God learns

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'm sorry... What?

Think about the last time you heard someone in exasperation express the words "Well, I never!"

Again (see Jer. 7:31;19:5;32:35), the Lord rebukes Israel anthropomorphically by using the common idiom: “It never entered my mind.” As an idiomatic expression, it means something quite different from the individual meanings of its elements. It is not a confession of previous ignorance any more than the following idiom acknowledges possession of a poor memory—“For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Jer. 31:34). Because God speaks to us in human language, He also employs human idioms. Hyper-scrupulous minds may not use the expression—“it never entered my mind”—lest they lie, but this only betrays ignorance of the idiom’s meaning. It is an intensive idiom to express what is unthinkable.

AMR, would you agree that, taken out of context, certain verses gain more meaning than they should?

Yes. As in the often appealed to example by open theists I just noted above. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Derf]

Your appeal to things that must actually exist in time before responsibility may be laid betrays an immaturity of the aspects of the being of God (theology proper). By your reasoning the motions of celestial objects must actually exist before God determined that they will be as they are. It simply ignores the omnipotence of God.

This statement belies these next two:

You are not well read on the matter, Derf. You are plodding along making what you think are sound arguments as if none have been taken up and considered by those that have come before us.

There is just too much of a gap between our knowledge of these things that only invites needless repetition.

Your appeal to unconscious and inanimate objects as a comparison to humans or angels is, dare I say it, laughable. In fact, your example actually bolsters my assertion in a big way. God's inclinations are evident in the paths the celestial bodies are on. They ARE ROBOTS, so to speak. God created them and set them in motion to do what they do, and they don't ever decide not to do what He intended them to do. Thus, God needs no "future vision" to know what they will do--He planned it and they can't plan anything different.

Men are not stars and planets and pieces of rock. But let's just say for a minute that they are of the same category, and they show God's inclinations in the same way. Then God's inclinations are for man to sin, right? And thus you agree with me, that in your view God is the author of sin, just like He is the author of all celestial motion.

If this is how my plodding regurgitation of arguments have previously been answered, I can see why there is such a gap between our knowledge of these things. But don't worry, AMR, I am more than happy to repeat things until you can understand them better.

You also apparently do not know anything about MLJ, else you would have gotten the well-known The Doctor appellation accorded the man—all the while ignoring the plain words of Romans 9:11 I pointed out—in your process of attempting to wax eloquent and indignant.

So, you are saying that unless I know something about Martin-Lloyd Jones, I can't critique anything written by him? I must take it all as truth?

By the same standard, then, since you know little about me, you now have to take everything I write as truth. What's good for the goose, after all.


All my sarcasm aside, I do not take your appeals to other authors lightly--they are helpful, and I appreciate them, even if I don't have time to delve deeply into every one (and now to delve into the complete histories of all their authors, too, as you expect me to do--ok, I wasn't quite done with the sarcasm). But I don't immediately accept them as the answer, despite your lofty view of them, however worthy they are of that lofty view. No, I haven't read a lot of MLJ's works, but my son is currently studying about the sermon on the mount from one of his books. A lot of what I've seen of it is very good. I disagree with some of it. Interestingly enough, my son's pastor, who admires MLJ a lot, also does not agree with everything he says. (I know, I've visited the study some). MLJ seems, indeed, to know a lot. And his medical background is likely very valuable for determining that something might be able to happen to Jacob and Esau in the womb. But it is a rather huge step to suggest that because of his medical background, MLJ is able to discern things that are not explicit in Rom 9:11 about what happens to pre-conceived people.


I have a deal for you. If you will condescend to explain your "plain words of Rom 9:11" comment, I will try to limit both my indignation and my sarcasm. Here's why I ask:

[Rom 9:11 KJV] (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)​

As I read the plain words of that, there is nothing in them that speaks of anything that happened before they were conceived. Rather, the plain words just say they hadn't been born yet. And vs 10 EXPLICITLY tells us the time period being spoken of:

[Rom 9:10 KJV] And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;​

Thus, if we are getting something from vs 11 that is talking about a time before conception after vs 10 tells us it is after conception, we are not getting it from the "plain words" of vs 11.

If, then, the verse explicitly says the election happened AFTER Rebecca had conceived, and the honorable Lloyd-Jones says explicitly that the election happened BEFORE Rebecca had conceived, can you at least understand why I might take a dim view of it? Yes, of course I know that you can explain what MLJ was thinking about using other verses, or at least your and his conception of other verses. So can I. But his statements are mere suppositions in light of the actual immediate context, not to mention the "plain words", of the verse, which you seem to think explains it fully.

Here's where I think you and MLJ are in error. You both seem to extrapolate to the same degree with Rom 9:11, and neither of you can see that it is an extrapolation. This, of course, is because of your presuppositional bias (whether justified or not, I'm not saying). And if our presuppositional biases are getting in the way of the real meaning of ANY scripture, we need to be very careful. And we can learn from each other, hopefully, when we are letting our biases cloud our reading of scripture.

