God learns

[iouae]

This is the FATE V's FREE WILL argument and the answer lies in the Hebrew word PARADOX that needs no translation.

God knows everything, from the beginning to the end, the nations are a drop in a bucket to Him and He can do the impossible, including making a reality where fate and free will coexist; a paradox.

Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Watchman, I believe that you are reading far more into scriptures like Is 46:10 than they ever meant to say. It is similar to someone reading Shakespeare and saying that this is what it means, when in fact, Shakespeare may not have meant it the way you interpret it a few hundred years later. Or you may look at piece of modern art and say it means all kinds of things, when in fact it looks like the artist cleaned his brushes on the canvass.

Is 46:10 could be interpreted the way Trump looking at a swamp, sees a Trump Tower standing there next year. He sees the end (a Trump Tower)from the beginning (a swamp), and Trump does his pleasure like God does His pleasure.

To read into this that God has a way of foretelling the future to billions of years ahead is a real stretch.

 

[iouae]

Nonsense.

God does not learn.
AMR

So when did God stop learning?

Did God not at some time think up this creation from when it did not exist? Is that not learning?

We are told that Christ learned obedience by what He suffered, and that His human experience equipped him to be a better high Priest, to intercede for us with God the Father, precisely because He now more fully can sympathise with human weakness. If Christ is God, can we not at least admit that Christ has learned, or did Christ forget all the obedience that He learned?

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

That would seem to nullify, in my mind at least, a lot of the reason for Christ to come to earth and suffer.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Watchman, I believe that you are reading far more into scriptures like Is 46:10 than they ever meant to say. It is similar to someone reading Shakespeare and saying that this is what it means, when in fact, Shakespeare may not have meant it the way you interpret it a few hundred years later. Or you may look at piece of modern art and say it means all kinds of things, when in fact it looks like the artist cleaned his brushes on the canvass.

Is 46:10 could be interpreted the way Trump looking at a swamp, sees a Trump Tower standing there next year. He sees the end (a Trump Tower)from the beginning (a swamp), and Trump does his pleasure like God does His pleasure.

To read into this that God has a way of foretelling the future to billions of years ahead is a real stretch.

Well firstly the Earth/Universe is just less than 6000 years old, so we straight away we interpret the Bible very differently. Secondly I didn't use or show that verse (you did). I think our theologies are too far apart here to find common ground on this issue. God knows everything, He is omniscient, that's just the was it is.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So when did God stop learning?

Perhaps you skipped the links that were included in my response.

See also:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?53669-One-on-One-AMR-and-JCWR-on-the-Temporality-of-God


AMR

 

[oatmeal]

I had never heard of this figure of speech. Looking it up, I found the following...

"Part One: CONSESCENSION
This is a figure of speech that is used quite often throughout the Bible. The Latin name, which is what we will be calling this Figure in this teaching, is Condescensio.

To completely understand the meaning of this figure of speech first we’ll use this definition: "The Ascribing of Human Attributes, etc. to God." To get into more detail about this figure, it can also be described as the ascription of human passions, actions, or attributes to God. Hence the English version of the figure is condescension. God, by using this figure condescends to the level of man. I do not believe that God condescends to the level of man because He feels that man is ignorant or infirm. He condescends to man so that man will be able to easily understand God's purpose and wisdom.

We need to understand one very major point to understand Condescensio. God is Spirit, so He does not have arms, He does not have legs, He does not have any of the attributes that man has because He is Spirit. ...."

The above quote taken from ....http://www.absolutebiblestudy.com/Advanced/CONDESCENSION_and_OMISSION.htm

I weigh the person/s who invented this figure of speech on the same level as anyone else who posts on TOL, meaning I take what everyone says with a big pinch of salt, particularly since I believe there is a lot of similarity between the physical and spirit realms. When we get glimpses of heaven, God sitting on a throne surrounded by crowds of ministering angels, it seems very similar to any royal court. It sounds like they invented a fancy latin word to justify why they don't believe what the Bible says is true.

That said, when you explain how you understand God to be "jealous" it does not differ from how I understand God to be jealous.

So "condescensio" apart, I don't disagree with what you say regarding God being jealous, except this statement of yours... "Is jealousy a attribute you attribute to someone who loves?
No, God is spirit. He does not literally become jealous. "

Why could someone who loves not become jealous?

In fact jealousy IS found in those who love excessively. We regard this emotion in a negative light. We take it as a sign of weakness, immaturity, possessiveness. But in God's case, we MUST love Him and Him only. If, like Solomon, we flirt with other religions, God is telling us before the time that He will jump on us from a dizzy height. That is the deal on becoming a Christian, or an Israelite of old. God chased ancient Israel into captivity when they began to adopt some of the surrounding "gods".

