

[Word based mystic]

Hebrews 13:8 vs. Luke 2:52

Here is an indepth treatment by Jonathan Edwards, if you are so inclined to investigate the dichotomy.

mark 13:32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone

 

[BrianJOrr]

Too bad. There is no misplaced analogy. There is not category mix-up. The goalpost stays right where it is and you're not going to move it.

I did not move the goal post. I clarified the differences. As stated, my original use pertained to regeneration preceding faith; however, because I was the one who communicated it, it's my responsibility to ensure my readers/hearers understand it properly. That was my error.

You chose the analogy (and I know as well as you do that it was accurate enough to convey your beliefs), so I ran with it. It communicated exactly what you intended to communicate.

The problem is, you now want to backtrack because you realize your position is indefensible, lung analogy or no.

Here's where I'm puzzled, though.

Why is it, mysteriously, that only NOW do you decide you misphrased your analogy? You'll recall that I have asked you more than once, over the past few days, to address my question. And a very simple question it is. You've insisted more than once that you already had done so. Now you say the entire deal is based on a misunderstanding you hadn't previously detected that you're big enough to take the blame for.

I decided I needed to rephrase and be more detailed because you were looking at my answers through an analogy I used, which tainted those answers I gave. The analogy did not belong in that category to begin with. Again, that is what I am apologizing for. I did not lie; I sought to be accurate as possible, which is why my lung analogy needed to be refined to provide better clarity. One is allowed to rephrase something to provide better clarity; it happens all the time.

"Oops, my bad" won't work here. Your repeated insistence that you DID answer my question - which you now want to alter as fatally flawed - means you lied. You were saying you addressed it when you knew you'd never really addressed it at all. Or, best case, you don't even pay attention to what you write and were simply blowing me off. Which is still lying. Either way, you really don't look too good right now.

But because the question as is is perfectly legitimate, let us proceed...

Agreed 100%!

Thank you for your honest concession that the Calvinist doctrine regarding reprobation blasphemes the God of the Bible and reduces Him to a lying, untrustworthy hypocrite, because the lung analogy depicts exactly what the God of Calvinism does.

And you know it.

To my point, you still didn't understand. Even when I clarified, you are still holding to the old analogy that pertained to regeneration/ faith, not man's guilt for his sin and God's judgment for man's lack of desire to submit to his law.

This is exactly what Mr. Orr did to me. He called me a liar at least twice and only after I shoved him into a corner was he forced to admit that he hadn't read what I said properly.

I still hold to what I said; I made a charitable attempt, letting you know I misunderstood one comment, not the rest of your responses. Again, you still failed to properly resolve the tension in those texts (regarding the consensus with David), and you have still continued to step around my question regarding Genesis 3:15. It just shows me that your hermeneutical approach is shallow.

This is why I criticised him for doing a PhD. I just don't see how he can get much satisfaction from doing original research (which is what PhDs are for) when he can't understand plain modern day English. He sees what he wants to see and he thinks it is satisfactory to reel off his pat answers and analogies as if that was a job done. If he gets his PhD like this, I am sure it will only be because it is at a seminary where the professors overseeing him already agree with his conclusions and not for any merit of his own.


I realise this is a severe and potentially very hurtful criticism for him. But he has to man up now or else live the rest of his life in denial. I say, by all means disagree with us, but please give us the respect we deserve.
But so far, at least he has acknowledged he was mistaken, perhaps now he just needs to unlearn the habit.

In the meantime, yes, TULIP is in shreds.

The criticism is shallow. I answered the question,as put forth, and then I attempted to answer the question as it should have been asked.

Furthermore, the doctrines of Reformed theology have stood the test of time because they portray the Scriptures clearly and consistently. It is the shallow movements like that of OV that are like chaff that will soon blow away (remember the socinians?). So, your comments about TULIP make you sound quite arrogant, considering the lack of developed scholarship and a complete and consistent interpretation of the Bible from an OT view that has made a proper refutation of Reformed theology as a unified understanding of Scripture.

