BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[Z Man]

i find no reference to Satan in the 2 Samuel account. Chronicles however contains both God and Satan and that is why i argue it's the more specific account.

You're right; there is no reference to Satan in the Samuel account. But there is no reference to God in 1 Chronicles 21:1 either! 2 Sam. 24:1 says God moved David to take the census, and 1 Chr. 21:1 says Satan moved David. So, again, why assume that the Chronicles verse is more specific?

because Chronicles clarifies the Samuel account and says it was Satan who incited David.

It clarifies how God moved David to take the census. It does not make the reference that God moved David to take the census in 2 Sam. 24:1 obsolete, as you would have us to believe.

you are assuming the definition of "moved". you assume it's causative, when it does not have to be so.

Satan did it. you don't believe he can force people into sin do you? regardless, the word "moved" does not have to be interpreted determinitively here.

purely an assumption.

again, assuming that "moved" is determinitive.

You continually assert that I make the assumption that the word 'moved', as used in 2 Sam. 24, is causative, or determinitive. Yet, you also assume that it does not.

However, the burden of proof lies in your hands, because in the Biblical account, the word 'moved' was causative - it did involve David taking the census. You assume that it means David had a choice, or that it wasn't determinitve. But I ask, where is your proof?

God "moved" Jonah to go to Ninevah, but he said no.

And looked what happened to Jonah! You think Jonah freely chose to be swallowed by a whale? God told Jonah to go to Ninevah, and it may not be what Jonah wanted, but God got His way anyways, regardless of how Jonah felt about it.

Besides, the word 'moved' is not used in Jonah. God did not 'move' Jonah to go to Ninevah; He simply said, "Arise, go to Nineveh".

ok. but why do you decide to interpret texts like "and the Lord repented of the evil he had planned to bring" as figurative? do you have any reason for doing so besides making it fit your theology? shouldn't we have a better reason than that?

My reason for saying text like that are 'figurative' is not so that it fits my theology, but because Scriptures tell us so! If we were to take all the proof texts that Open Theists show to support their idea that God 'repents', or changes His mind, then we would have to ignore Numbers 23, because it seriously contradicts those texts:

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

This verse shows us that the other texts that says God repents must be figurative.

 

[drbrumley]

No, that verse shows us God does not change His character.

So ZMAN, let's assume you get to heaven, which I don't doubt BTW, unlike you who label us as heretics, and you before God find out God indeed changed His mind. Will you think less of Him?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

You're right; there is no reference to Satan in the Samuel account. But there is no reference to God in 1 Chronicles 21:1 either! 2 Sam. 24:1 says God moved David to take the census, and 1 Chr. 21:1 says Satan moved David. So, again, why assume that the Chronicles verse is more specific?

because Satan is subordinate to God. if we took the Samuel account to be more specific, it would mean Satan told God what to do, which neither of us believes.

It clarifies how God moved David to take the census. It does not make the reference that God moved David to take the census in 2 Sam. 24:1 obsolete, as you would have us to believe.

i did not mean to suggest that it was obsolete.

You continually assert that I make the assumption that the word 'moved', as used in 2 Sam. 24, is causative, or determinitive. Yet, you also assume that it does not.

is not the default position that it's non-determinitive? aren't all calvinists only so because they are taught it? reality speaks of non-determiniation, or rather that we have a real role in determining the future. it is only after someone introduces us to determinism that one can be persuaded to such a teaching.

However, the burden of proof lies in your hands, because in the Biblical account, the word 'moved' was causative - it did involve David taking the census.

you have just committed the logical falacy of begging the question. you say that the burden of proof is on me because "it was causative" when that is the very thing you are trying to prove.

You assume that it means David had a choice, or that it wasn't determinitve. But I ask, where is your proof?

my argument rests on the nature of reality. that is, the nature of right and wrong depend on one having a choice. if one has no choice, then one cannot be held accountable for doing something morally wrong. it would be like punishing a computer for running it's program. without choice, it only does what it can do.

And looked what happened to Jonah!

the fact that anything had to be done to him is evidence that when God moved him he had the capacity to reject it. for if God's influence is determinitve, as in the census, then Jonah should not have been able to flee from God.

why do you hold that when God moved David, he had no choice, but when he moved Jonah, he could run away?

You think Jonah freely chose to be swallowed by a whale? God told Jonah to go to Ninevah, and it may not be what Jonah wanted, but God got His way anyways, regardless of how Jonah felt about it.

and yet you overlook the point i've been making here which is that Jonah should not have been able to run away at all if when God moves people they have no choice. so why the difference between David and Jonah? why do you think one could flee and one had no choice?

Besides, the word 'moved' is not used in Jonah. God did not 'move' Jonah to go to Ninevah; He simply said, "Arise, go to Nineveh".

does that sound any different from "And the Lord moved Jonah to go to Ninevah" ?

My reason for saying text like that are 'figurative' is not so that it fits my theology, but because Scriptures tell us so!

the scriptures can say many things depending on how you read them, so this doesn't really answer the question. further, theology is scripture interpretated, so this is a tautology (says nothing new).

If we were to take all the proof texts that Open Theists show to support their idea that God 'repents', or changes His mind, then we would have to ignore Numbers 23, because it seriously contradicts those texts:

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

This verse shows us that the other texts that says God repents must be figurative.

and why do we take this one verse and elevate it above the many others that say exactly the opposite? why do we make this one absolute? shouldn't the many take precedence over the few? if we have two verses that suggest that God has a body, and 20 that say he doesn't, should we elevate the 2 that suggest he has a body over the 20 that say he doesn't?

does it not make more sense to interpret the few in light of the many? if we have 20 that say God does repent, and 2 that say he doesn't, is it not worth considering that maybe the 2 just mean God isn't going to repent in that specific instance?

 

[Z Man]

because Satan is subordinate to God. if we took the Samuel account to be more specific, it would mean Satan told God what to do, which neither of us believes.