A rose by any other name is still a rose. God tells us He acts as a jealous person would act. Its not that God is insecure, its just that God is being crystal clear and upfront. If someone's fiancee was that honest, it would be something to consider before concluding a marriage covenant.

That is very interesting.

I am glad you took the time to look up that figure of speech.

Your source agrees with the sources I have learned from.

Is there such a thing a loving excessively?

First we must define love to determine if love can be excessive or not.

John 3:16 God so loved that He

a. loved excessively

b. took his ball and went home and pouted

c. gave

d. whined about not being loved enough

God so loved the world that He gave.

Did God give too much?

Was God who is wise, do an unwise thing to give so much?

are we talking about the qualities of God's love

or the qualities or lack thereof of human love?

There are three words translated love in the Greek

eros or "erotic" love

phileo or human love as in do me good and I will do you good, it is a exchange.

agape or as it is mostly used in scripture, the love of God or God's love, but that is not the only meaning in scripture it is a love by decision, not love by emotion.

God decided to express his love by giving. John 3:16

Giving is one of the basic attributes of God's love. It is a decision by one to give to another.

God's love, unlike human love, is directed by knowledge and wisdom and understanding. It is not blind love or ignorant unwise love

I Corinthians 13:4

charity/agape or the love of God does not envy. Envy is closely associate with jealousy, but they are different.

the love that comes from God is not envious, nor is it tainted by jealousy or any other negatives, like those listed in I Corinthians 13

Since God's love does not envy, nor vaunts itself nor is puffed up, etc...

we can reasonably conclude that there are no negatives in God's love, that it is pure from all negatives including jealousy

Thus I believe that God refering to himself as jealous is a figure of speech. It communicates to the human mind what God intended to communicate. That worshiping and loving and serving other gods, idols of any kind, anything or anyone who is contrary to God is just plain wrong

God does not like that anymore than any human would like that.

If a man's wife or a woman's husband is commenting on how he or she is attracted to some movie star or some other celebrity, that could get really annoying and just wrong.

If a man's wife is idolizing Sean Connery about how handsome he is, wouldn't that get on the nerves of the husband? or vice versa, the man about some young attractive celebrity.

God has enough self confidence to not get jealous, but that does not mean He realizes how wrong it is to worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator.

So is God a rock? Is that literal? or a figure of speech? Why would God call himself a rock? Of course he is not referring to himself a some pebble but a rock more in line with the concept of an immoveable rock like a mountain

 

[WeberHome]

-

If Christ is God, can we not at least admit that Christ has learned?

The flesh of John 1:14 is the Word of John 1:14, which is the God of John 1:1-2.

As pointed out in post #6, God knows everything; but He has not experienced everything.

In other words: until the Word became Jesus Christ, he didn't know for himself just how difficult it is to be loyal to God as a human being. Of course He knew it was hard; but he only knew it omnisciently, i.e. the Word didn't come by that knowledge via personal experience.

As an allegory: It's one thing to watch a NetFlix documentary made by people hiking the Pacific Crest Trail through the Mojave Desert in California; but quite another thing to go out West yourself and trek the PCT on your own two feet, carry a pack day after weary day, feel the sun on your skin, taste the dust in your mouth, evade rattlesnakes, get totally worn out, pitch a tent and cook oatmeal on a little hiker's stove, treat the blisters on your feet, and enjoy the comradery of fellow hikers and the generosity of good-hearted Trail Angels.

I may be out of line for saying so; but I sincerely believe that the Word longed for comradery with us and to experience for himself just what it's like down here to trek the PCT of life as an h.sapiens. Well; that's exactly what he did; so when the Bible says at Heb 2:14-18 that Christ is a sympathetic priest, it's not just pious rhetoric.

FYI: Trail Angels are people who voluntarily assist hikers to survive on the PCT by setting up caches of food and water here and there along the way called trail magic.

/

 

[iouae]

So is God a rock? Is that literal? or a figure of speech? Why would God call himself a rock? Of course he is not referring to himself a some pebble but a rock more in line with the concept of an immoveable rock like a mountain

Some figures of speech God loves a lot.

He loves simile, metaphor, symbolism, parables. These all take a known thing (like a rock) and compares (com-parable) this with say, Himself. We all are acquainted with these figures of speech. We get that God is solid, immovable, can be built upon (like many castles are), unchangeable, resistant to the enemy, etc.