So, until that occurs, regardless of your insistence that you have defeated it, I recommend you be mindful of your boasting. Unless you are planning to publish such an 'original' work allowing those who have succumbed to a man-made theology actually poke and prod, criticizing and scrutinizing your original work. Are you? If it is so original and consistent, then by all means is should be worthy of a PhD. Or, do you not want others to be persuaded by your views, as you have already mentioned? Are you going to take the humble road now?

 

[Lon]

mark 13:32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone

"Didn't." Does He know? We don't know what restrictions there were for Christ, in the flesh, but should be careful about speculation.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Christ while in this universe has limited his omniscience. Thus allowing Him to maintain His fatherly love to all created souls.

Knowledge without power is weak. Power without knowledge is dangerous. Omniscience and omnipotent cannot be redefined to suit creaturely whimsical notions of love.

God's love is the setting of His preferences upon another. That has nothing to do with limiting His very nature.

AMR

 

[BrianJOrr]

This is the question I have agreed to answer from an open theist perspective.

I have to say it is a pleasure to get the chance to answer this question. But when I have answered it, Mr Orr has agreed to answer the converse question from a Calvinist or reformed perspective.

So let me begin by summarising the open theist position. Well, it is my position, not necessarily that of other open theists. Although I am reasonably confident that it is their perspective as well.

1. Going to hell does not mean everlasting pain and anguish. Whilst the fires of hell may never go out, each person that goes there is destroyed soon after getting there. That is what fire is for. That is the second death.

Shall I ask you support this using Scripture? But you can’t Scripture proof-text, right? Your belief here takes you right out of orthodoxy, which OTs' have stressed that they are in orthodoxy, only differing on the extent of God’s omniscience.

2. God is not responsible for the choices of individuals in an open world.
3. God is completely just and judges according the heart, not according to the outward appearance. The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity. The Bible says nothing about this subject.

Because you say the Bible says nothing on this, you feel that you are at liberty to make a sweeping statement as such? However, either you did not want to answer it or thought you could just bi-pass it, thinking it would go unnoticed, wouldn’t you say then that it would be better for me to not share the gospel with someone who never heard it?

Afterall, because I want this man to go to heaven, if I share the gospel with him, he might reject it and then be damned to hell. I don’t want to have his blood on my hands.

So, if a dying man is in my arms and he has a few minutes before he dies, and has never heard the gospel, it is better for me not share it at all. If I do this, I can guarantee his salvation.

These three points combined represent probably most of what is significant about open theists' views on judgement and sin.
Some details:
Your question asks:

I emphasised the relevant text. Sin can only be committed with knowledge and intent. The (reformed) doctrine of original sin (of course this doctrine did not originate in the reformation but in my view it was the reformation that promoted it in its most crystal clear form)... By the way, I am defining sin in the present context as the deliberate and willing commission of a wicked act. In this context I am not defining it as merely the breaking of some law, though, hopefully, you would expect that law generally would be consistent with goodness. Paul is obviously concerned to make this very point when he says that human beings from Adam to Moses still sinned even though the law was not given. (Rom. 5) Sin is punishable by definition... Therefore the doctrine of the original sin and culpability of every individual from birth is self-contradictory. This fits in with my schema I gave recently for deciding if some or other theology was correct. The doctrine fails the first test of coherence. Therefore we do not go any further with it. We do not attempt to justify it by other methods such as proof texting from the Bible. All the many texts which its supporters adduce from Scripture cannot overcome its inherent incoherence.

