Does God learn? Reframed Question.

[OldRegular]

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

This was an atonement for their sins. That is the "clothing". God redeemed Adam and Eve from their sins and their moral corruption.

You are correct Amy G.

After Adam and Eve sinned God did three things:

1. He took the initiative in restoring the relationship that Adam had broken through sin; He sought out Adam and Eve.

Genesis 3:9, KJV
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

2. He provided a cover for their nakedness, an atonement for their sin.

Genesis 3:21, KJV
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

God made them coats of skin as a covering for their sin, skin that required the shedding of innocent blood, the blood of animals. Why is the shedding of blood required for the remission of sin? The penalty for sin is death. The life is in the blood.

Leviticus 17:11, KJV
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

However, this atonement or covering, this sacrifice, was only provisional, foreshadowing the perfect sacrifice that was to come. In time God the Father through His Sovereign Grace would do for His elect what they could never do for themselves, He would make us accepted in the beloved [Ephesians 1:6, KJV].

3. God made the first promise recorded in Scripture of that perfect sacrifice to come. Speaking to Satan God states:

Genesis 3:15, KJV
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[webdog]

WEBDOG,

Paranoid much??? Everyone that answers you is out to get you...poor webdog. when you cannot really respond...call them arrogant ,and rude.

webdog...seriously....take some time and make your best biblical case.

No Augustine, no debate fallacies, non sequitars. Take your time and offer what you believe is biblical correction.Stop with this other junk.:type:

Paranoid of what? I haven't received an answer that explains the hypostatic union in a satisfactory manner...only the vain philosophy of men you are so adamant against.

Maybe you would like to take a stab at the questions posed?
Did Jesus learn?
Is Jesus God?
Can His humanity and divinity ever be separated?

 

[Iconoclast]

You deny scripture;

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.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The scriptures say Jesus took on himself the nature of the seed of Abraham. Do I need to tell you that Abraham was born after the "fall"? The scriptures say Jesus was made like his brethren in ALL THINGS, and that he SUFFERED BEING TEMPTED. The scriptures say he could be touched with the feelings of our infirmities and was tempted IN ALL POINTS AS WE ARE, yet without sin.

You should try putting away all your Reformed teachers sometime and simply study the scriptures, maybe then you will have a clue.

Thanks to reformed teachers, confessions and cathchisms...I can spot your error and false teaching 14 miles away....:thumbsup:

If you studied the verse at all you would know what it taught;
16 for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold,
sorry to confuse you with what it actually says...it does not say anything about the nature....the word highlights that Jesus took, or laid hold of...it is the word when Peter was sinking in the water he reached and and laid hold of him

your constant twisting of scripture is out of control.:thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

He is a primitive baptist (hyper cal). Google it. He believes in the eternal salvation of the elect (pre faith) and the temporal salvation (post).

You are deliberately lying webdog and you know it. A deliberate liar is beneath contempt!

 

[Winman]

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

This was an atonement for their sins. That is the "clothing". God redeemed Adam and Eve from their sins and their moral corruption.

And let me ask you this Amy, did Eve feel temptation before she actually sinned?

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The scriptures say EVERY MAN is tempted when he is enticed by his own lusts. Was Eve enticed by her own lusts before she sinned?

Well, was she?

If your view is correct, and Adam and Eve had a perfect nature, then how could they be tempted? There would have been no internal lust or desire that pulled and tugged on them to sin.

But Eve did have this pull and tug to sin didn't she?

Be honest, answer the question.

 

[webdog]

And yet you are not blind but fully understand the mystery? Not very consistent. You hold your consistent position because you fail to interpret scripture by comparing to scripture. You conveniently ignore the omniscience of God which means God has no need to learn.

Yet another false accusation by you. Back on page 1 of the original thread I said I'm comfortable not understanding the many tensions found in the Bible. I'm not trying to explain them away or fit them into what i can understand.

 

[webdog]

You are deliberately lying webdog and you know it. A deliberate liar is beneath contempt!

Am I? You no longer believe in the two salvations and the eternal salvation of the elect?

 

[Iconoclast]

Paranoid of what? I haven't received an answer that explains the hypostatic union in a satisfactory manner...only the vain philosophy of men you are so adamant against.