God is so used to this figure of speech that He skips saying Christ is LIKE A Lamb, He simply calls Christ a Lamb. We know He is not a literal lamb.

Christians are often likened to the bride of Christ, and they mistakenly think they are the bride of Christ. We are NOT the bride of Christ but are LIKE the bride of Christ. We are no more a bride than we are a sheep, or a branch.

 

[oatmeal]

Some figures of speech God loves a lot.

He loves simile, metaphor, symbolism, parables. These all take a known thing (like a rock) and compares (com-parable) this with say, Himself. We all are acquainted with these figures of speech. We get that God is solid, immovable, can be built upon (like many castles are), unchangeable, resistant to the enemy, etc.

God is so used to this figure of speech that He skips saying Christ is LIKE A Lamb, He simply calls Christ a Lamb. We know He is not a literal lamb.

Christians are often likened to the bride of Christ, and they mistakenly think they are the bride of Christ. We are NOT the bride of Christ but are LIKE the bride of Christ. We are no more a bride than we are a sheep, or a branch.

Yes therefore knowing that God is not only spirit,but holy as well, I conclude that God referring to himself as jealous is the figure of speech condescension

 

[Tambora]

God wanted to make someone in His own image, after His likeness to join Him in eternity.
Of course He had the angels, but they were more like employees, and less like sons.

So He tried the australopithecines, but they did not cut it.
So next He tried Homo habilis. Still not good enough.
Next, Homo erectus. No good.
Next, the Neanderthals. Too good, bigger brains than ours, stronger than us. God decides to dumb the Neanderthals down a bit and make them weaker, and comes up with Homo sapiens.

Voila, Homo sapiens seems OK to God.

This story needs unicorns.

 

[Derf]

All creatures small and great, learn.
If something cannot learn, we would question its IQ.

Yet many insist that God cannot learn.
They say that God is a know-it-all.

But is this true?

Take for instance Gen 22:12
And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

If God says "now I know" it means before God tested Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, God did not know whether Ab would go through with it or not.

If God learns, then many parts of scripture make greater sense.

For instance when God expresses regret at having created man before the flood, this is a genuine expression of regret that man has somehow disappointed God's expectation (which was that mankind would somehow have behaved better).

Genesis 6:6
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

I believe the paleontological record in the rock strata also shows God learning.

God wanted to make someone in His own image, after His likeness to join Him in eternity.
Of course He had the angels, but they were more like employees, and less like sons.

So He tried the australopithecines, but they did not cut it.
So next He tried Homo habilis. Still not good enough.
Next, Homo erectus. No good.
Next, the Neanderthals. Too good, bigger brains than ours, stronger than us. God decides to dumb the Neanderthals down a bit and make them weaker, and comes up with Homo sapiens.

Voila, Homo sapiens seems OK to God.
Yet after 1600 years, and with only three Homo sapiens saved (viz. Abel, Enoch, Noah) God pulls the plug on this variety of hominid which lives nearly 1000 years and shortens their lifespan to threescore and ten. He also restrains the "sons of God" or angels so that they cannot breed with Homo sapiens and pollute the bloodline after the flood.

So God tries choosing a people, and giving them the Old Covenant with its laws to keep them on the straight and narrow. But this is not very successful in producing nice people.

So God scraps this Old Covenant and comes up with a New and better one of writing His laws into their very being through Christ living in Homo sapiens. That really seems to work, and finally God is satisfied with His product.

The idea that God can create creatures who have a somewhat unpredictable free will is worth considering, imo. The idea that God continues to bring about His plan of salvation despite both demons and humans that work against it is realistic. But the idea that God is creating through trial and error makes Him out to be rather incompetent. I'm not too keen on a bumbling creator for a god.

But I can see where you went wrong with your first couple of premises: that all creatures learn, and that God must therefore learn, which means God is a creation. A creation of whom, I would like to ask?

 

[iouae]

The idea that God can create creatures who have a somewhat unpredictable free will is worth considering, imo. The idea that God continues to bring about His plan of salvation despite both demons and humans that work against it is realistic. But the idea that God is creating through trial and error makes Him out to be rather incompetent. I'm not too keen on a bumbling creator for a god.

But I can see where you went wrong with your first couple of premises: that all creatures learn, and that God must therefore learn, which means God is a creation. A creation of whom, I would like to ask?

All creatures great and small learn. Where in the book of rules is it written that the Creator cannot learn?

His very name "Creator" implies that He can create something new, presumably out of the imaginations of His mind, just as we do. Why is this wonderful attribute, and something which we humans enjoy doing so much, creating something from scratch, off limits to the Creator?