To get round this problem, reformed theology emphasises man's tendency to sin as being the grounds for God's judgement rather than the actual commission of sin. One might call it moving the goalposts. Moving the goalposts doesn't actually resolve anything. In fact it makes it even harder to justify. Taking this view, one would conclude that both babies and the heathen are worthy of judgement from the time of birth (or conception, though that is not an issue here). To justify this view, the reformed need to resort to a new concept that is not in the Bible. There is no such thing as the fall of man in the Bible. The only time the phrase itself occurs is in the paragraph heading in Genesis ch. 3 in some Bible translations. And that is of course just an editor's comment. Of course, reformed adherents will counter that the mere absence of a particular phrase doesn't prove that the concept itself is absent. But clearly, man after the eviction from Eden is the same man as before. And when God regretted that he had made man, remember that he did not regret that man had fallen. He regretted that he had made man at all. Man with the potential to sin is how man was made, not how man became. If it were true that all men were born sinners and born culpable and worthy of the judgement of hell, then yes, God would be unjust. Happily that is not the case. There is no need here to refute all the many proof texts which Calvinists use to support this doctrine. I certainly can. But as I have said before, it is tedious. The doctrine is incoherent and needs to overcome this hurdle before we talk about scripture..

I just find your qualifier that we can't use texts to prove a theology horribly guilty of special pleading, for you attempt to use texts to prove your interpretation, yet dismiss Calvinists for using Scripture to prove their position. If one cannot use Scripture, what else can one use? The Reformed position doesn't proof-text as you say it does; rather, it uses the texts biblically and in context. The rest of your response here shows how inconsistent your view is, as you will see.

Paul says that “God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (Romans 11:32) Is this a proof-text that doesn’t meet your standards of demonstrating support for a doctrine of Scripture?

Do you believe we all came from Adam? Genesis 6:5 & 8:21 – “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually... from youth.” Or did this change after the flood?

At any rate, this is the open theist position. We deny that man is by nature sinful and/or that the tendency to sin is culpable in itself. Only the actual of commission of sin is culpable. Men will be judged according to their deeds, not according to how they were made.


So when God judges those who have not heard the Gospel, his judgement is against all those who commit wickedness. There is no disputing this. We are all agreed on it. All those who have committed sin will be punished according to their deeds.

But you said this,

The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity. The Bible says nothing about this subject. It is possible that a wicked person would have repented if he had heard the Gospel but there again life is full of what ifs and what could have beens. That is the open view position. The course of history is what it is. You cannot change the past.

Now you are just making conjecture since the Bible, as you remark, says nothing about this subject. The looming question then is the wicked person, he who has committed sin, better off not hearing the gospel, since you assume they are safe with unborn babies?

Or are you going to accuse me of twisting your words?

Psalm 37 for example confidently proclaims that God will justify the righteous and punish the wicked. This is why it is necessary to proclaim the Gospel. Because the future is open. The future is worth making better. The Calvinist gospel can be summarised by "You may have been lucky enough to be one of the elect, so repent and if you are one of the lucky ones then you will believe and get saved."

Again, why is it necessary to proclaim the gospel if those who never hear it are safe with unborn babies?

Paul gives a little pointer to the career of those who have not heard the Gospel when he proclaims

Notice how Paul, when preaching to the unchurched, to rank heathens, does not begin with the 'four spiritual laws'. He does not tell them that they are all sinners condemned to hell. Surely he would have done this if the doctrine of original sin was correct? Instead he speaks of the possibility of these men groping for God and finding him and he speaks of God overlooking the times of ignorance. This is perhaps just an inkling into Paul's concept of the heathen and perhaps on its own it is not sufficient to justify a specific doctrine of salvation without explicit belief in Christ but whatever it is, is certainly anything but the Gospel according to Calvin.

You said the Bible doesn’t speak on this matter? Or does it? How about giving us the Bible verses you are quoting from Paul. Why did you say Paul was talking to “rank heathens” without knowing if they have actually committed sin? Or, do you call them heathens because you believe that they are sinners according to their nature? By their nature they must commit sin, right?

Are you implying that the unchurched did not know any better, and it is really not their fault for their disobedience? However, didn't Paul say in Romans 1:18-25 that they are all without excuse and under judgment? Or maybe the proper context is that God exclusively addressed Israel, leaving the pagan nations to their own devices, but is now making it known that they are under judgment and need to repent of it?