Would you agree?

 

[Derf]

Think about the last time you heard someone in exasperation express the words "Well, I never!"

Again (see Jer. 7:31;19:5;32:35), the Lord rebukes Israel anthropomorphically by using the common idiom: “It never entered my mind.” As an idiomatic expression, it means something quite different from the individual meanings of its elements. It is not a confession of previous ignorance any more than the following idiom acknowledges possession of a poor memory—“For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Jer. 31:34). Because God speaks to us in human language, He also employs human idioms. Hyper-scrupulous minds may not use the expression—“it never entered my mind”—lest they lie, but this only betrays ignorance of the idiom’s meaning. It is an intensive idiom to express what is unthinkable.



Yes. As in the often appealed to example by open theists I just noted above. :AMR:

AMR

Maybe what never entered His mind is to tell them ("command" them) to do those things. The context allows for it in all three of the examples. The meaning remains clear. It removes them as proof verses for Open Theists, but it allows for a plain meaning to shine through, without any appeal to anthropomorphism.

 

[jsanford108]

God learns

I was not going to even consider this thread due to what I viewed as a flawed and silly premise (note: this is personal opinion, not objective conclusion or fact). But, after reading your OP on "apeman," I realized that there could be no progressive dialogue on subjects, such as "apeman," without first establishing consensus on God.

Thus, by your reference to this thread, I would like to address your conclusions on God's attributes, as you pointed them out, in your "apeman" thread OP, if that is okay with you.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[iouae]

I was not going to even consider this thread due to what I viewed as a flawed and silly premise (note: this is personal opinion, not objective conclusion or fact). But, after reading your OP on "apeman," I realized that there could be no progressive dialogue on subjects, such as "apeman," without first establishing consensus on God.

Thus, by your reference to this thread, I would like to address your conclusions on God's attributes, as you pointed them out, in your "apeman" thread OP, if that is okay with you.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

If you are speaking to me Jsanford108, I would love to have a discussion with you. That is why one starts a thread.

 

[jsanford108]

If you are speaking to me Jsanford108, I would love to have a discussion with you. That is why one starts a thread.

Okay. Just making sure. I will try to reply tomorrow, so that I can quote you more efficiently, if that is okay.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[iouae]

Okay. Just making sure. I will try to reply tomorrow, so that I can quote you more efficiently, if that is okay.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Look forward to that.

 

[WeberHome]

-
In the letter to Hebrews; it's explained that Yom Kippur's ritual only addresses sins committed up to that point; i.e. the very moment that the high priest completes the full and complete ritual, new sins immediately begin to accumulate on the books requiring the attention of yet another Yom Kippur; and another, and another, and another, ad infinitum; viz: Yom Kippur's ritual is never sufficient to address sins once and for all. In other words: it's always and only for addressing the people's past sins; never their future sins.

Q: How can any ritual, man-made or God-given, address sins that people haven't even committed yet, and/or may never commit?

A: Note the grammatical tense of the passage below. It's past, rather than present.

● Isa 53:6 . . We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

In other words; seeing as how that passage in Isaiah was penned sometime in the 8th century BC, then the sins of the world were all laid on Christ even before he was born. Well, in order to do that, God would have to know in advance each and every sin that the world would commit from beginning to end. Now that's what I call omniscience to the max.

● 1John 2:2 . . He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

/

 

[jsanford108]

Look forward to that.

I would like to use your opening comment on the apeman thread as a starting point; you give a great outline of your deductions and base principles for discussion there.

Here is your leading conclusions from the apeman thread:

I believe these premises are solid, and have been proven in this thread and in the one, "God learns".
1) God learns. He knows a lot but He does not know it all.
2) The idea that God knows the future and that the future is predestined, down to the smallest detail, is nonsense.
3) God is Being, like us, who looks like us, has appendages like ours, has emotions like us, and learns and often behaves in a somewhat fickle and whimsical way, such as when He changes His mind, to grant our requests.
4) Because the future is not cast in stone, God, like us, walks in faith, trusting that this somewhat unknown journey together, will turn out right.
5) When things go wrong, and not according to God's plan, God has the power to correct the wrong. Eg. when Lucifer became Satan together with many angels, or when man fell, in Eden, God has a plan to use the evil, and correct it.
6) God does not always get His way. For instance He would have all men saved, but not all will be.
7) Thus God uses chance in His plan. Having given man free will, He created more humans than He needs (overbooked) realising that there would be an attrition rate, and that some will fall away, but enough will be left.
8) God does not know which individuals will be ultimately saved when He calls them. We have to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. This means, we keep a good attitude towards God, and He works with us to overcome our failings.
9) Everything occurs in real time. Choices are made in real time. Nothing is pre-determined. God can change His mind at any time and say, not destroy Nineveh as promised, in 40 days. Likewise God can promise Israel a promised land and liberation, but if they rebel, He can swear in His wrath that they will not enter His rest. Thus God changes arrangements.
10) When God expresses wrath, it is genuine, at that moment emotion which wells up in God, as wrath wells up in us. When God is jealous, or grieved, or He repents of making man, as before the flood, these are genuine and spontaneous emotions. God is not play-acting according to a predestined script.
11) The universe is ancient, perhaps 13.75 billion years old.
....
19) God does not lie. If dinosaur bones are found, dinosaurs existed. If light from stars billions of light-years away is reaching us now, that light left billions of light years ago. God does not create the universe to look old, when in actual fact it is only 6000 years old. God did not "plant" fossils to deceive us, nor did He allow Satan to do so.