 

[iouae]

We all know that the past is like a movie, written on celluloid, or on a hard drive. It accurately records all the decisions which we made.

The present is the interface to the past where we actually write the past with our current choices. The present is open ended in that we can do whatever we like within our circumstances.

The future, like the present is full of limitless possibilities, whereby we can even make circumstances in future which increase our possibilities.

Its the same for God.

Forget the stupid idea portrayed by science and the wrong idea of some pastors, that the future is like the past somehow written already, and we are but actors, as is God. This is a bad fiction movie plot because it is so obviously dumb and dumber.

I want to explore the possibilities when we forsake this nutty idea that the future is like the past, already written in Gods mind, if nowhere else.

Because God CAN create, this negates the future cast in celluloid idea, because any good idea God gets today, would disrupt tomorrow, just as any good idea you get today, might improve your tomorrows.

Nobody (except science fiction) and lying, demonic fortune tellers make out that the future is predetermined, of predestined. The word predestined means that as Trump looks at a swamp and sees a Trump Tower there, and decides to build one, so that swamp is predestined to be a Trump Tower. No spookiness there.

 

[Derf]

All creatures great and small learn. Where in the book of rules is it written that the Creator cannot learn?

His very name "Creator" implies that He can create something new, presumably out of the imaginations of His mind, just as we do. Why is this wonderful attribute, and something which we humans enjoy doing so much, creating something from scratch, off limits to the Creator?

Eh? who said God can't create from scratch? I'm just pointing out that if you compare the Creator in terms that only apply to the created, your comparison won't work.

And I'm not necessarily saying God can't learn. I think He can--if He creates a being that has a truly free will, then at the very least He will learn what that creature will do, unless He knows everything He will do ahead of time, which brings with it some pretty specific problems. I think your points in this regard are good ones, but you've assumed the secular creation myth in the process, which confuses the narrative.

Here's my take on the God-knows-everything-ahead-of-time business:

There are two ways that God can know everything ahead of time.
1. He does everything. Meaning that everything that happens is under His ultra-tight control. I mean everything. Including that I will eat Lucky Charms for breakfast tomorrow. I don't believe that allows for man to make ANY choices, much less ones that go against God's will, since God is so tightly controlling things that nothing outside His plan will ever happen.

2. He can see forward into time and know exactly what's going to happen. Including what I'm going to eat for breakfast tomorrow, but Lucky Charms is still MY choice.

The problem with the first is that God is now the author of evil--since He is the author of everything.

The problem with the second is that God is beholden to some force outside Himself. When it comes time to help me with something (let's say I'm out of Lucky Charms), He is required to do it, because that is what He saw before it happened. So God is now at the mercy of the future He looked into.

Look at it this way. If God looks into the future and sees that I will be killed in a car accident, but He decides to save me from the accident, then the future He "looked" into was not the real future, because it didn't end up happening. It was just a possible future. But if God is doing things based on just "possible" futures, then He isn't really looking into the future at all. In my mind, #2 is not even a real possibility, which leaves us with just #1.

The problem with #1, is that it means God CAN'T create a being with free will. Every man's choices will have been planned by God in #1.

 

[iouae]

Eh? who said God can't create from scratch? I'm just pointing out that if you compare the Creator in terms that only apply to the created, your comparison won't work.

And I'm not necessarily saying God can't learn. I think He can--if He creates a being that has a truly free will, then at the very least He will learn what that creature will do, unless He knows everything He will do ahead of time, which brings with it some pretty specific problems. I think your points in this regard are good ones, but you've assumed the secular creation myth in the process, which confuses the narrative.

Here's my take on the God-knows-everything-ahead-of-time business:

There are two ways that God can know everything ahead of time.
1. He does everything. Meaning that everything that happens is under His ultra-tight control. I mean everything. Including that I will eat Lucky Charms for breakfast tomorrow. I don't believe that allows for man to make ANY choices, much less ones that go against God's will, since God is so tightly controlling things that nothing outside His plan will ever happen.

2. He can see forward into time and know exactly what's going to happen. Including what I'm going to eat for breakfast tomorrow, but Lucky Charms is still MY choice.

The problem with the first is that God is now the author of evil--since He is the author of everything.

The problem with the second is that God is beholden to some force outside Himself. When it comes time to help me with something (let's say I'm out of Lucky Charms), He is required to do it, because that is what He saw before it happened. So God is now at the mercy of the future He looked into.

Look at it this way. If God looks into the future and sees that I will be killed in a car accident, but He decides to save me from the accident, then the future He "looked" into was not the real future, because it didn't end up happening. It was just a possible future. But if God is doing things based on just "possible" futures, then He isn't really looking into the future at all. In my mind, #2 is not even a real possibility, which leaves us with just #1.