However, according to what you said, Paul really should not say anything at all because they were really in a state of grace because they had never heard it, right?

I see nothing but inconsistencies in your theology.

Your position is untenable and lacking scriptural support.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jesus grew in knowledge.

Jesus the man, grew in knowledge. Jesus, God, did not.

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

The mystical union of the divine and the human natures of our Lord is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

Is it a failing to not know what has not happened?

God's timelessness disagrees with notions that He is bound in our temporal existence.

Rubbish. There is nothing that could turn God away from His commitment to righteousness.

The rubbish here is the odd notion that righteousness exists independently of all other attributes of God, as in His omniscience and omnipotence or omnipresence. All God's attributes inhere one another. God is a simple being, not a collection of parts that can be decomposed.

AMR

 

[Word based mystic]

Knowledge without power is weak. Power without knowledge is dangerous. Omniscience and omnipotent cannot be redefined to suit creaturely whimsical notions of love.

God's love is the setting of His preferences upon another. That has nothing to do with limiting His very nature.

AMR

phillipians 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

john 5:19Truly, truly, I say to you, the (Son can do nothing of Himself), unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

john 5:20 For the Father loves the Son, and (((shows Him))) all things that He Himself is doing;

mark 13:32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone

 

[Word based mystic]

Knowledge without power is weak. Power without knowledge is dangerous. Omniscience and omnipotent cannot be redefined to suit creaturely whimsical notions of love.

God's love is the setting of His preferences upon another. That has nothing to do with limiting His very nature.

AMR

Christ while in this universe has limited his omniscience. Thus allowing Him to maintain His fatherly love to all created souls.

It also allows for the interaction with man on an (if, then) basis.
some being rewarded for being faithful in few things and others being rewarded for being faithful for a lot of the things given to men to steward.

The Father who is Spirit has omniscience
The Son does not.

the parameters are set for the day of judgment.
No agents in the universe can go beyond the parameters of judgement.
nor is there any agents in the universe that God does not ultimate authority and power over.

This also allows Christ the Son to be relationally interactive with men. both individually and corporately
So much is relational in man and the Sons interaction

Not puppet and robot programmed

but true give and take in love and passion and obedience.
obedience is irrelevant if the robot is programmed to be so.
even more so with love and passion.

reward or rewards as a good and faithful servant implies choice.

I as a father in the past have put the circumstances in play to see if my children at that age were responsible for increased freedom i.e. driving.
thus it is with much of what The Son does with his children.

How could God ever receive and be pleased with worship from robots that He has programmed

 

[Stripe]

Jesus the man, grew in knowledge. Jesus, God, did not.

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

Those two statements directly contradict each other. Jesus the man and Jesus, God is the same person.

God grew in wisdom.

 

[intojoy]

Christ while in this universe has limited his omniscience. Thus allowing Him to maintain His fatherly love to all created souls.



It also allows for the interaction with man on an (if, then) basis.

some being rewarded for being faithful in few things and others being rewarded for being faithful for a lot of the things given to men to steward.



The Father who is Spirit has omniscience

The Son does not.



the parameters are set for the day of judgment.

No agents in the universe can go beyond the parameters of judgement.

nor is there any agents in the universe that God does not ultimate authority and power over.



This also allows Christ the Son to be relationally interactive with men. both individually and corporately

So much is relational in man and the Sons interaction



Not puppet and robot programmed



but true give and take in love and passion and obedience.

obedience is irrelevant if the robot is programmed to be so.

even more so with love and passion.



reward or rewards as a good and faithful servant implies choice.



I as a father in the past have put the circumstances in play to see if my children at that age were responsible for increased freedom i.e. driving.

thus it is with much of what The Son does with his children.



How could God ever receive and be pleased with worship from robots that He has programmed

Universe - wrong choice of word.

In his humanity

He is now glorified

 

[Word based mystic]

Universe - wrong choice of word.

