Does God learn? Reframed Question.

[MorseOp]

mandym,

I am not trying to steal attention away from your poll/thread, but I have noticed that the fact that Jesus was born as a human baby was brought up in the thread, with the conclusion being that God can learn. I want to address this issue separately.

Jesus absolutely, positively had to learn. He was a baby for crying out loud. He had to learn how to eat, walk, and talk. He had to learn how to read and perform carpentry with His human father. At birth His humanity was just as vulnerable and unlearned as our humanity. His deity was veiled of its full glory (Philippians 2). Nevertheless He was still God. Upon His resurrection He became fully glorified and assumed the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5). When Jesus returns every eye will see Him (Revelation 1:7); proof of His omniscience. Once Jesus was glorified the full use of His godly attributes were restored. Even though Jesus still has a body, albeit a glorified one, He has the full glory of God. There is nothing for Him to learn as He is God. His learning on earth was a temporary blip on eternity's radar screen that was limited to a short time as a human being who had temporarily veiled His full glory for our sake. Prior to His incarnation Jesus enjoyed the same unbridled glory that He now possesses. Had the incarnation not taken place this discussion would be moot.

So, allow me to refine the question. Does God the Father learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does God the Holy Spirit learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does the now glorified God the Son learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? These are simple and straight forward questions.

The kenosis (self-emptying) of Christ (Philippians 2) is now over. All three members of the godhead enjoy perfect fellowship with each other. I posit that if God needs to learn then He is not omniscient, ergo He is not God.

What say you?

 

[preachinjesus]

The incarnation doesn't mean that God, the Father, learns.

God the Father has perfect knowledge that is exhaustive and without error.

The nature of God's being permits this kind of knowledge since He is God. Jesus, the Son's, incarnation divested Himself of aspects of His divinity (He couldn't be omnipresent when incarnated flesh.) Yet this only meant for Him, His Person, that this occurred for the incarnation. It doesn't apply to the other Persona of the Trinity.

 

[freeatlast]

mandym,

I am not trying to steal attention away from your poll/thread, but I have noticed that the fact that Jesus was born as a human baby was brought up in the thread, with the conclusion being that God can learn. I want to address this issue separately.

Jesus absolutely, positively had to learn. He was a baby for crying out loud. He had to learn how to eat, walk, and talk. He had to learn how to read and perform carpentry with His human father. At birth His humanity was just as vulnerable and unlearned as our humanity. His deity was veiled of its full glory (Philippians 2). Nevertheless He was still God. Upon His resurrection He became fully glorified and assumed the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5). When Jesus returns every eye will see Him (Revelation 1:7); proof of His omniscience. Once Jesus was glorified the full use of His godly attributes were restored. Even though Jesus still has a body, albeit a glorified one, He has the full glory of God. There is nothing for Him to learn as He is God. His learning on earth was a temporary blip on eternity's radar screen that was limited to a short time as a human being who had temporarily veiled His full glory for our sake. Prior to His incarnation Jesus enjoyed the same unbridled glory that He now possesses. Had the incarnation not taken place this discussion would be moot.

So, allow me to refine the question. Does God the Father learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does God the Holy Spirit learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does the now glorified God the Son learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? These are simple and straight forward questions.

The kenosis (self-emptying) of Christ (Philippians 2) is now over. All three members of the godhead enjoy perfect fellowship with each other. I posit that if God needs to learn then He is not omniscient, ergo He is not God.

What say you?

No I don't beleive that God learns. There is nothing outside of Him so there is nothing to learn.

 

[OldRegular]

mandym,

I am not trying to steal attention away from your poll/thread, but I have noticed that the fact that Jesus was born as a human baby was brought up in the thread, with the conclusion being that God can learn. I want to address this issue separately.

Jesus absolutely, positively had to learn. He was a baby for crying out loud. He had to learn how to eat, walk, and talk. He had to learn how to read and perform carpentry with His human father. At birth His humanity was just as vulnerable and unlearned as our humanity. His deity was veiled of its full glory (Philippians 2). Nevertheless He was still God. Upon His resurrection He became fully glorified and assumed the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5). When Jesus returns every eye will see Him (Revelation 1:7); proof of His omniscience. Once Jesus was glorified the full use of His godly attributes were restored. Even though Jesus still has a body, albeit a glorified one, He has the full glory of God. There is nothing for Him to learn as He is God. His learning on earth was a temporary blip on eternity's radar screen that was limited to a short time as a human being who had temporarily veiled His full glory for our sake. Prior to His incarnation Jesus enjoyed the same unbridled glory that He now possesses. Had the incarnation not taken place this discussion would be moot.