The problem with #1, is that it means God CAN'T create a being with free will. Every man's choices will have been planned by God in #1.

Derf, it is a pleasure to discuss this with you because I can see your mind is somewhat open.

There is a third possibility. That is that God does NOT know everything ahead of time, and that He is so cool, so powerful, so self assured, that He allows the future to develop, within certain limits which He has set.

So, if your eating Lucky Charms does not upset His long term plans, you may eat Lucky Charms, or not. It does not make a hill of beans difference to God, since God is NOT into micromanaging your life. If you are going to join Him as a spiritual child of God, you had better learn to make responsible and independent decisions, as all of us do, growing up. A good Father will encourage this independence.

The very fact that God gives anything free will, shows God is not omniscient or omnipotent as many make Him out to be. The Bible is full of proofs of this, if one has the eyes to see.

Take the creation of Lucifer, now Satan story in Ezekiel 28:15
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Here God was saying that He created Lucifer perfect, meaning as good as God could do, yet with free will. And it sure sounds like it surprised God when iniquity was found in Lucifer.

I am sure God knew there was a possibility that free will could be abused, but still we get from the one verse above that God was not responsible for Lucifer getting that thought which began to turn Lucifer to the dark side. Therefore God did not directly create evil in the form of an evil spirit being. That was all Lucifer, allowed by God.

But God has managed Satan, even used him. God is so cool, he accommodates and can cope with whatever choices are made. God is not so omnipotent that He can put Humpty Dumpty (or in this case Satan) back together again and restore him to being Lucifer. Not possible.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Here's my take on the God-knows-everything-ahead-of-time business:

No.

Foreknowledge presupposes fore-ordination, but foreknowledge is not itself fore-ordination. Misunderstandings of these terms have led the uninformed to claim that the related Reformed doctrines are fatalistic.

From these misunderstandings, we see incorrect statements such as the following:

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning. (Incorrect)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. (Correct)

God foreknows because He has ordained. That ordination also includes the ordaining that no violence is done to the will of the creature. God's ordaining establishes the very free will we possess: the ability to choose according to our greatest desires when we so choose. This is the free will taught by Scripture, the liberty of spontaneity. If God had not established this self-determining will of the creature, none would possess it.

Persons can exercise genuine freedom in their choices, that is to choose according to their greatest inclinations, but even when doing so there are still causal conditions (e.g., character, experiences, circumstances, etc.) which decisively incline the will (will here is the mind choosing) to respond a certain way without indeed constraining it. The causal conditions are sufficiently strong to get the person to choose a certain option such that there are now some guarantees how the individual will freely respond, yet the person was acting according to their own wishes or desires, i.e. without constraint.

Perhaps an example will make this more clear.

Suppose I decide (decree) a given student in my class is to leave the room. There are three ways I could accomplish this.

First, I could literally grab the student and carry the student out of the room. In this scenario, the constraint in operation on the student involves a force (me) exerted on the student that involves bodily movement, but not bodily movement that the student’s will in any sense made happen. Clearly the student did not leave the room freely.

Or, second, I could threaten the student with a failing grade unless he left the room immediately. In this case, while the student does not really want to leave, yet on the other hand the student does not want a failing grade, so he decides to reluctantly leave the classroom. The constraint operating here is a force (me) that does not entirely remove willing by the student so constrained, although what is “chosen” by the student is contrary to what the student wished to choose. Again, the student did not leave the room freely.

Third, and finally, I could perhaps point out the various factors that make it advantageous for the student to leave the room, though nothing I say threatens the student in any way. The student may not initially want to leave, for after all, I am a fantastic lecturer. Eventually though, I convince the student by reason and argument—without threats or warnings of danger if he refuses to go—to leave the classroom. In this situation, while the student did not initially want to leave, after careful consideration of all the pros and cons of staying or leaving, the student's inclinations to stay changed to a inclinations to leave, and the student acted on these new inclinations. In this scenario, while the act of leaving the classroom was causally determined (see causal conditions discussion above), the student was not constrained to leave but did so voluntarily, in accord with his own nature, according to his own wishes.

To summarize, for every decision a person makes there are causal conditions playing upon that individual’s will so as to incline it decisively and sufficiently in one direction rather than another such that the person could not have done otherwise, given the prevailing causal influences.