In his humanity

He is now glorified

yup wrong context.

i definitely agree with during his time on earth as the son of david.

however I was also thinking during the firstborn of all creation He limited his foreknowledge of whether they will go to hell or not and the like, While creating His children.
Thus allowing for Him to maintain a Fathers love for all of His creation from the beginning of creation.

thus not creating a child knowing they will go to hell.

This also maintains free will, and logic with a loving father as He creates
(desiring) all would come to Him.

The Father who is not body but Spirit only knows all because the Father is not subject to time and space

But the Son/first born of all creation/the Word whom created all things on purpose limits his foreknowledge so that Love and relationship and receiving and giving love with his children is possible in the parameters of free will.

 

[BrianJOrr]

In an earlier post, I claimed that I was able to refute any and all proof texts posed by Calvinists. The reason I gave was that if the theology is itself incoherent, then no amount of proof texting would make it coherent again.

I'd just like to give an example of this to demonstrate how many of these so-called proof texts are no more than disguised versions of the logical fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question.

One scripture that comes to mind is John 3:3. Calvinists interpret this and many similar scriptures to mean that spiritual rebirth is solely an act of God. However, this does indeed beg the question because if you already believe that God alone brings about new birth, then this scripture would indeed support that view.

However, other views are possible. Indeed the passage could equally and very plausibly also mean that one's motivations have been thoroughly redirected to focus on God and his ways rather than your own selfish ways. That is as much an act of will as it is of God revealing to you the glory of his own ways.

The following passage provides support for this view:

Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

(1 Pet. 1:22-23)

Here, the phrase 'born again' is used in the context of actively purifying your own souls. Again Paul in Rom. 12:1, exhorts us to



So 'born again' as a metaphor implies a complete renewal of your motivations.

This is just one example. As I said, there is no point in proof texting your theology if it is already incoherent.

So, this is your example to ‘shut’ down’ Calvinistic proof-texting? Calvinists believe there is a renewal of the mind through the work of the Holy Spirit. God’s Word is used by the Holy Spirit as an instrument to bring sinners to a knowledge of God’s grace in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:12; James 1:18). Your points don’t discredit our use of John 3:3-8. For one can only truly demonstrate a brotherly love through the Spirit, and one has to be born again, to be adopted into the family of God. The Spirit is a necessity if one is to walk according to the Spirit. One cannot have a renewal of motivations if he is not born-again (Romans 8). Obedience to God’s Word does purify our souls; when one is born-again, his life of sanctification in Christ, through the washing of the Word and our obedience and love toward God and others, demonstrates that we are born of God. Genuine and enduring love toward others (v.22) is possible only because of the love God has first shown us in giving us the new birth in Christ (John 13:35; 1 John 4:7-11).

So, one example (John 3:3-8) shows us how one can see the Kingdom, and the other (1 Peter 1:22-23) shows us what one can now do and needs to be doing in the Kingdom.

Your example fails

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Those two statements directly contradict each other. Jesus the man and Jesus, God is the same person.

God grew in wisdom.

As I noted here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4275221#post4275221

"Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused."

"Jesus the man, grew in knowledge. Jesus, God, did not."​

You need to pay attention to my "cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused" as your claim of contradiction in my statement rests in your attempt to mix the human and divine natures thereby confusing them. This leads to all manner of error and nonsensical, even heretical, interpretations of Scripture.

AMR

 

[Nang]

Your example fails

Indeed!

Not only do DR's numerous, prideful, and faulty examples fail, but his willful exposure, of his own personal and gross human conceit . . . thinking he can or has disproved the absolute Truths of the saving grace of God, as revealed in the Scriptures as the "Doctrines of Grace . . . will prove to be the basis for his his ultimate and final judgement by God.

 

[intojoy]

yup wrong context.



i definitely agree with during his time on earth as the son of david.



however I was also thinking during the firstborn of all creation He limited his foreknowledge of whether they will go to hell or not and the like, While creating His children.