Satan IS subordinate to God!

Let's think about this for a moment. If Satan is subordinate to God, and 2 Sam. 24:1 states that God moved David to take the census, what can we infer from 1 Chr. 21:1???

You continually assert that I make the assumption that the word 'moved', as used in 2 Sam. 24, is causative, or determinitive. Yet, you also assume that it does not.

is not the default position that it's non-determinitive? aren't all calvinists only so because they are taught it? reality speaks of non-determiniation, or rather that we have a real role in determining the future. it is only after someone introduces us to determinism that one can be persuaded to such a teaching.

I think you missed my point. I was simply making it clear that you too assume the definition of the word 'moved', as used in 2 Sam. 24:1. The difference is that my definition of the word (to be causative) is supported by Scripture - when God moved David to take the census, he did it. In fact, whenever the Scriptures say God 'moved' someone or something to do a particular thing, they did it! So, it must be concluded that 'moved' is causative, since in all the times it was used, it lead to fulfilling what God had intended.

However, the burden of proof lies in your hands, because in the Biblical account, the word 'moved' was causative - it did involve David taking the census.

you have just committed the logical falacy of begging the question. you say that the burden of proof is on me because "it was causative" when that is the very thing you are trying to prove.

I'm not trying to prove it - Scripture already does! When God moved David to take the census, what did David do???

Thus, 'moved', as used in 2 Sam. 24:1, was causative. You assume otherwise, and I was interested in why you would conclude so. And you gave me your answer:

You assume that it means David had a choice, or that it wasn't determinitve. But I ask, where is your proof?

my argument rests on the nature of reality. that is, the nature of right and wrong depend on one having a choice. if one has no choice, then one cannot be held accountable for doing something morally wrong. it would be like punishing a computer for running it's program. without choice, it only does what it can do.

Your argument that the word moved is non-determinitive, or non-causative, based on your interpretation of the nature of reality does not hold up in light of Scripture. Aside what you think, the Scriptures say God moved David to take the census, and thus David did so. Thus, the word 'moved' in this passage indicates that it was causative. What evidence, from Scripture, can you give to show us that the word 'moved' was not causative, other than your opinion on what 'reality' is all about?

the fact that anything had to be done to him is evidence that when God moved him he had the capacity to reject it. for if God's influence is determinitve, as in the census, then Jonah should not have been able to flee from God.

why do you hold that when God moved David, he had no choice, but when he moved Jonah, he could run away?

When God moved David, it wasn't that David did not have a choice, or that David was forced against his will to take a census, and he could do nothing else. David took the census because he wanted to. However, as you have agreed to earlier, David's intentions were sinful. God's intentions were of a different nature. Though God ordained the action of David taking the census, he was still responsible for it.

When God asked Jonah to go to Nineveh, Jonah disobeyed. Was God surprised? Of course not. As we see in the end of Jonah, he learned a valuable lesson in his disobedience to God. God ordained that Jonah flee and eventually be swallowed by a whale. Jonah later arrived in Nineveh, just as God asked Jonah to do.

In both cases, God got His way. If David didn't take the census, or Jonah didn't go to Nineveh, then you'd have an argument.

and yet you overlook the point i've been making here which is that Jonah should not have been able to run away at all if when God moves people they have no choice. so why the difference between David and Jonah? why do you think one could flee and one had no choice?

Both David and Jonah did as they wished. And in both cases, God got what He wanted. He also punished both for their actions. I see no clash with my view.

and why do we take this one verse and elevate it above the many others that say exactly the opposite? why do we make this one absolute? shouldn't the many take precedence over the few?

I'm not elevating or making a verse more 'absolute' over another. If we believe the Scriptures that say God repents literally, then we must ignore Num. 23. I can't do that.

does it not make more sense to interpret the few in light of the many? if we have 20 that say God does repent, and 2 that say he doesn't, is it not worth considering that maybe the 2 just mean God isn't going to repent in that specific instance?

Maybe so, if the 2 that say He does not repent are indeed speaking of a specific instance.

But that's not the case for Num. 23. This verse is a general description of God's actions. It is not referring to a specific event.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Let's think about this for a moment. If Satan is subordinate to God, and 2 Sam. 24:1 states that God moved David to take the census, what can we infer from 1 Chr. 21:1???

that God wanted Satan to tempt David. another reason the Chronicles account is more specific is that God himself does not tempt anyone, so Satan obviously did the tempting himself.

James 1:13
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

but let me bring up another verse you may have overlooked

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

this verse clearly teaches that with every temptation, there is always a choice. Satan tempted David to sin, he does not have the power to force people into it. and in this temptation, as with all temptations, he had the option to say no. 1 Corinthians 10 guarantees it.

The difference is that my definition of the word (to be causative) is supported by Scripture - when God moved David to take the census, he did it. In fact, whenever the Scriptures say God 'moved' someone or something to do a particular thing, they did it! So, it must be concluded that 'moved' is causative, since in all the times it was used, it lead to fulfilling what God had intended.

1 Corinthians 10 says that with every temptation there is an opportunity to escape it. David therefore could have said no to the tempation, which means "moved" cannot be interepted determinitively.

furthermore, if "moved" was determinitive here it would mean Satan directly made David take the cenus. since neither one of us believes Satan can force people into sin (i'm assuming anyways), "moved" must not be determinitve.

I'm not trying to prove it - Scripture already does! When God moved David to take the census, what did David do???

you mean when Satan moved him? he gave into the temptation, but he could have rejected it, as 1 Corinthians 10 states.

Your argument that the word moved is non-determinitive, or non-causative, based on your interpretation of the nature of reality does not hold up in light of Scripture.

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

When God moved David, it wasn't that David did not have a choice, or that David was forced against his will to take a census, and he could do nothing else.

then it wasn't determinitive!