AMR

 

[glorydaz]

Persons can exercise genuine freedom in their choices, that is to choose according to their greatest inclinations, but even when doing so there are still causal conditions (e.g., character, experiences, circumstances, etc.) which decisively incline the will (will here is the mind choosing) to respond a certain way without indeed constraining it. The causal conditions are sufficiently strong to get the person to choose a certain option such that there are now some guarantees how the individual will freely respond, yet the person was acting according to their own wishes or desires, i.e. without constraint.

AMR

If I may borrow this example ...I like it.

This is where the unsaved person finds himself when he is presented with the Gospel. He is not too "dead" to choose to follow the light. His inclination at this point in his life is to reach out for more....what he hasn't found thus far in the world. God is drawing man to His light...first his mind, and when fully persuaded, his heart.

 

[Derf]

Derf, it is a pleasure to discuss this with you because I can see your mind is somewhat open.

There is a third possibility. That is that God does NOT know everything ahead of time, and that He is so cool, so powerful, so self assured, that He allows the future to develop, within certain limits which He has set.

So, if your eating Lucky Charms does not upset His long term plans, you may eat Lucky Charms, or not. It does not make a hill of beans difference to God, since God is NOT into micromanaging your life. If you are going to join Him as a spiritual child of God, you had better learn to make responsible and independent decisions, as all of us do, growing up. A good Father will encourage this independence.

The very fact that God gives anything free will, shows God is not omniscient or omnipotent as many make Him out to be. The Bible is full of proofs of this, if one has the eyes to see.

Take the creation of Lucifer, now Satan story in Ezekiel 28:15
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Here God was saying that He created Lucifer perfect, meaning as good as God could do, yet with free will. And it sure sounds like it surprised God when iniquity was found in Lucifer.

I am sure God knew there was a possibility that free will could be abused, but still we get from the one verse above that God was not responsible for Lucifer getting that thought which began to turn Lucifer to the dark side. Therefore God did not directly create evil in the form of an evil spirit being. That was all Lucifer, allowed by God.

But God has managed Satan, even used him. God is so cool, he accommodates and can cope with whatever choices are made. God is not so omnipotent that He can put Humpty Dumpty (or in this case Satan) back together again and restore him to being Lucifer. Not possible.

I agree with much of what You've written here.

I have a bit of a problem with the idea that God's omniscience and omnipotence are contingent on our free will (or lack thereof). I don't think that such is necessary. The ability to create a person with free will is itself a measure of omnipotence, and without it omnipotence is lacking, though omniscience certainly soars, yet without much in the way of freedom of God's will. To illustrate, if God knew from before He created the world that He was going to create the world, then He is locked into creating the world. God becomes as much of a robot as we complain of if free will doesn't exist.

I'm also not so sure about the restoration of Lucifer. You may be right that there is no option, or it could be that the option exists, but God doesn't want to do it. I don't think we can tell from the information we have. If Christ would have to somehow become one of His angels in order for Lucifer to be redeemed, and He can't be both always an angel and always a human, then perhaps you are right--and God chose us over His fallen angels. The fact that not all angels fell, but all humans fell in Adam, and the fact that not all humans will avail themselves of salvation, all suggest to me that God desired a contingent of Angels and one of Humans, and he is achieving that desire. And both angels and humans will be represented in His presence fully possessing their free will, which they have freely submitted to His will.

That seems to be required for true worship, imo.

 

[iouae]

Derf, let me point you to a passage in scripture and ask you what you make of it...

Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

In this one scripture I see God's omniscience, omnipotence, and our free will all come together.

God would have all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).
But (seemingly) superseding this is God's will that we have free will, even to offend new Christians, who may fall away as a result of our carelessness.
If God were omnipotent, then surely He could get what he wills viz. all men to be saved.
Here God seems somewhat unable to stop offences happening (which indicates lack of omnipotence.)

God can raise the dead, but God cannot save those who don't want to be saved.
Here again, God has to take what man gives viz. their heart to the Lord, or not.
Nobody is ever going to be dragged into His kingdom kicking and screaming.

Also, when we are about to offend one of God's little ones, I believe God does not know whether we will or will not offend, hence an indication of lack of omniscience. Just as God did not know if Lucifer would fall, when he would fall, or how he would fall.

Now I know this makes some folks feel very uncomfortable.
But I love this kind of God, who Himself lives by faith, who Himself lives and reacts to the present, who reacts to us and may even answer our prayers and change the future for us. God, with our input, will determine the future forever. It is an adventure. We could get hurt, but God is there to pick us up and repair us. That is what God does to His little ones who are subjected to offence. But life has its dangers, and some little ones could be permanently hurt.