Thus allowing for Him to maintain a Fathers love for all of His creation from the beginning of creation.



thus not creating a child knowing they will go to hell.



This also maintains free will, and logic with a loving father as He creates

(desiring) all would come to Him.



The Father who is not body but Spirit only knows all because the Father is not subject to time and space



But the Son/first born of all creation/the Word whom created all things on purpose limits his foreknowledge so that Love and relationship and receiving and giving love with his children is possible in the parameters of free will.

As of second paragraph you violate the command:
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (*1 Corinthians‬ *4‬:*6‬ ESV)

 

[Word based mystic]

It stays within the main themes of scriptures
relating to Gods Fatherly love
to desiring that all men would come.
to understanding that the Son/the word/creator gave a test to adam.
to all the other scriptures that show free will and choices being given to man.
it goes to the crux of the issue of whether Christ made us as robots or as potential passionate lovers and worshipers of God.

 

[Nang]

It stays within the main themes of scriptures
relating to Gods Fatherly love
to desiring that all men would come.
to understanding that the Son/the word/creator gave a test to adam.
to all the other scriptures that show free will and choices being given to man.
it goes to the crux of the issue of whether Christ made us as robots or as potential passionate lovers and worshipers of God.

Adam was not created a "robot," but a moral agent reflective of the image of his Creator. Adam was created with a will that would cause and effect, just as the sovereign will of God causes and effects all things, but this gift was given under commands to subject that moral causal power to the will and commands (Law) of God.

Adam abused his causal responsibilities and brought sin and death into the world, by not submitting to God's holy standards (Law). Romans 5:12

IWO's, Adam did not passionately exhibit love for God, or protection of his wife, not any desire to obey God . . . but rather only revealed selfish and irrational desire, to be like God.

Adam did not fail a "test" but exhibited the limited nature of a created being who cannot ever hope to be God or equal with his Creator.

Thus, in the exhibition of Adam failing to keep Covenant with God, we learn the necessity of God providing a Mediator between Creator and creature . . . in the provided Seed of woman, Jesus Christ, the God/Man who alone truly loved, obeyed, and protected those God gave Him to redeem, who alone proved by His righteousness, He alone could fulfill the Divine and Holy moral standars, and conquer and remedy the ramifications of Satanic deceit and powers in the garden. Genesis 3:15

All this talk and fuss about "humanistic libertarian free will" is simply a distracting continuation of the original lie proposed to Adam in the beginning.

Seems that reasonable believers should be way past falling for that lie, by now . . . :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

Your attempt to mix the human and divine natures.

Nope. Jesus is God. He grew in wisdom.

No "mixing" going on.

 

[intojoy]

It stays within the main themes of scriptures
relating to Gods Fatherly love
to desiring that all men would come.
to understanding that the Son/the word/creator gave a test to adam.
to all the other scriptures that show free will and choices being given to man.
it goes to the crux of the issue of whether Christ made us as robots or as potential passionate lovers and worshipers of God.

Bs

 

[Word based mystic]

Bs

that's why i asked earlier for your review. i am here on TOL to learn and adjust any views that are problematic. One liner B.S. doesn't help.

I would appreciate your scriptural thoughts on how the Fathers love is maintained in foreknowledge of his creating his children while knowing they will go to hell. With no opportunity to repent, believe and receive eternal life.

the scriptures show in certain areas the Word/Christ has limited His foreknowledge of certain things.

If Christ/firstborn of all creation knows the end of all his children He is creating and knows all they will do as He creates them then why would there be anger or hate of the wicked.

for He programmed them and made them to be that way and act that way in everything they do i.e. puppets and robots pre-programmed.

in psalms 11:5 He is described as testing men.
The LORD ((tests)) the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence ((His soul hates)). 6 Upon the wicked He will rain snares; Fire and brimstone

IF The Word as He is creating a soul knows what he (his created child) will do and created them to do so why would He be angry at the soul for doing what the soul was created to do.

no one liners please.
looking for real scriptural thoughtful answers.