If I may, let us work through this point by point. I will address them all up front, and if there is a particular one or two you want to focus on, we can go from there.

1) God learns. He knows a lot but He does not know it all.

This is your leading point, which is actually your conclusion, based on the theories that you put forth below. This is a very good way to begin a post, as it lays out your conclusion first, allowing others to see how you reached it, knowing the end point. Well done.

2) The idea that God knows the future and that the future is predestined, down to the smallest detail, is nonsense.

Can you prove that the idea of a omnipotent being is nonsense? If not, then to make this a point, stated as fact, is false. You must first be able to prove the nonexistence of an omnipotent being.

3) God is Being, like us, who looks like us, has appendages like ours, has emotions like us, and learns and often behaves in a somewhat fickle and whimsical way, such as when He changes His mind, to grant our requests.

Do you have any evidence of this point? You have used the verse of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, but is that really proof?

One could argue that God's testing of our faith is for our benefit, not for him to "make a decision." So, can you prove or allude to evidence that God "often behaves in a somewhat fickle and whimsical way?"

4) Because the future is not cast in stone, God, like us, walks in faith, trusting that this somewhat unknown journey together, will turn out right.

Any proof of this, either?

5) When things go wrong, and not according to God's plan, God has the power to correct the wrong. Eg. when Lucifer became Satan together with many angels, or when man fell, in Eden, God has a plan to use the evil, and correct it.

This is an excellent point.

I know that all these points are your stated premises for your apemen thread; all conclusions which you determined from this thread. But, this is the first point that has actual examples that support your claim. Having read through this thread, I have not found sufficient proof to generate the claims that you have submitted thus far.

However, you claim says "God has a plan," not "God came up with a plan." This implies that God had a foreknowledge, not that he played the cards as they came up. So, your own wording goes against your claim here.

6) God does not always get His way. For instance He would have all men saved, but not all will be.

Does this not progress into a freewill discussion? What is a more pure form of love: Making someone love you, or them choosing to love you?

7) Thus God uses chance in His plan. Having given man free will, He created more humans than He needs (overbooked) realising that there would be an attrition rate, and that some will fall away, but enough will be left.

Where is this claim/conclusion drawn from? It is nowhere alluded to historically.

8) God does not know which individuals will be ultimately saved when He calls them. We have to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. This means, we keep a good attitude towards God, and He works with us to overcome our failings.

Again, this goes back to the question of which love is more pure.

9) Everything occurs in real time. Choices are made in real time. Nothing is pre-determined. God can change His mind at any time and say, not destroy Nineveh as promised, in 40 days. Likewise God can promise Israel a promised land and liberation, but if they rebel, He can swear in His wrath that they will not enter His rest. Thus God changes arrangements.

So, based on this, God cannot be eternal, nor fully Truth, as he contradicts himself. How can he make a promise, then renig on it? That goes against the attribution of Truth being God.

10) When God expresses wrath, it is genuine, at that moment emotion which wells up in God, as wrath wells up in us. When God is jealous, or grieved, or He repents of making man, as before the flood, these are genuine and spontaneous emotions. God is not play-acting according to a predestined script.

While this point is solid, it begins to question the sovereign nature of God. If he allows man's actions to govern his own "emotions," then he cannot be God, as he is not supreme in his rule.

11) The universe is ancient, perhaps 13.75 billion years old.

Yes, it is. Agree all the way there. (I know this is where it becomes about the apeman thread, but I just wanted to have a point we agreed on).

19) God does not lie.

This point contradicts your point on God changing/going back on his promises.

So, while you conclude that God learns as he goes, you really have not provided sufficient evidence for this conclusion. After all, the claim that God is Eternal contradicts the possibility that God learns, as eternal by definition and application makes one exist outside of time, giving one power to be full of knowledge, lacking nothing.

 

[iouae]

I would like to use your opening comment on the apeman thread as a starting point; you give a great outline of your deductions and base principles for discussion there. ...

Can you prove that the idea of a omnipotent being is nonsense? If not, then to make this a point, stated as fact, is false. You must first be able to prove the nonexistence of an omnipotent being.