Take the gamble which the Father took with His Son Jesus. Placing Jesus on earth, subjecting Him to all kinds of temptations - what if Jesus had sinned? I say God lives more dangerously than we would believe. None of us, having the power to prevent it, would subject our own children to a crucifixion. Christ may have taken offence.

And nobody has refuted that Christ learned obedience by what He suffered. Thus God (in the form of Christ) learns. And He now enacts those changes in heaven as our Advocate with the Father. Thus the changed Christ persuades the Father, changing the Father to be more merciful and gracious to us. Thus proving the future not cast in stone since BC the Godhead could not fully understand human weakness, AD the Godhead does.

To fully know something, one has to experience it. Christ "knows" more fully pain, suffering, sorrow, weakness, faith, temptation, obedience and much, much more. God/Christ was changed greatly by the experience.

 

[Derf]

Since my statement you quoted says very little about what you are responding to, I hope you don't mind if I presume a little and quote myself from what I think you are answering:

Here's my take on the God-knows-everything-ahead-of-time business:

There are two ways that God can know everything ahead of time.
1. He does everything. Meaning that everything that happens is under His ultra-tight control. I mean everything. Including that I will eat Lucky Charms for breakfast tomorrow. I don't believe that allows for man to make ANY choices, much less ones that go against God's will, since God is so tightly controlling things that nothing outside His plan will ever happen.

2. (not applicable)

The problem with the first is that God is now the author of evil--since He is the author of everything.
...

I hope that will put your "No." in proper context.

No.

Foreknowledge presupposes fore-ordination, but foreknowledge is not itself fore-ordination. Misunderstandings of these terms have led the uninformed to claim that the related Reformed doctrines are fatalistic.

From these misunderstandings, we see incorrect statements such as the following:

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning. (Incorrect)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. (Correct)

Which has very little to do with what you said above, since foreknowledge is not the forcing function, as you go on to say here:

God foreknows because He has ordained. That ordination also includes the ordaining that no violence is done to the will of the creature. God's ordaining establishes the very free will we possess: the ability to choose according to our greatest desires when we so choose. This is the free will taught by Scripture, the liberty of spontaneity. If God had not established this self-determining will of the creature, none would possess it.

So let's make sure we reword your example above correctly: Necessarily, if God fore-ordained Peter would sin, without needing to foreknow Peter's reaction ahead of time, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning.

It kind of gets back to what "fore-ordain" means, since that is the active principle, as I amply explained in my post to iouae, according to option #1.

Persons can exercise genuine freedom in their choices, that is to choose according to their greatest inclinations, but even when doing so there are still causal conditions (e.g., character, experiences, circumstances, etc.) which decisively incline the will (will here is the mind choosing) to respond a certain way without indeed constraining it. The causal conditions are sufficiently strong to get the person to choose a certain option such that there are now some guarantees how the individual will freely respond, yet the person was acting according to their own wishes or desires, i.e. without constraint.

Perhaps an example will make this more clear.

Suppose I decide (decree) a given student in my class is to leave the room. There are three ways I could accomplish this.

First, I could literally grab the student and carry the student out of the room. In this scenario, the constraint in operation on the student involves a force (me) exerted on the student that involves bodily movement, but not bodily movement that the student’s will in any sense made happen. Clearly the student did not leave the room freely.

Or, second, I could threaten the student with a failing grade unless he left the room immediately. In this case, while the student does not really want to leave, yet on the other hand the student does not want a failing grade, so he decides to reluctantly leave the classroom. The constraint operating here is a force (me) that does not entirely remove willing by the student so constrained, although what is “chosen” by the student is contrary to what the student wished to choose. Again, the student did not leave the room freely.

Third, and finally, I could perhaps point out the various factors that make it advantageous for the student to leave the room, though nothing I say threatens the student in any way. The student may not initially want to leave, for after all, I am a fantastic lecturer. Eventually though, I convince the student by reason and argument—without threats or warnings of danger if he refuses to go—to leave the classroom. In this situation, while the student did not initially want to leave, after careful consideration of all the pros and cons of staying or leaving, the student's inclinations to stay changed to a inclinations to leave, and the student acted on these new inclinations. In this scenario, while the act of leaving the classroom was causally determined (see causal conditions discussion above), the student was not constrained to leave but did so voluntarily, in accord with his own nature, according to his own wishes.

To summarize, for every decision a person makes there are causal conditions playing upon that individual’s will so as to incline it decisively and sufficiently in one direction rather than another such that the person could not have done otherwise, given the prevailing causal influences.

AMR

If I understand the reformed position, you are correct that foreknowledge presupposes fore-ordination in that God doesn't know what's coming because He can see it, but rather because He ordains it. But if He ordains something because He knows it to be going to happen without somehow seeing that it is going to happen, He must be using some other characteristic than fore-knowledge. What other characteristics are available to Him?