David took the census because he wanted to. However, as you have agreed to earlier, David's intentions were sinful. God's intentions were of a different nature. Though God ordained the action of David taking the census, he was still responsible for it.

David was responsible because he gave into a sinful temptation when he could have rejected it.

When God asked Jonah to go to Nineveh, Jonah disobeyed. Was God surprised? Of course not. As we see in the end of Jonah, he learned a valuable lesson in his disobedience to God.

and what lesson would that be? oh yes, that God is merciful and repents of judgements when people repent of wickedness. of course, you would say that must all be "figurative"

Both David and Jonah did as they wished. And in both cases, God got what He wanted. He also punished both for their actions. I see no clash with my view.

Jonah did as he wished? if Jonah had his way he'd have been on the other side of the world, as far away from ninevah as he could be!

Jonah 4
So he prayed to the LORD, and said, “Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish;

God had to almost drag Jonah into doing what He wanted him to do. but just because Jonah did it, doesn't mean it was what he wished.

I'm not elevating or making a verse more 'absolute' over another. If we believe the Scriptures that say God repents literally, then we must ignore Num. 23. I can't do that.

not if you interpret it in terms of it's bigger context (the rest of numbers). Acts9_12Out i believe has shown this elsewhere.

Maybe so, if the 2 that say He does not repent are indeed speaking of a specific instance.

But that's not the case for Num. 23. This verse is a general description of God's actions. It is not referring to a specific event.

if you take the verse by itself, isolated from the rest of numbers, yes it could mean that. but in light of the earlier passages, i don't believe this is the case.

 

[drbrumley]

No, that verse shows us God does not change His character.

So ZMAN, let's assume you get to heaven, which I don't doubt BTW, unlike you who label us as heretics, and you before God find out God indeed changed His mind. Will you think less of Him?

Waiting for a reply Z.

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

ZMan,

Here's what I posted to Jerry Shugart when he also said Numbers 23:19 forced the interpretation of God never repenting. I hope you can do better tearing apart me exegisis than Jerry did...

Jerry referred to Numbers 23:19 as a proof text that God does not repent, ever. Here’s the verse…

Numbers 23
19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

This seems pretty obvious doesn’t it? God never repents, right? That’s what Jerry would like you to believe. Let’s look at the passage in context. Don't you think that's important Jerry? In Numbers 22, Balak, the king of the Moabites, was afraid when he saw what Israel had done to the Amorites.

Numbers 22
1 Then the children of Israel moved, and camped in the plains of Moab on the side of the Jordan across from Jericho.
2 Now Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.
3And Moab was exceedingly afraid of the people because they were many, and Moab was sick with dread because of the children of Israel.
4 So Moab said to the elders of Midian, “Now this company will lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field.” And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time.

So he sent messengers to his homeland in Mesopotamia to have the soothsayer, Balaam, come and curse Israel.

Numbers 22
5 Then he sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor at Pethor, which is near the River in the land of the sons of his people, to call him, saying: “Look, a people has come from Egypt. See, they cover the face of the earth, and are settling next to me!
6 “Therefore please come at once, curse this people for me, for they are too mighty for me. Perhaps I shall be able to defeat them and drive them out of the land, for I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.”
7 So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the diviner’s fee in their hand, and they came to Balaam and spoke to him the words of Balak.
8 And he said to them, “Lodge here tonight, and I will bring back word to you, as the LORD speaks to me.” So the princes of Moab stayed with Balaam.
9 Then God came to Balaam and said, “Who are these men with you?”
10 So Balaam said to God, “Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, has sent to me, saying,
11 ‘Look, a people has come out of Egypt, and they cover the face of the earth. Come now, curse them for me; perhaps I shall be able to overpower them and drive them out.’ ”

But God told Balaam not to go.

Numbers 22
12 And God said to Balaam, “You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people, for they are blessed.”
13 So Balaam rose in the morning and said to the princes of Balak, “Go back to your land, for the LORD has refused to give me permission to go with you.”
14 And the princes of Moab rose and went to Balak, and said, “Balaam refuses to come with us.”

So King Balak tried again, promising great honor to Balaam.

Numbers 22
15 Then Balak again sent princes, more numerous and more honorable than they.
16 And they came to Balaam and said to him, “Thus says Balak the son of Zippor: ‘Please let nothing hinder you from coming to me;
17 ‘for I will certainly honor you greatly, and I will do whatever you say to me. Therefore please come, curse this people for me.’ ”

Then Balaam said he could not go “beyond the word of the LORD my God” (Numbers 22:18).

I might add that his heart was not really sincere in following Yahweh, for 2 Peter 2:15,16 and Jude 11 say,

2 Peter 2
15 “They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.”

Jude 11 “Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.”

He then told them to wait and see what the LORD would say to him.

Numbers 22
18 Then Balaam answered and said to the servants of Balak, “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more.
19 “Now therefore, please, you also stay here tonight, that I may know what more the LORD will say to me.”

God let Balaam go to Balak, but He ordered him to say only what He told him (Numbers 22:20,21). That’s why “the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him”

You still following the story Jerry? :readthis:

Numbers 22
22 Then God’s anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the LORD took His stand in the way as an adversary against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him.

After Balaam’s encounter, verse 35 says,

Numbers 22
35 “Then the Angel of the LORD said to Balaam, Go with the men, but only the word that I speak to you, that you shall speak.”

So King Balak welcomed Balaam, but Balaam had gotten the message. He told the king he could only speak what God put in his mouth.

Numbers 22
36 Now when Balak heard that Balaam was coming, he went out to meet him at the city of Moab, which is on the border at the Arnon, the boundary of the territory.
37 Then Balak said to Balaam, “Did I not earnestly send to you, calling for you? Why did you not come to me? Am I not able to honor you?”
38 And Balaam said to Balak, “Look, I have come to you! Now, have I any power at all to say anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that I must speak.”
39 So Balaam went with Balak, and they came to Kirjath Huzoth.