So, allow me to refine the question. Does God the Father learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does God the Holy Spirit learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does the now glorified God the Son learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? These are simple and straight forward questions.

The kenosis (self-emptying) of Christ (Philippians 2) is now over. All three members of the godhead enjoy perfect fellowship with each other. I posit that if God needs to learn then He is not omniscient, ergo He is not God.

What say you?

I say that you have answered correctly the "gotcha" question about the Incarnate God from the other thread and have correctly asserted that if God needs to learn He is not God.

 

[webdog]

mandym,

I am not trying to steal attention away from your poll/thread, but I have noticed that the fact that Jesus was born as a human baby was brought up in the thread, with the conclusion being that God can learn. I want to address this issue separately.

Jesus absolutely, positively had to learn. He was a baby for crying out loud. He had to learn how to eat, walk, and talk. He had to learn how to read and perform carpentry with His human father. At birth His humanity was just as vulnerable and unlearned as our humanity. His deity was veiled of its full glory (Philippians 2). Nevertheless He was still God. Upon His resurrection He became fully glorified and assumed the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5). When Jesus returns every eye will see Him (Revelation 1:7); proof of His omniscience. Once Jesus was glorified the full use of His godly attributes were restored. Even though Jesus still has a body, albeit a glorified one, He has the full glory of God. There is nothing for Him to learn as He is God. His learning on earth was a temporary blip on eternity's radar screen that was limited to a short time as a human being who had temporarily veiled His full glory for our sake. Prior to His incarnation Jesus enjoyed the same unbridled glory that He now possesses. Had the incarnation not taken place this discussion would be moot.

So, allow me to refine the question. Does God the Father learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does God the Holy Spirit learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does the now glorified God the Son learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? These are simple and straight forward questions.

The kenosis (self-emptying) of Christ (Philippians 2) is now over. All three members of the godhead enjoy perfect fellowship with each other. I posit that if God needs to learn then He is not omniscient, ergo He is not God.

What say you?

You have the exact same problem as on the other thread. Instead of separation within the hypostatic union of Christ being both fully God and Man, you have now equally separated the Godhead which is equally one. Same mind blowing principle that cannot be figured out and anything in regards to God learning, dying (as another recent thread), etc. is mere speculation from a MUCH more inferior beings.

 

[mandym]

mandym,

I am not trying to steal attention away from your poll/thread, but I have noticed that the fact that Jesus was born as a human baby was brought up in the thread, with the conclusion being that God can learn. I want to address this issue separately.

Jesus absolutely, positively had to learn. He was a baby for crying out loud. He had to learn how to eat, walk, and talk. He had to learn how to read and perform carpentry with His human father. At birth His humanity was just as vulnerable and unlearned as our humanity. His deity was veiled of its full glory (Philippians 2). Nevertheless He was still God. Upon His resurrection He became fully glorified and assumed the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5). When Jesus returns every eye will see Him (Revelation 1:7); proof of His omniscience. Once Jesus was glorified the full use of His godly attributes were restored. Even though Jesus still has a body, albeit a glorified one, He has the full glory of God. There is nothing for Him to learn as He is God. His learning on earth was a temporary blip on eternity's radar screen that was limited to a short time as a human being who had temporarily veiled His full glory for our sake. Prior to His incarnation Jesus enjoyed the same unbridled glory that He now possesses. Had the incarnation not taken place this discussion would be moot.

So, allow me to refine the question. Does God the Father learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does God the Holy Spirit learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does the now glorified God the Son learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? These are simple and straight forward questions.

The kenosis (self-emptying) of Christ (Philippians 2) is now over. All three members of the godhead enjoy perfect fellowship with each other. I posit that if God needs to learn then He is not omniscient, ergo He is not God.

What say you?

No worries but you are not going to get a different answer from the open theist heresies. They are what they are.

 

[Zaac]

mandym,

I am not trying to steal attention away from your poll/thread, but I have noticed that the fact that Jesus was born as a human baby was brought up in the thread, with the conclusion being that God can learn. I want to address this issue separately.