Here's a list of characteristics we ascribe to God:
Omnipotence
Omniscience
Omnipresence
Immutability
Impassibility
Some add Omnibenevolent

If you want to add to the list, please do.

I'd like to eliminate as many as possible before trying to narrow down on the one that fits. I think we can eliminate Omnipresence, Impassibility, and Immutability as not applicable. Since we aren't really talking about good or evil specifically, we can eliminate Omnibenevolence. The only two left are Omniscience and Omnipotence.

Since fore-ordination is the primary factor, most of Omniscience is eliminated. Is there anything left of it? What about knowledge of those causal conditions you mentioned? Certainly God knows those, right? But how? Are they self-existing causes? Or did the professor determine those causes--are the threats of a failing grade, or the promises of advantage not coming from the professor himself? And does not the professor know those things not because of foreknowledge, but because of His own prowess in creating such conditions? That would be necessary for your example to fit our discussion about God, would it not?

"Prowess", then, is the word that defines the basis for God's knowledge. And prowess, or expertise/ability, fits neatly under the Omnipotence category. God has the power to DO what He wants done, and there is nothing done that He doesn't want done, else it wouldn't happen.

What about how the professor knows the student will react to those particular enticements/threats to leave? Again, it can't be due His foreknowledge, but due to His creating the scenario to get the response He desires, and knowing how He created the student in the first place (knowing ahead of time the things He will want the student to desire at that particular time in his life), along with causing all of the other influences that will play in the student' decision. I'm sensing an analogy breakdown here. The professor, who created the student and created all the conditions for the student to choose the only option that his particular inclinations, also created by the professor, will let him choose. And, just in case there is some small inclination that isn't completely satisfied by that outcome, the professor does the same thing with a very articulate acquaintance of the student to get the acquaintance to come and tempt the student to take the one option the professor wants him to take.

If that's not enough, when the professor has some students that really want to leave, as all of them do (not sure where they got THAT inclination with such a great lecturer!), and He wants those students to stay, He surgically changes the wiring in their brains so that they no longer want to leave, but happily stay in the class, thinking the professor is the very best lecturer they've ever heard!

And they all live and lecture happily ever after.
The End. [cue beautiful music]

Not that I disagree with the idea that God can bend the will of people by using causative conditions to achieve His desires through them--scripture is clear that He can and does. But the idea that He does so in order to get me to eat Lucky Charms (or pick your favorite or non-favorite cereal) for breakfast is ludicrous, especially in light of Deut 12:15 and 14:26.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If I understand the reformed position, you are correct that foreknowledge presupposes fore-ordination in that God doesn't know what's coming because He can see it, but rather because He ordains it. But if He ordains something because He knows it to be going to happen without somehow seeing that it is going to happen, He must be using some other characteristic than fore-knowledge. What other characteristics are available to Him?

God ordains all that happens. Thus it will happen, else it was not ordained. What has been ordained cannot not happen, hence these are factual objects of knowledge to God (knowledge to God, foreknowledge as we understand these things as there is no "beforehand" in God, else he would be a discursive thinker as are His creatures). God's decree comprehends all causes, conditions, successions, and relations of that which is decreed (see more here).

We must understand the decree of God, to be the eternal, volitional, all-wise, sovereign, and immutable purpose of God concerning all and every matter, comprehending both the time and the manner in which these matters will occur. The decree includes the volitional will of the creature exercised per causal conditions, successive events, relations between events and conditions, etc. God's knowledge of what happens is because He comprehends all that He has decreed to occur in created time equally vividly.

God’s foreknowledge (προγνωσις: Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2; cf. Acts 2:23) is not a passive form of precognition, not a state of consciousness, but—like the Hebrew ידע (Hos. 13:5 MT, NRSV note; Amos 3:2; etc.)—a self-determination of God, prior to its realization in temporal history, to assume a certain specific relation to the objects of His knowledge. It is most closely related to God’s purpose (προθεσις), foreordination (προορισμος), and election (ἐκλογη), and is an act of his good pleasure (εὐδοκια).

Why you assume God must see what is going to happen in order to know it will happen eludes me. God is not contingent upon anything at all. He just is (asceity). God, by virtue of His decree, has knowledge of all that will exist and occur in time, so that according to His will, by an act of His omnipotence, all matters are transferred from a state of potential existence to actual existence. It thus logically follows that God’s eternal knowledge of all matters necessarily follows from the fact that He has eternally decreed them.

AMR