So Balak offered oxen and sheep to Yahweh, to have God look favorable on him, that is, to bribe Him. So he took Balaam up “to the high places of Baal” for a better view, so he could see the Israelites to better curse them.

Numbers 22
40 Then Balak offered oxen and sheep, and he sent some to Balaam and to the princes who were with him.
41 So it was the next day, that Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal, that from there he might observe the extent of the people.

Balaam also got into the act by telling him to “build seven altars for me here”. Balaam wanted to bribe Yahweh also for he said, “perhaps the LORD will come to meet me”. Yahweh did,

Numbers 23
1 Then Balaam said to Balak, “Build seven altars for me here, and prepare for me here seven bulls and seven rams.”
2 And Balak did just as Balaam had spoken, and Balak and Balaam offered a bull and a ram on each altar.
3 Then Balaam said to Balak, “Stand by your burnt offering, and I will go; perhaps the LORD will come to meet me, and whatever He shows me I will tell you.” So he went to a desolate height.
4 And God met Balaam, and he said to Him, “I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered on each altar a bull and a ram.”
5 Then the LORD put a word in Balaam’s mouth, and said, “Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak.”
6 So he returned to him, and there he was, standing by his burnt offering, he and all the princes of Moab.

You still with me Jerry? Again, the context determines the point of God's statement in Numbers 23:19... We're almost there!

…but He caused Balaam to bless Israel.

Numbers 23
7 And he took up his oracle and said: “Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, From the mountains of the east. ‘Come, curse Jacob for me, And come, denounce Israel!’
8 “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? And how shall I denounce whom the LORD has not denounced?
9 For from the top of the rocks I see him, And from the hills I behold him; There! A people dwelling alone, Not reckoning itself among the nations.
10 “Who can count the dust of Jacob, Or number one-fourth of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, And let my end be like his!”

Balak got angry.

Numbers 23
11 Then Balak said to Balaam, “What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, and look, you have blessed them bountifully!”
12 So he answered and said, “Must I not take heed to speak what the LORD has put in my mouth?”
13 Then Balak said to him, “Please come with me to another place from which you may see them; you shall see only the outer part of them, and shall not see them all; curse them for me from there.”

Then, in verses 14-18 it says,

Numbers 23
14 So he brought him to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered a bull and a ram on each altar
15 And he said to Balak, Stand here by your burnt offering while I meet the LORD over there
16 Then the LORD met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth, and said, Go back to Balak, and thus you shall speak
17 So he came to him, and there he was, standing by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab were with him And Balak said to him, What has the LORD spoken?
18 Then he took up his oracle and said: Rise up, Balak, and hear! Listen to me, son of Zippor!

Now we must realize this is the third time Balak has offered sacrifices to Yahweh, trying to bribe Him to curse Israel. God has gotten fed up with this stuff. “You’re trying to bribe me? Don’t you know who I am?” Well, let’s read what God put in Balaam’s mouth. He caused Balaam to prophesy that wonderful statement, Numbers 23:19,20.

Numbers 23
19 God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
20 Behold, I have received a command to bless; He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it.

Notice verse 20 Jerry... Verse 20 helps us to understand verse 19 in conjunction with the previous context.

From this, we can see that God would not lie. He has already blessed Israel twice. Now, just because they sacrifice all these sacrifices, is that going to change God? He is not like a man who can be bribed. Every man may have his price, but our wonderful God isn’t swayed by bribes. The point here is, God chose to bless Israel. No matter how many sacrifices or bribes Balak offered, God would not repent concerning Israel’s blessings. Now, I know Jerry would like us to believe that God never repents, but we know that is not true. God did not repent in this specific situation.

Please take the time to read the context Jerry. You will see that there is a specific reason God does not lie or repent in this instance. God cannot be bribed like a mere man...

God bless,
--Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[Z Man]

that God wanted Satan to tempt David.

Open Theism doesn't believe this.

another reason the Chronicles account is more specific is that God himself does not tempt anyone, so Satan obviously did the tempting himself.

James 1:13
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

but let me bring up another verse you may have overlooked

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

this verse clearly teaches that with every temptation, there is always a choice. Satan tempted David to sin, he does not have the power to force people into it. and in this temptation, as with all temptations, he had the option to say no. 1 Corinthians 10 guarantees it.



1 Corinthians 10 says that with every temptation there is an opportunity to escape it. David therefore could have said no to the tempation, which means "moved" cannot be interepted determinitively.

furthermore, if "moved" was determinitive here it would mean Satan directly made David take the cenus. since neither one of us believes Satan can force people into sin (i'm assuming anyways), "moved" must not be determinitve.



you mean when Satan moved him? he gave into the temptation, but he could have rejected it, as 1 Corinthians 10 states.



1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.



then it wasn't determinitive!

All this arousel over 1 Cor 10:13 does not help your case. You are refuting a strawman built by the Open Theists to help them attack against the Settled View. The strawman is this:

If God ordains something, then the person involved could do nothing else, and thus God is responsible.

But this assumes that God made someone do something that they did not want to do - that He caused a person to sin when they wised not to! And that's a false assumption! It's one that no Calvinist believes! I've explained this idea in an earlier post:

Originally posted by Z Man​

When I say God predestined something, you automatically assume that it means God actually commited the act. For example, if I was to say God ordained the murder of an individual by another, you would think that what I said was that God forced one person to kill another (or God directly controlled the actions of the murderer, like a puppet on strings) and then turns around and says that it was their fault. However, what I'm really saying is that yes, God ordained that the murder take place at a specific time and location, and ordained that John be the victim, and Joe be the murderer, BUT (and that's a big but), the intentions of the murderer were truly his own. The actions he committed were truly done by the murderer, and were planned by the murderer, and were desired to be carried out by the murderer. God didn't force Joe to kill John against Joe's will, but ordained that Joe kill John as Joe had planned according to his own heart and desire.