.

First off, thank you for the tone of your response, and I will try to reciprocate by keeping it civil.

If you don't mind, I will address each point as a separate post, otherwise it is like having to eat a whole elephant.

I believe God is not omnipotent in the sense that a Sovereign who is omnipotent would be. I welcome you giving any definition you like of "omnipotence". Its not a Bible term, so we cannot look it up with a Strong's number and find out what God meant when He called Himself "omnipotent". God does not call Himself omnipotent. Presumably the Catholics invented the term. I would argue that even they don't know what it means, but it sounded nice, and would surely score brownie points with God, in heaven.

God does not get his way as a Sovereign would.
God would have all men to be saved, but he does not get His wish.
God would not have his "little ones" offended, but some oaf will come along and offend them sometimes.

You have argued that this is to accommodate man having free will which is a higher order of "will of God".
I would argue that God has a hierarchy of wishes or wills, and sometimes He is subservient to a higher will.

For instance "God cannot lie". Does this make him unable to do what we do so easily and prove Him not omnipotent. Obviously not. There are a lot of things God cannot do. God cannot sin. God cannot create creatures with free will who cannot sin, because this would be logically inconsistent.

Many preachers say things which sound like they have the formula to make God do what they want, which usually involves making one rich. They are trying to make out that God is bound to a set of rules, and we only have to discover the key to these rules to get God to become our Cosmic Butler. I reject this argument. That would mean you have power over God, which is logically impossible, because you would then be God, and all powerful.

I don't believe any Father would want to subject their child to a crucifixion. Yet the Father found it necessary for Christ to suffer and die. This sounds anything like what I would do if I were God. If anyone were to suffer and die, the last person I would choose is my own dearly begotten Son. This behaviour of God in itself shows me God is not omnipotent. Because God had any number of other perfectly reasonable options He could have chosen, which would not have involved human sacrifice. Were not Enoch, Abel, Noah, Moses, David etc. saved before and without the need for His Son to die so gruesomely? I have my own speculations why Christ HAD TO SUFFER and die. Christ HAD TO learn obedience. This implies the relationship which Christ and the Father had from of old did not necessitate obedience of the One to the Other. The Godhead was going from more like equals, to more like a hierarchy. Of course I am speculating, and this will make many, and possibly you, uncomfortable. But if God was going to create and turn us into spirit beings, and give us power, the Father had to make sure that all of us together never try what Satan tried, which was to rebel against Him. Christ had to set the example of subservience to the Father, and we, in turn would be subservient to Christ and the Father.

Christ seldom gets His own will, because Christ's will is subject to the Father. He demonstrated it on earth, and it's still like that today while Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, where the Father clearly has more power - including the power to make Christ's enemies His footstool.

Thus, when one speaks of the omnipotence of God, I clearly see that one member of the Godhead has almost no power of free will at all, and that is Christ. He learned obedience, and He is subservient to the Father from then on and forever. It is the first rule of making robots, that you never make a robot which can overthrow you. God is making us so we can never overthrow Him, by putting the same spirit (of submission) that was in Christ, in us.

I could go through the whole Bible, chapter by chapter and find places where God is thwarted, annoyed, etc. by His creation not cooperating.
Eg. Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

What kind of omnipotence is this where you are expressing regret that what you did, turned out worse than expected.
What kind of omnipotence leaves you feeling grieved. If I were omnipotent, I would devise a world where I am never grieved. "Omnipotence" is a philosophical concept, and I am not really a philosopher.

 

[WeberHome]

-

6) God does not always get His way. For instance He would have all men saved, but not all will be.

In the passage below, the obligation to satisfy God's will is upon all men.

"God our savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth". (1Tim 2:2-4)

In this next passage, the obligation to safeguard the gifts given to him by God is upon Christ.

"This is the will of the one who sent me; that I should not lose anything of what He gave me." (John 6:39)

Christ has never disappointed his Father.

"The one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do what is pleasing to Him." (John 8:29)

The obligation is also upon Christ in this next passage.

"I am the gate; whoever enters through me shall be saved." (John 10:9)

Were Christ a so-so shepherd; then he wouldn't dare say "shall be" saved; no, he'd have to tone it down a bit and say "can be" saved. That would leave him some room for error. But when Christ says "shall be" he's claiming a 0.0% failure rate. That's how confident Christ is that he will lose nothing of what his Father has given him, including what were at one time his Father's sheep. (John 10:27-30).

/

 

[iouae]

Do you have any evidence of this point? You have used the verse of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, but is that really proof?

One could argue that God's testing of our faith is for our benefit, not for him to "make a decision." So, can you prove or allude to evidence that God "often behaves in a somewhat fickle and whimsical way?"

This point 3 can be explained along with point 9 where I wrote "9) Everything occurs in real time. Choices are made in real time. Nothing is pre-determined. God can change His mind at any time and say, not destroy Nineveh as promised, in 40 days. Likewise God can promise Israel a promised land and liberation, but if they rebel, He can swear in His wrath that they will not enter His rest. Thus God changes arrangements."