Jesus absolutely, positively had to learn. He was a baby for crying out loud. He had to learn how to eat, walk, and talk. He had to learn how to read and perform carpentry with His human father. At birth His humanity was just as vulnerable and unlearned as our humanity. His deity was veiled of its full glory (Philippians 2). Nevertheless He was still God. Upon His resurrection He became fully glorified and assumed the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5). When Jesus returns every eye will see Him (Revelation 1:7); proof of His omniscience. Once Jesus was glorified the full use of His godly attributes were restored. Even though Jesus still has a body, albeit a glorified one, He has the full glory of God. There is nothing for Him to learn as He is God. His learning on earth was a temporary blip on eternity's radar screen that was limited to a short time as a human being who had temporarily veiled His full glory for our sake. Prior to His incarnation Jesus enjoyed the same unbridled glory that He now possesses. Had the incarnation not taken place this discussion would be moot.

So, allow me to refine the question. Does God the Father learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does God the Holy Spirit learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does the now glorified God the Son learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? These are simple and straight forward questions.

The kenosis (self-emptying) of Christ (Philippians 2) is now over. All three members of the godhead enjoy perfect fellowship with each other. I posit that if God needs to learn then He is not omniscient, ergo He is not God.

What say you?

Scripture as you noted testifies to Christ temporarily "emptying" Himself of some of His Godly attributes in order to live on this Earth and experience the things that we experience. 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,2 being born in the likeness of men Phi. 2:7

But God the Father, God the RESURRECTED Son, and God the Holy Spirit are omniscient and do not learn as that would mean they are not God.:thumbsup:

 

[Van]

Yet another thread pushing the same falsehood. Those that say God learns points to scriptures that indicate He learns. Those that deny this view offer nothing but nullification. There has been no one who explained why God (Yahweh) said, now I know. Some have said it was just a figure of speech but God did not mean what He said. Fiddlesticks.

If all we have is name calling, and assertion of fact not in evidence, what is the purpose of the thread?

 

[Zaac]

Yet another thread pushing the same falsehood. Those that say God learns points to scriptures that indicate He learns. Those that deny this view offer nothing but nullification. There has been no one who explained why God (Yahweh) said, now I know. Some have said it was just a figure of speech but God did not mean what He said. Fiddlesticks.

If all we have is name calling, and assertion of fact not in evidence, what is the purpose of the thread?

Still a human vernacular thing. There is nothing NEW for the All-Knowing "to know".

 

[mandym]

Yet another thread pushing the same falsehood. Those that say God learns points to scriptures that indicate He learns. Those that deny this view offer nothing but nullification. There has been no one who explained why God (Yahweh) said, now I know. Some have said it was just a figure of speech but God did not mean what He said. Fiddlesticks.

God being Omniscient refutes the ridiculous claim. And plenty has been offered. The truth is nothing has been offered to support the heresy that God learns. And quite frankly to suggest such is very disrespectful to God. It makes Him less than what He is. But I am sure the Mormons would agree with you.

 

[agedman]

Scripture as you noted testifies to Christ temporarily "emptying" Himself of some of His Godly attributes in order to live on this Earth and experience the things that we experience. 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,2 being born in the likeness of men Phi. 2:7

But God the Father, God the RESURRECTED Son, and God the Holy Spirit are omniscient and do not learn as that would mean they are not God.:thumbsup:

I would add a bit of a nuance to the part that Christ temporarily emptied himself of some of His Godly attributes.

As Old Regular and I contended about the matter in a recent thread, Christ was fully God and fully man. That is the truth and is a Scriptural principle.

When Christ came, the emptying was putting off the glory of God to take on the form of a servant. We see a glimpse of such glory in the mount of transfiguration, and the light of the Lamb in the new heaven. Christ did not come "glowing" or with a ring about His head.

The full nature Christ had was unchanged and undiminished, and the full nature unchanged and undiminished of man were placed in union. There was no conflict, no establishment of one over the other, no display of one without the other. The two natures are in union and function as a singularity of heart, mind, soul and strength. Christ did not dispose of the nature of man at the resurrection.

The "in the likeness" means that He did not have the fallen nature, but the nature God created Adam originally.

The question comes, Why did Christ come in the likeness of man?

In my opinion, God being all knowing, all present, all ... cannot be tempted, cannot experience human frailty, and cannot be subject to human desire, did not experienced in what not knowing and learning meant in human terms.