God's never responsible for our sins. Let's please put that false assumption concerning the Calvinist view to rest!​

In my opinion, 1 Cor 10 simply shows us how God looks after His elect (for Paul is addressing Christians here). It does not implicate that we have a choice to reject God's 'will of decree' (sovereign will), which is what you are trying to pursuade.

David was responsible because he gave into a sinful temptation when he could have rejected it.

Your reasoning is false. In the same manner, if a person goes to court for a murder, you would argue that the reason he was sentenced to prison was because he had a choice and rejected the better one?

Ludicris! People are sentenced and judged on the account of what they did, not on the account of what they should've done. Thus, David was responsible for what he did, not because he could have not done it.

and what lesson would that be? oh yes, that God is merciful and repents of judgements when people repent of wickedness. of course, you would say that must all be "figurative"

This horse has been beaten to death already. If God truly desired to destroy Nineveh, why did He send Jonah? His repentance in Jonah was not like that of a man. The difference would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge. God's way of "repenting" is unique to God: "God is not a man that he should repent" (the way a man repents in his ignorance of the future).

God did not repent due to a lack of ignorance on the part of Nineveh's actions, but because the very threat He used against Nineveh to get them to repent was no longer valid.

Jonah did as he wished? if Jonah had his way he'd have been on the other side of the world, as far away from ninevah as he could be!

Jonah 4
So he prayed to the LORD, and said, “Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish;

God had to almost drag Jonah into doing what He wanted him to do. but just because Jonah did it, doesn't mean it was what he wished.

When I said 'Jonah did as he wised', I meant in that he fled.

 

[Z Man]

No, that verse shows us God does not change His character.

So ZMAN, let's assume you get to heaven, which I don't doubt BTW, unlike you who label us as heretics, and you before God find out God indeed changed His mind. Will you think less of Him?

Waiting for a reply Z.

Your question is irrelevant, not only to this topic, but to reality.

 

[Z Man]

ZMan,

Here's what I posted to Jerry Shugart when he also said Numbers 23:19 forced the interpretation of God never repenting. I hope you can do better tearing apart me exegisis than Jerry did...

Jerry referred to Numbers 23:19 as a proof text that God does not repent, ever. Here’s the verse…



This seems pretty obvious doesn’t it? God never repents, right? That’s what Jerry would like you to believe. Let’s look at the passage in context. Don't you think that's important Jerry? In Numbers 22, Balak, the king of the Moabites, was afraid when he saw what Israel had done to the Amorites.



So he sent messengers to his homeland in Mesopotamia to have the soothsayer, Balaam, come and curse Israel.



But God told Balaam not to go.



So King Balak tried again, promising great honor to Balaam.



Then Balaam said he could not go “beyond the word of the LORD my God” (Numbers 22:18).

I might add that his heart was not really sincere in following Yahweh, for 2 Peter 2:15,16 and Jude 11 say,



He then told them to wait and see what the LORD would say to him.



God let Balaam go to Balak, but He ordered him to say only what He told him (Numbers 22:20,21). That’s why “the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him”

You still following the story Jerry? :readthis:



After Balaam’s encounter, verse 35 says,



So King Balak welcomed Balaam, but Balaam had gotten the message. He told the king he could only speak what God put in his mouth.



So Balak offered oxen and sheep to Yahweh, to have God look favorable on him, that is, to bribe Him. So he took Balaam up “to the high places of Baal” for a better view, so he could see the Israelites to better curse them.



Balaam also got into the act by telling him to “build seven altars for me here”. Balaam wanted to bribe Yahweh also for he said, “perhaps the LORD will come to meet me”. Yahweh did,



You still with me Jerry? Again, the context determines the point of God's statement in Numbers 23:19... We're almost there!

…but He caused Balaam to bless Israel.



Balak got angry.



Then, in verses 14-18 it says,



Now we must realize this is the third time Balak has offered sacrifices to Yahweh, trying to bribe Him to curse Israel. God has gotten fed up with this stuff. “You’re trying to bribe me? Don’t you know who I am?” Well, let’s read what God put in Balaam’s mouth. He caused Balaam to prophesy that wonderful statement, Numbers 23:19,20.



Notice verse 20 Jerry... Verse 20 helps us to understand verse 19 in conjunction with the previous context.

From this, we can see that God would not lie. He has already blessed Israel twice. Now, just because they sacrifice all these sacrifices, is that going to change God? He is not like a man who can be bribed. Every man may have his price, but our wonderful God isn’t swayed by bribes. The point here is, God chose to bless Israel. No matter how many sacrifices or bribes Balak offered, God would not repent concerning Israel’s blessings. Now, I know Jerry would like us to believe that God never repents, but we know that is not true. God did not repent in this specific situation.

Please take the time to read the context Jerry. You will see that there is a specific reason God does not lie or repent in this instance. God cannot be bribed like a mere man...

God bless,
--Jeremy Finkenbinder

Jeremy,

Great job on your exegisis of Numbers 23:19. But, I fail to see how it refutes the notion that God does not repent (like a man). I do not use Num. 23:19 to say that God never repents; I use it to show that He does not repent like men do. Even in the context of Numbers 22 and 23:20, it is still obvious that the reason God does not repent is because He has a plan! And in v.19, it is shown that God's plans cannot be thwarted:

Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

God blessed Israel, and He intended to make sure that they remained blessed, no matter who He had to exterminate, or overthrow, or curse, or blatently violate their will, God's plans to bless Israel were going to remain. Has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

An Open Theist, on the other hand, would argue that God enjoys freedom so much, and it is so essential to have a choice in order to love, or be responsible for their actions, that God can speak of a plan, but He cannot be sure that it be made good. Because that would violate men's freewill.