I don't believe in predestination. I do believe in free will. God has free will. This means He can do whatever He chooses. I can do whatever I like with my time, and God can likewise decide, on the spot, to do what He FEELS like doing.

The Bible and hence God Himself, goes to great lengths to show us that He has emotions, just like us. God is not just all head. I quoted Gen 6:6 where God "repents" and is "grieved", or expresses disappointment and regret. When God swears in His wrath that ancient Israel would never enter His rest, this sounds like God got really mad. In human terms, the worst time to make an enduring resolution is while one is having a rant. Yet we have this picture of God in heaven stomping back and forward on the glassy firmament, saying to the Son "Can you believe how faithless and rebellious this slave people are that they reject Me in favour of going back to Egypt? So now they will not get what I originally offered them, and they can die in the desert".

In Mal 3:6 God says For I am the LORD, I change not; ...

For a Being who lives forever, this is just as well. God is consistently good. But that said, God has an infinity variety of choices of things He can do with His time. It is only those reading too much into a statement like this, who insist that God cannot change His mind, or even act on the spur of the moment, or even react in the heat of the moment.

Do we think God was kidding when He told Moses to step aside so that God could destroy Israel and make Moses a great nation instead. God would have done that, but for Moses.
Do we think God was kidding when He threatened to destroy Nineveh in 40 days? If they had not repented, Nineveh would have been toast. Because nothing is predestined, and because the Ninevites have free will, there was a distinct possibility of God pressing the "smite" button. We see the whimsy of God when Jonah complains, God grows Jonah a gourd. Then God creates a caterpillar to eat Jonah's shade to try and teach Jonah sympathy for the tree, and Ninevites. Jonah told God to His face that He God was fickle.

Jon 4:1
But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.
Jon 4:2
And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

Jonah told God that he knew that God might change His mind, and that is why Jonah did not want to look stupid by telling the Ninevites that "the end was nigh" when it actually was not due to God having a change of heart.

Look beyond the fact that we like God being gracious and able to be implored to help us.

Why would Christ tell us the parable of the importunate widow who begs a king to avenge her, and her continual begging finally causes the king to grant her her request. This is clearly meant for us to keep coming to God until He changes His mind, and helps us. This is such fickle and arbitrary behaviour on behalf of God. Why does God answer us "No, No, No, ok then Yes"? Luke 18:1-5. God is saying we can almost nag Him till He gives in and grants us our wish. We, as parents, understand why God is so. If your kid asks you for a bike only once, why buy him one when he may not really want a bike or use it. But if the kid shows himself desperate, that demonstration of desperation moves us in turn to be gracious. Christ demonstrated this principle when he at first refused the request of the Samaritan woman, calling her a dog, just to test how much she really wanted her child healed.

 

[jsanford108]

.

First off, thank you for the tone of your response, and I will try to reciprocate by keeping it civil.

If you don't mind, I will address each point as a separate post, otherwise it is like having to eat a whole elephant.

Sounds like a plan.

I believe God is not omnipotent in the sense that a Sovereign who is omnipotent would be. I welcome you giving any definition you like of "omnipotence". Its not a Bible term, so we cannot look it up with a Strong's number and find out what God meant when He called Himself "omnipotent". God does not call Himself omnipotent. Presumably the Catholics invented the term. I would argue that even they don't know what it means, but it sounded nice, and would surely score brownie points with God, in heaven.

God does not get his way as a Sovereign would.
God would have all men to be saved, but he does not get His wish.

But this is in direct contradiction with God so loving the world that He sent His only Son, so that the world might be saved.

God would not have his "little ones" offended, but some oaf will come along and offend them sometimes.

This point sounds like the classic atheist argument about the existence of evil.

Does the existence of free will negate the presence of God?

You have argued that this is to accommodate man having free will which is a higher order of "will of God".
I would argue that God has a hierarchy of wishes or wills, and sometimes He is subservient to a higher will.

Okay, now we are really getting somewhere.

If God is subservient to a higher will, then he is not God, and whatever he is serving, is. God, by definition, must exist as the highest potential being. So, if God is serving the will of another, then he is not God. Make sense?

For instance "God cannot lie". Does this make him unable to do what we do so easily and prove Him not omnipotent. Obviously not. There are a lot of things God cannot do. God cannot sin. God cannot create creatures with free will who cannot sin, because this would be logically inconsistent.

Agreed. It is not about what God can/cannot do, but about what he is. If God is Truth, then he cannot be false in any capacity.

Many preachers say things which sound like they have the formula to make God do what they want, which usually involves making one rich. They are trying to make out that God is bound to a set of rules, and we only have to discover the key to these rules to get God to become our Cosmic Butler. I reject this argument. That would mean you have power over God, which is logically impossible, because you would then be God, and all powerful.