Christ, being both fully God (John says the Word of God) and fully human, did and does experience full human frailty and has been touched with the infirmities of man. He was tempted, He was exposed to the weakness of the flesh and the desires He expressed were not always carried out as commands, but hopes.

Therefore, Christ is the true mediator between God and man. He alone knows as God knows, and knows as humankind knows.

I don't spend a lot of time trying to gather Scriptures for this opinion, and others may have some other thinking that is just if not more valid.

Hebrews 2 in the NIV has a great rendering of this matter. See here.

 

[MorseOp]

I have noticed those who believe God learns have not actually answer the question posed in the OP:

So, allow me to refine the question. Does God the Father learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does God the Holy Spirit learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? Does the now glorified God the Son learn? Does He need to learn? Is He capable of learning? These are simple and straight forward questions.

 

[Winman]

The "in the likeness" means that He did not have the fallen nature, but the nature God created Adam originally.

False, he came in the nature of the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus took on himself the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam. He was made like his brethren (the Jews) in ALL THINGS.

Jesus had the same nature you and I have, yet he never obeyed his nature when it would cause him to sin, and so was without sin.

To deny that Jesus came in the same nature as us is to deny he came in the flesh.

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Every person who confesses Jesus came in the flesh is of God. Those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are the spirit of antichrist.

 

[MorseOp]

Colossians 2:8-10 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

Gnosticism! That is what some would accuse those who believe God is completely omniscient. Those that accuse of Gnosticism offer nothing but vain philosophy and the empty tradition of men. They are closer to Open Theism then we are to Gnosticism. What heartens me is to see Calvinists and non-Calvinists stand together on this very important issue.

 

[webdog]

Gnosticism! That is what some would accuse those who believe God is completely omniscient. Those that accuse of Gnosticism offer nothing but vain philosophy and the empty tradition of men. They are closer to Open Theism then we are to Gnosticism. What heartens me is to see Calvinists and non-Calvinists stand together on this very important issue.

The "vain philosophy" occurs when we exalt ourselves by pretending we can understand the hypostatic union and make heretical assertations in regards to splitting Christ's deity from His humanity. The open theism charge is merely a strawman smokescreen in trying to cover the true heresy that has survived from the 1st century to the 21st century.

 

[MorseOp]

The "vain philosophy" occurs when we exalt ourselves by pretending we can understand the hypostatic union and make heretical assertations in regards to splitting Christ's deity from His humanity. The open theism charge is merely a strawman smokescreen in trying to cover the true heresy that has survived from the 1st century to the 21st century.

The Open Theism charge is made against someone who has clearly and unambiguously attempted to refute the doctrine of God's omniscience.

 

[agedman]

False, he came in the nature of the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus took on himself the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam. He was made like his brethren (the Jews) in ALL THINGS.

Jesus had the same nature you and I have, yet he never obeyed his nature when it would cause him to sin, and so was without sin.

To deny that Jesus came in the same nature as us is to deny he came in the flesh.

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Every person who confesses Jesus came in the flesh is of God. Those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are the spirit of antichrist.

So, your view is that Christ was shrouded in a flesh and had a fallen nature that needed as much redemption as any other human after the fall of Adam?

 

[Amy.G]

The "vain philosophy" occurs when we exalt ourselves by pretending we can understand the hypostatic union and make heretical assertations in regards to splitting Christ's deity from His humanity. The open theism charge is merely a strawman smokescreen in trying to cover the true heresy that has survived from the 1st century to the 21st century.

It is not a strawman WD.

From Theopedia
...Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.

This is exactly what you say you believe.

Hypostatic union is a term to describe God the Son's deity and humanity, but it is NOT used to describe God the Father, who knows ALL.

 

[webdog]

The Open Theism charge is made against someone who has clearly and unambiguously attempted to refute the doctrine of God's omniscience.

...which nobody here has done. God is omiscient. God learns. Both are true...both don't make sense to us in the same way God is one, yet God is 3 Persons. Something doesn't have to make sense to be true.

 

[webdog]

It is not a strawman WD.

From Theopedia
...Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.

This is exactly what you say you believe.

Hypostatic union is a term to describe God the Son's deity and humanity, but it is NOT used to describe God the Father, who knows ALL.

...yet Christ said He and the Father were one. Try explaining that one.

Again...nobody has denied God's omniscience. We just don't understand it based on how HE has decided to interact with His creation.