So basically, either way you cut it, Numbers 23:19 still presents a problem to the Open View. As I have said earlier, the difference between God repenting and man repenting would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge. God's way of "repenting" is unique to God: "God is not a man that he should repent" (the way a man repents in his ignorance of the future). In Numbers 23:19, God may be saying that He will not repent of His decision to bless Israel, but that idea in and of itself means that God will have His way, spite what men may want. His plans cannot be thwarted. His forknowledge is perfect, and He will bring to pass what He has spoken, which means that men's wills are violated (according to the Open Theists).

 

[drbrumley]

Ok, so I take it we are heretics condemned to hell. Thanks Z.

 

[Z Man]

Ok, so I take it we are heretics condemned to hell. Thanks Z.

Don't put words in my mouth, or mis-quote me. I've never said such a thing.

I believe you to be my brother in Christ, no matter how much I disagree with your views.

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Jeremy,

Great job on your exegisis of Numbers 23:19. But, I fail to see how it refutes the notion that God does not repent (like a man). I do not use Num. 23:19 to say that God never repents; I use it to show that He does not repent like men do. Even in the context of Numbers 22 and 23:20, it is still obvious that the reason God does not repent is because He has a plan! And in v.19, it is shown that God's plans cannot be thwarted:

Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

God blessed Israel, and He intended to make sure that they remained blessed, no matter who He had to exterminate, or overthrow, or curse, or blatently violate their will, God's plans to bless Israel were going to remain. Has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

An Open Theist, on the other hand, would argue that God enjoys freedom so much, and it is so essential to have a choice in order to love, or be responsible for their actions, that God can speak of a plan, but He cannot be sure that it be made good. Because that would violate men's freewill.

So basically, either way you cut it, Numbers 23:19 still presents a problem to the Open View. As I have said earlier, the difference between God repenting and man repenting would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge. God's way of "repenting" is unique to God: "God is not a man that he should repent" (the way a man repents in his ignorance of the future). In Numbers 23:19, God may be saying that He will not repent of His decision to bless Israel, but that idea in and of itself means that God will have His way, spite what men may want. His plans cannot be thwarted. His forknowledge is perfect, and He will bring to pass what He has spoken, which means that men's wills are violated (according to the Open Theists).

ZMan,

I agree that God does not repent like a man. Thank you for clarifying... If God does not repent like a man, then how does He repent?

I think we would agree that God does not repent of sin, like man does. What does it mean when God repents? This is the crux of the issue. A simple definition of repent is, "to have a change of heart or mind." Men repent of sin, God does not. God does, however, often have a change of heart or mind.

You present an antinomy when you say, "...the difference between God repenting and man repenting would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge..." This is self-contradictory. God changed His mind, but foreknew He would change His mind? By definition, God cannot "change" if He foreknew the change. The problem gets larger yet. God makes specific intent statements, and then "repents" of those statements. If God repents, knowing full well He was not going to follow through with His intended statement, then the original statement could not be true.

To continue beating the horse... God said He wanted Moses to leave Him alone so that He could consume Israel with fire. When God made this statement, with (according to you) perfect prescience, then God already knew Moses would pray, and that He would change His original intent. Therefore, God never really meant what He said.

You also said, "His plans cannot be thwarted." What do you mean? Here are a couple of places that God’s Will is thwarted…

1 Thessalonians 4
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;

Have you seen the state of the world? Even the Christian world? God’s will is thwarted in this area every second.

Luke 7
30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

The Pharisees rejected God’s “boule” will by rejecting His commandment to be baptized.

Now, don’t get me wrong Z, I agree that God’s plans cannot be thwarted. There are certain things that He will make happen. God even violates man’s free will to accomplish these few things. Where we disagree is, you believe every minute detail throughout all time is predestined. I disagree there… This takes us back to my original argument. God says He planned to do something, and then changed His mind. The future was not set in that area.

God Bless,
--Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[Z Man]

ZMan,

I agree that God does not repent like a man. Thank you for clarifying... If God does not repent like a man, then how does He repent?

I think we would agree that God does not repent of sin, like man does. What does it mean when God repents? This is the crux of the issue. A simple definition of repent is, "to have a change of heart or mind." Men repent of sin, God does not. God does, however, often have a change of heart or mind.

You present an antinomy when you say, "...the difference between God repenting and man repenting would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge..." This is self-contradictory. God changed His mind, but foreknew He would change His mind? By definition, God cannot "change" if He foreknew the change. The problem gets larger yet. God makes specific intent statements, and then "repents" of those statements. If God repents, knowing full well He was not going to follow through with His intended statement, then the original statement could not be true.

To continue beating the horse... God said He wanted Moses to leave Him alone so that He could consume Israel with fire. When God made this statement, with (according to you) perfect prescience, then God already knew Moses would pray, and that He would change His original intent. Therefore, God never really meant what He said.

I do not agree.

When the Scriptures speak of God repenting, it is not because God was surprised by man's reactions, or actions, and thus changed His mind, as if His original plan had been 'thwarted' by the actions of men. As I have stated before, and in the case of Nineveh (which can be applied to the rest of the 'God repenting' passages):

God [does] not repent (or change His mind) due to a lack of ignorance on the part of [people's] actions, but because the very threat He used against [them to cause their repentence, or some other reaction,] was no longer valid.

You also said, "His plans cannot be thwarted." What do you mean? Here are a couple of places that God’s Will is thwarted…


Have you seen the state of the world? Even the Christian world? God’s will is thwarted in this area every second.



The Pharisees rejected God’s “boule” will by rejecting His commandment to be baptized.

When I say that God's plans, or His will, cannot be thwarted, I am talking of God's will of decree, or His sovereign will. What God wills to do, no man can stop, and you agree:

Now, don’t get me wrong Z, I agree that God’s plans cannot be thwarted. There are certain things that He will make happen. God even violates man’s free will to accomplish these few things.​

​

On the other hand, God's will of command, or moral will, is, as you have pointed out, violated on a daily basis.

Where we disagree is, you believe every minute detail throughout all time is predestined. I disagree there… This takes us back to my original argument. God says He planned to do something, and then changed His mind. The future was not set in that area.