I agree with this entirely.

But this very point contradicts your claim of God being swayed by human action. If a person can influence God's decisions, then God is bound by the guidelines of said person's actions.

I don't believe any Father would want to subject their child to a crucifixion. Yet the Father found it necessary for Christ to suffer and die.

This is because on Christ is perfect, thus the only living being that could have been the pure, once for all sacrifice.

This sounds anything like what I would do if I were God. If anyone were to suffer and die, the last person I would choose is my own dearly begotten Son.

Right, but this is because you are viewing such choice and event through earthly eyes and emotions, no?

This behaviour of God in itself shows me God is not omnipotent. Because God had any number of other perfectly reasonable options He could have chosen, which would not have involved human sacrifice.

Okay, let us discuss this briefly. If God had other perfectly reasonable options, why did he not use them?

If you know more about this than God, then God cannot be God, for you are superior to him in this regard.

I have my own speculations why Christ HAD TO SUFFER and die. Christ HAD TO learn obedience.

While speculation is good, here it contradicts your very first point in this particular post. You said that "omnipotent" was most likely made up, due to it not being found in the Bible. Yet here, you are generating a theory, not found nor based on Scripture.

This implies the relationship which Christ and the Father had from of old did not necessitate obedience of the One to the Other. The Godhead was going from more like equals, to more like a hierarchy. Of course I am speculating, and this will make many, and possibly you, uncomfortable.

No discomfort felt here. This is a discussion. Truth and theory are what makes good discussion.

But if God was going to create and turn us into spirit beings, and give us power, the Father had to make sure that all of us together never try what Satan tried, which was to rebel against Him. Christ had to set the example of subservience to the Father, and we, in turn would be subservient to Christ and the Father.

I would disagree, as God had already created spiritual beings (angels). And, Satan only took a third of them. So, the human appeal to reason that you are using would lead one to just cut the losses.

"Omnipotence" is a philosophical concept, and I am not really a philosopher.

I would agree. I would also say "omnipotence" is a theological concept.

 

[iouae]

-


In the passage below, the obligation to satisfy God's will is upon all men.

"God our savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth". (1Tim 2:2-4)

In this next passage, the obligation to safeguard the gifts given to him by God is upon Christ.

"This is the will of the one who sent me; that I should not lose anything of what He gave me." (John 6:39)

Christ has never disappointed his Father.

"The one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do what is pleasing to Him." (John 8:29)

The obligation is also upon Christ in this next passage.

"I am the gate; whoever enters through me shall be saved." (John 10:9)

Were Christ a so-so shepherd; then he wouldn't dare say "shall be" saved; no, he'd have to tone it down a bit and say "can be" saved. That would leave him some room for error. But when Christ says "shall be" he's claiming a 0.0% failure rate. That's how confident Christ is that he will lose nothing of what his Father has given him, including what were at one time his Father's sheep. (John 10:27-30).

/

The Father's will is that all be saved.
But only those who believe on His son will be saved.
It is not because of the Father or Son's want of trying that all are not saved.
Because humans have a part to play in working out their own salvation with fear and trembling, the fly in the ointment is human unbelief.

God cannot force us to believe. This is a demonstration of God's lack of omnipotence.
Because we Christians can become "shipwrecked" and because there exists the possibility that if we fall away another can take our crown - all this terminology shows us that salvation is a process, not a once-off giving our hearts to the Lord. We have to be called, chosen and faithful. The faithful is up to us.

 

[jsanford108]

This point 3 can be explained along with point 9 where I wrote "9) Everything occurs in real time. Choices are made in real time. Nothing is pre-determined. God can change His mind at any time and say, not destroy Nineveh as promised, in 40 days. Likewise God can promise Israel a promised land and liberation, but if they rebel, He can swear in His wrath that they will not enter His rest. Thus God changes arrangements."

I don't believe in predestination. I do believe in free will. God has free will. This means He can do whatever He chooses. I can do whatever I like with my time, and God can likewise decide, on the spot, to do what He FEELS like doing.

We agree here.

The Bible and hence God Himself, goes to great lengths to show us that He has emotions, just like us. God is not just all head.

Wouldn't we have emotions, akin to God's, since we are made in his image?

I am not trying to be nit-picky; I am just highlighting how all good comes from God, rather than "personifying" him.

I quoted Gen 6:6 where God "repents" and is "grieved", or expresses disappointment and regret. When God swears in His wrath that ancient Israel would never enter His rest, this sounds like God got really mad. In human terms, the worst time to make an enduring resolution is while one is having a rant.

Here is where I would say your are diverging into flawed logic; you are comparing God to humanity, in a downward sense. This is like how the Greeks made their gods so similar to themselves. You tend to place human ideas and projections onto God.

In Mal 3:6 God says For I am the LORD, I change not; ...

Doesn't this go against your point?

For a Being who lives forever, this is just as well. God is consistently good. But that said, God has an infinity variety of choices of things He can do with His time. It is only those reading too much into a statement like this, who insist that God cannot change His mind, or even act on the spur of the moment, or even react in the heat of the moment.

I would say that God does act "in the moment." "In the moment" implies the present, no?

The present is where eternity touches time. God, being eternal, would have all knowledge, right? Not in the Calvinist sense, but in that God knows all Truth. So, God, knowing what is best, always employs actions that are True/Good. So, to say that God "acts in the heat of the moment," is once again projecting human nature onto God. A human may view it as "changing," but it is not, as God would always be acting in the interest of Truth and Goodness. Make sense?

Do we think God was kidding when He told Moses to step aside so that God could destroy Israel and make Moses a great nation instead. God would have done that, but for Moses.
Do we think God was kidding when He threatened to destroy Nineveh in 40 days? If they had not repented, Nineveh would have been toast. Because nothing is predestined, and because the Ninevites have free will, there was a distinct possibility of God pressing the "smite" button. We see the whimsy of God when Jonah complains, God grows Jonah a gourd. Then God creates a caterpillar to eat Jonah's shade to try and teach Jonah sympathy for the tree, and Ninevites.

Right on. This is a showcase of free will. Indisputable.

But throughout, God always allowed people to alter their course. We could say that "Nineveh was destined for destruction," yet we know that they avoided it. How? By altering their actions. But, hypothetically, what if they had not? I would say that in that case, God would have fulfilled his warning and destroyed them. So, was it a "change of heart," or was it God in his divine providence allowing the people to repent?

Jonah told God to His face that He God was fickle.

And he paid for that, didn't he.

And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

Repent means to "turn away from," right? So, yes, God turns away from evil. This doesn't demonstrate an altering of emotion or intent.

Granted, you are using the human act of repentance and applying it to God.

Why would Christ tell us the parable of the importunate widow who begs a king to avenge her, and her continual begging finally causes the king to grant her her request. This is clearly meant for us to keep coming to God until He changes His mind, and helps us. This is such fickle and arbitrary behaviour on behalf of God. Why does God answer us "No, No, No, ok then Yes"? Luke 18:1-5. God is saying we can almost nag Him till He gives in and grants us our wish. We, as parents, understand why God is so. If your kid asks you for a bike only once, why buy him one when he may not really want a bike or use it. But if the kid shows himself desperate, that demonstration of desperation moves us in turn to be gracious. Christ demonstrated this principle when he at first refused the request of the Samaritan woman, calling her a dog, just to test how much she really wanted her child healed.

Here is the issue with this point: you interchange ideas within, making each verse fit how it best suits your argument.

Could Christ be telling us in the parable that we should maintain hope? Could it be that God is testing us, as you pointed out in the end with Christ seeming to insult the woman? As I pointed out earlier, we are tested for our benefit, not God's. Because remember, he does not change.

You say, "This is clearly meant for us to keep coming to God until He changes His mind, and helps us," but where is such clarification made? Is this not your interpretation, based not on what is found in the passage?

This is such fickle and arbitrary behaviour on behalf of God. Why does God answer us "No, No, No, ok then Yes"? Luke 18:1-5. God is saying we can almost nag Him till He gives in and grants us our wish. We, as parents, understand why God is so. If your kid asks you for a bike only once, why buy him one when he may not really want a bike or use it. But if the kid shows himself desperate, that demonstration of desperation moves us in turn to be gracious.

Here again, you are applying human emotion and rationale to God.

Thus far in our discussion, I would say that you consistently apply human traits to God. I would say that doing this would logically lead to one concluding that God learns, and is thus not omnipotent. But why? Well, because we, humans, aren't. This seems to be the constant argument throughout your claims. Would you agree, on that premise?

 

[iouae]

It is not about what God can/cannot do, but about what he is. If God is Truth, then he cannot be false in any capacity.

Christ told the Jews to destroy the temple and in three days He would rebuild it. He also told the Jews they had to eat Him.

There was not one person in the audience who would correctly guess what Christ meant by saying these two things. Thus we might accuse God of being deceptive, because if we take Him literally, it turns out we were wrong.

God is very fond of speaking in riddles, where the literal meaning is totally the wrong meaning.

Could God communicate more clearly? Of course He could.

Luke 8:10 tells us that God speaks obtusely to reveal meaning to some, and hide meaning from others.
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

 

[jsanford108]

Christ told the Jews to destroy the temple and in three days He would rebuild it. He also told the Jews they had to eat Him.

There was not one person in the audience who would correctly guess what Christ meant by saying these two things. Thus we might accuse God of being deceptive, because if we take Him literally, it turns out we were wrong.

Here, I would say that context matters. Plus, if we read the Gospels, with full trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the authors, then the clarifications on when Christ is speaking in parable or metaphor form is quite clear.