Again, God does not 'change His mind' due to ignorance. God does not say one thing, then do another because His original plan fell through. I beleive God repents as planned. This doesn't mean that His threats are idle, or that God doesn't mean what He says in the light of His knowing that He would do something else. He may say one thing to get a certain reaction, just as you would threaten your child to get them to behave. Indeed, when God told the Ninevites that they had 40 days, they only had 40 days! If they had not repented, after 40 days, Nineveh would have been destroyed, as God had said.

But God did not plan on destroying Nineveh, which is made obvious in Him sending Jonah. God's threat to Nineveh was meant to see to it that Nineveh would repent, which led to God removing His threat against them, or, 'repenting'.

I do not believe that for God to repent means that He changes His mind due to some sort of ignorance on His part. His repentence was ordained just as everything else is.

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

I do not agree.

When the Scriptures speak of God repenting, it is not because God was surprised by man's reactions, or actions, and thus changed His mind, as if His original plan had been 'thwarted' by the actions of men. As I have stated before, and in the case of Nineveh (which can be applied to the rest of the 'God repenting' passages):

God [does] not repent (or change His mind) due to a lack of ignorance on the part of [people's] actions, but because the very threat He used against [them to cause their repentence, or some other reaction,] was no longer valid.

ZMan,

I agree. God is not ignorant. However, your analogy falls short. You cannot compare Jonah with the other 22 repent passgaes referring to God. Let's stick with Exodus and see why your Jonah analogy doesn't fit here. God sent Jonah with the threat, right? The people heard the warning and repented. The king repented, the people repented, so God repented. This is completely different than Exodus 32. God threatened to destroy the people, and they never had a clue! The discourse took place between God and Moses, and God repented of the harm He said He would do to a group of people who never responded to His warning. What made the threat no longer valid in this instance? God responded to Moses' prayer and changed His mind.

When I say that God's plans, or His will, cannot be thwarted, I am talking of God's will of decree, or His sovereign will. What God wills to do, no man can stop, and you agree:

Now, don’t get me wrong Z, I agree that God’s plans cannot be thwarted. There are certain things that He will make happen. God even violates man’s free will to accomplish these few things.​

​

On the other hand, God's will of command, or moral will, is, as you have pointed out, violated on a daily basis.

How do we determine the difference between God's soverign will and his moral will? The Pharisees violated His soverign will, did they not?

Again, God does not 'change His mind' due to ignorance. God does not say one thing, then do another because His original plan fell through. I beleive God repents as planned. This doesn't mean that His threats are idle, or that God doesn't mean what He says in the light of His knowing that He would do something else. He may say one thing to get a certain reaction, just as you would threaten your child to get them to behave.

There's that antinomy again... If God already knows He will not follow through with His threats, they are idle. My threats to my child are not idle because I'm not sure how my child will respond. If I had the ability to predestine my child's actions, then I wouldn't need to threaten. If I did threaten, and already know how they would respond, my threat would be idle.

Indeed, when God told the Ninevites that they had 40 days, they only had 40 days! If they had not repented, after 40 days, Nineveh would have been destroyed, as God had said.

ZMan, according to your view, that IF could neven be a reality. God foreknew and predestined that they would repent, did He not? Therefore "if they had not repented..." could never be a reality.

But God did not plan on destroying Nineveh,

Then His threat was idle...

...which is made obvious in Him sending Jonah. God's threat to Nineveh was meant to see to it that Nineveh would repent, which led to God removing His threat against them, or, 'repenting'

According to you, God foreknew and predestined Ninevah to repent, therefore His threat was not to "see" if they would do anything. Secondly, God did intend to destroy Ninevah. That's why He sent Jonah! God wanted the people to have no excuse. If God would have destroyed them, they could have stood before Him and said, "How could you punish us?? You never gave us any warning!"

I do not believe that for God to repent means that He changes His mind due to some sort of ignorance on His part. His repentence was ordained just as everything else is.

I agree God is not ignorant. To say that His repentance (or mind change) was ordained is self-contradictory. Z, please consider one more example...

Numbers 14
11 Then the Lord said to Moses: "How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them?
12 I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they."

Here's the warning... Notice, the people have no knowledge of their impending doom... Moses prays, and God responds...

Numbers 14
20 Then the Lord said: "I have pardoned, according to your word;
21 but truly, as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord--
22 because all these men who have seen My glory and the signs which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have put Me to the test now these ten times, and have not heeded My voice,
23 they certainly shall not see the land of which I swore to their fathers, nor shall any of those who rejected Me see it.

A couple of issues here Z... God pardoned according to Moses' word. God did not repent (nacham) here, but rather changed His mind and pardoned the people without their repentance. There was still a temporal judgment for them though. They would not see the land which God swore to their fathers (their fathers didn't get it either...) In fact, according to Ezekiel 20, their fathers were the people who were spared fire in Exodus 32. Now, if God swore that their father would inherit the land, why didn't they? This presents a huge problem for you Z. God swore something that did not come to pass.

God Bless,
--Jeremy

 

[GodsfreeWill]

When I say that God's plans, or His will, cannot be thwarted, I am talking of God's will of decree, or His sovereign will. What God wills to do, no man can stop, and you agree:

On the other hand, God's will of command, or moral will, is, as you have pointed out, violated on a daily basis.

Where do you get "sovereign" and "moral" will out of the Bible? Another classic calvinistic argument that was sucked out of the end of someone's thumb, most likely a philosopher or a calvinist eisegeting scripture. God's two BIBLICAL wills are boulh and qelw. For students of koinh greek, you know "sovereign" and "moral" have nothing to do with it.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Open Theism doesn't believe this.

Since when? God is certainly justified in allowing Satan to tempt David.

All this arousel over 1 Cor 10:13 does not help your case. You are refuting a strawman built by the Open Theists to help them attack against the Settled View. The strawman is this:

If God ordains something, then the person involved could do nothing else, and thus God is responsible.

A straw man? You yourself said that God caused David to take the census because when he “moved” him, it was determinatively done. There is no straw man here.

Now, do you think that if someone is presented with a temptation, they always have the option to reject it? Could David have possibly said no to the temptation? For if he couldn’t, 1 Corinthians 10 is false.

But this assumes that God made someone do something that they did not want to do - that He caused a person to sin when they wised not to!

That God caused someone to do anything is your assumption. That God would ever cause anyone to sin is despicable. The Lord detests sin. Can he use it to bring about good things? Surely so. Does this mean he ordains it for that purpose? No, he does not do evil so that good may come about.

Further, just because someone may want to sin (who doesn’t?) doesn’t mean they have to sin. Just because I may want to commit adultery, doesn’t mean I have to. The desire is present, but the ability to resist it is also present.

And that's a false assumption! It's one that no Calvinist believes!

when God moved David to take the census, he did it. In fact, whenever the Scriptures say God 'moved' someone or something to do a particular thing, they did it! So, it must be concluded that 'moved' is causative, since in all the times it was used, it lead to fulfilling what God had intended.

You stated that “moved” is causative, thus God caused David to take the census. Since you say it was determinative, David had no choice, for choice is not compatible with determinism.

I've explained this idea in an earlier post:

Originally posted by Z Man​

When I say God predestined something, you automatically assume that it means God actually commited the act. For example, if I was to say God ordained the murder of an individual by another, you would think that what I said was that God forced one person to kill another (or God directly controlled the actions of the murderer, like a puppet on strings) and then turns around and says that it was their fault. However, what I'm really saying is that yes, God ordained that the murder take place at a specific time and location, and ordained that John be the victim, and Joe be the murderer, BUT (and that's a big but), the intentions of the murderer were truly his own. The actions he committed were truly done by the murderer, and were planned by the murderer, and were desired to be carried out by the murderer. God didn't force Joe to kill John against Joe's will, but ordained that Joe kill John as Joe had planned according to his own heart and desire.​

God's never responsible for our sins. Let's please put that false assumption concerning the Calvinist view to rest!​

But do you not believe that Joe’s intentions and hearts desires were also predestined/ordained by God? I know you don’t think God is ever responsible for our sins, I don’t either. However, when your theology suggests that things are such, it’s time to rethink one’s theology.

In my opinion, 1 Cor 10 simply shows us how God looks after His elect (for Paul is addressing Christians here). It does not implicate that we have a choice to reject God's 'will of decree' (sovereign will), which is what you are trying to pursuade.

1 Corinthians 10 illustrates the principle of God’s goodness in that he does not wish people to sin. He always provides a way out. In other words, sin is never inevitable. remember, the Lord hates sin.

Your reasoning is false. In the same manner, if a person goes to court for a murder, you would argue that the reason he was sentenced to prison was because he had a choice and rejected the better one?

No, the reason he is guilty of murder is that he did it when he could have not done it.

Ludicris! People are sentenced and judged on the account of what they did, not on the account of what they should've done. Thus, David was responsible for what he did, not because he could have not done it.

And would you sentence someone to death when they had no ability not to do it? Can you really blame someone for doing the only thing they could do!?

This horse has been beaten to death already.

Well it won’t mind if we beat it some more then will it

If God truly desired to destroy Nineveh, why did He send Jonah?

Because he desired their repentance so that he could repent and show mercy to them. But God could never do such a thing (actually repent of something) with complete foreknowledge of a closed future.

His repentance in Jonah was not like that of a man.

No one is arguing that God repents like a man.

The difference would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge. God's way of "repenting" is unique to God: "God is not a man that he should repent" (the way a man repents in his ignorance of the future).

Man repents because of sinfulness, not lack of foreknowledge! God repentance happens when circumstances change. Is he not allowed to recall a judgment when people repent? Who are you to say he can’t ever change his mind? Is he not able to repent, even for his own name's sake i.e. for his glory?

God did not repent due to a lack of ignorance on the part of Nineveh's actions, but because the very threat He used against Nineveh to get them to repent was no longer valid.

He repented because they repented! When the circumstances changed, he changed his mind on destroying them.

 

[Lighthouse]

I am so gonna have to read the posts, offline, if I'm going to catch up.

 

[Lighthouse]

Then I can comment, and maybe critique, as well.

 

[Yorzhik]

But wait, didn't you just agree with me that intent is the key? So if events cascade which God allows as expressions of free will but did not intend, then God is not liable, nor lying about His transcendence (which includes not being responsible for free will acts of created agents).

Oh. Somehow I thought you didn't agree with the Open View. And now here you say that God allows free will and things happen that He doesn't expect. Great. And here I thought you defended exhaustive forknowledge.

That assumes that God intends for the result of every free will action. That assumption is not necessary to foreknowledge.

For example, I know that any children I have will die. I do not wish for them to die, yet I know it with certainty because of God's declared will that all die and face judgment. Your thesis is comparable to saying that if I choose to have children, I wish death upon them. Instead, I wish them to face life, and death, with courage and good character conforming to the image of Christ.

By no coincidence, that is exactly what God wishes for every man and woman. I have learned this from God's word, and I have conformed my mind and will to His on this point. God's wish for mankind has never changed, despite His foreknowledge that all mankind would fail and face damnation. He provided a means to achieve His wish, by the blood of Christ Jesus the Son of God.

Well, we almost are in total agreement. The only parts that are incorrect in your quote here is the part about having children means you want them to die is a valid anology in the OV, and that God was certain that Adam would fail.

Consider; Since you know that your child will someday die, does that mean you have exhaustive forknowledge?

God could not have known for sure that Adam would fall. If you knew the nature of God, you would know that God also said, "What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes?" He said this because He wouldn't have any less hope of a good relationship with Adam than He did with the Israelites.