God is very fond of speaking in riddles, where the literal meaning is totally the wrong meaning.

Is this not demonstrating human limits?

I would caution against using various literal vs metaphorical interpretations of certain passages as points, as it could easily lead into discussions on those specific passages/doctrines, rather than the issue of omnipotence. Just speaking from experience.

 

[iouae]

I would say that God does act "in the moment." "In the moment" implies the present, no?

The present is where eternity touches time. God, being eternal, would have all knowledge, right? Not in the Calvinist sense, but in that God knows all Truth. So, God, knowing what is best, always employs actions that are True/Good. So, to say that God "acts in the heat of the moment," is once again projecting human nature onto God. A human may view it as "changing," but it is not, as God would always be acting in the interest of Truth and Goodness. Make sense?

The reason why God cannot sin is because God gets to define sin. Do what God likes and wants, and you are not sinning. But because God always does what He likes and wants, by definition God cannot sin.

That is why Christ asked the rich young man not to call him "good" and that only One, that is the Father, is good. Its from the definition of "good". Even Christ can be tempted to go against the Father's will (such as not wanting to be crucified). God cannot be tempted, but Christ could. I (aeiou)cannot be tempted to go against my own will. Therefore if going against aeiou's will is defined as sin, I could never sin. And I would be the only truly "good" one around if "good" is defined as never crossing aeiou's will.

Even when God is angry. He still can swear in His wrath and not sin, because He is still in line with His will at the time. Maybe, just maybe, God may regret swearing when He cools down. But even His less-than-perfect decision, made in the heat of the moment is a "good" decision, because "good" is whatever God the Father decides.

 

[iouae]

Could Christ be telling us in the parable that we should maintain hope? Could it be that God is testing us, as you pointed out in the end with Christ seeming to insult the woman? As I pointed out earlier, we are tested for our benefit, not God's. Because remember, he does not change.

You say, "This is clearly meant for us to keep coming to God until He changes His mind, and helps us," but where is such clarification made? Is this not your interpretation, based not on what is found in the passage?

Luckily we don't have to guess the point of the parable since it is given in verse 1 of Luke 18.

And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

In a sense you are right and I am wrong in saying that we wait for God to change His answer from "No" to "Yes".
In a sense God could be unchanging in the sense that He never intended to answer us right away.

But in the parable, the king (who represents the Father) first said "No" and really meant "No". But the widow wore Him out, which clearly the Father cannot be worn out, since He could turn off the mic, put down the phone, or just stop listening if He wanted. So in the parable itself the king changes his mind and answer from "No" to "Yes". But I may have made the classic rookie mistake of not realising that a parable has one and only one point and that point is "that men ought always to pray, and not to faint". So I will concede that I cannot use details of the parable to prove anything else such as that God changes His mind. You are right.

 

[iouae]

Thus far in our discussion, I would say that you consistently apply human traits to God. I would say that doing this would logically lead to one concluding that God learns, and is thus not omnipotent. But why? Well, because we, humans, aren't. This seems to be the constant argument throughout your claims. Would you agree, on that premise?

I totally agree. Thanks for your comprehension skills.

What do you think. Does the Bible not go out of its way to portray God as being just like us?
Genesis 1:26 God makes us in His image.
Genesis 3:8 God walks in the garden and talks with them, seemingly as any Father might.
In Rev 22:4 we are told "And they shall see his face..."

Thus from Genesis to Revelation God comes across as a man, a Father, someone we can relate to because He is like us, just more powerful and without sin, and immortal.

Why should God not learn? What do you think, just from a philosophical point of view? When did God come to know "all". Is there such a thing as knowing all? Is there such a thing as "omnipotent"? Could God do anything, including destroy Himself? If He could, then He would not be immortal. And being dead, He would have zero power. I ask these questions which I consider dumb, but which Greek philosophers would love to discuss ad infinitum. I personally believe the term "omnipotent" is meaningless when applied to God, because even God clearly has limits, such as, he cannot lie.

And if Christ learned obedience, and presumably remembers the lesson, we know that Christ who is God, can learn. And did the new dynamic not affect the Father too.

I believe those who say God cannot learn have been brainwashed by the idea knows everything. How is this even logically possible for God to know everything to infinity. By definition, infinity goes on forever, so how could God know something which has no limit? And if we have free will indeed, then God does not even know what we will do, till we do it. And surely, this proves God learns?

I believe the following two scriptures show God is not omnipotent, or omniscient, or omnipresent.


Gen 18:20
And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen 18:21
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

If God were omnipresent, he would not have to "go down".
And if God were omniscient, he would already have known without having to go down. But He says "I WILL know".
And the above shows God learning, in this case whether Sodom was as bad as had been reported to Him.
This does not look like omnipotence, if God has to personally intervene to determine the truth of something as mundane as the sin of Sodom. Does He not have an earth-cam, or CCTV?