Maybe you would like to take a stab at the questions posed?
Did Jesus learn?
Is Jesus God?
Can His humanity and divinity ever be separated?

ok
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man

Jesus is God..yes...and yet fully man.....I do agree with you and scripture here WD...we cannot fully get our minds around this...however we are to cling to that which is revealed...like this:
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


Phil2 answers what we are to know there;

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[mandym]

Yet another false accusation by you. Back on page 1 of the original thread I said I'm comfortable not understanding the many tensions found in the Bible. I'm not trying to explain them away or fit them into what i can understand.

Sure you did. You insist God learns. Apparently you feel you can understand. Contrary to the Omniscience of God.

 

[OldRegular]

Am I? You no longer believe in the two salvations and the eternal salvation of the elect?

Prove you are not a deliberate liar!

 

[Winman]

[/B]

Thanks to reformed teachers, confessions and cathchisms...I can spot your error and false teaching 14 miles away....:thumbsup:

If you studied the verse at all you would know what it taught;
16 for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold,
sorry to confuse you with what it actually says...it does not say anything about the nature....the word highlights that Jesus took, or laid hold of...it is the word when Peter was sinking in the water he reached and and laid hold of him

your constant twisting of scripture is out of control.:thumbsup:

Well, you need to study more, even John Gill a hyper-Calvinist said that Jesus took on human nature.

but he took on him the seed of Abraham;
not all his posterity, but some individual, as the word seed is sometimes used, ( Genesis 4:25 ) ( 15:3 ) . Christ assumed human nature as derived from Abraham; for the Messiah was to spring from Abraham, and is promised, as that seed of his, in whom all nations should be blessed; and he was particularly promised to the Jews, the seed of Abraham, to whom the apostle was writing; and it was with a view to Abraham's spiritual seed, the children of the promise, that Christ partook of flesh and blood: the word here used signifies to catch hold of anyone ready to perish, or to lay hold on a person running away, and with great vehemence and affection to hold anything fast, that it be not lost, and to help persons, and do good unto them; all which may be observed in this act of Christ's, in assuming an individual of human nature, in Abraham's line, into union with his divine person; whereby he has saved those that were gone out of the way, and were ready to perish, and done them the greatest good, and shown the strongest affection to them: and from hence may be learned the deity and eternity of Christ, who was before Abraham, as God, though a son of his as man; and his real humanity, and that it was not a person, but a seed, a nature he assumed; and also the union and distinction of natures in him: and Christ's taking human, and not angelic nature, shows the sovereignty of God, and his distinguishing grace and mercy to men.

Once in awhile, even a Calvinist gets it right. But not often.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by Winman
There is not one word concerning man's moral nature being affected by the curse, you can't show it here or anywhere in all of scripture.

God told Adam in Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Now did Adam die the same day he ate of the fruit. No! Then did God lie? NO!

When Adam and Eve sinned they immediately suffered spiritual death, alienation from God. At the same time those natural processes that result in physical death were set in motion; Adam and Eve began to die.

 

[Winman]

God told Adam in Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Now did Adam die the same day he ate of the fruit. No! Then did God lie? NO!

When Adam and Eve sinned they immediately suffered spiritual death, alienation from God. At the same time those natural processes that result in physical death were set in motion; Adam and Eve began to die.

Yes, they died because they sinned, the wages of sin is death.

The knowledge of good and evil is not evil, God himself has this knowledge.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

If knowing good and evil is evil, then God is evil, because God himself said he has this knowledge.

Knowing good and evil makes a man accountable.

 

[Zaac]

Just saying it would be better to debate using the Bible and not resort to what some of the things that has happened. I of course agree with you and the others that God knows everything (I John 3:20, John 21:17, Psalm 147:4,5, Acts 15:18, Isaiah 46:10, Psalm 139:4, 1 Kings 8:39...) And there is no where in the Bible that says that God doesn't know something. Absolutely no where. Those that are teaching there heresy of God not knowing all things are adding to the Scripture by making assumptions of things that are not there. God saying "where are you" doesn't mean that God doesn't know where they are at. If someone is playing hide and seek with their child may understand. You clearly seem them hiding behind something. But you ask, where are you....

You just cracked me up with that. I think that is one of the best examples I've seen today. Kudos to this post.

God has all knowledge. there's nothing he has to learn nor is there anything that he doesn't know.

AMEN!!!

 

[webdog]

Prove you are not a deliberate liar!

One, you cannot prove a negative...and two, your failure to answer says more than anything. I've debated you for 7 years. Unless your view has recently changed you have been in that camp since at least '05.

 

[Winman]

Just saying it would be better to debate using the Bible and not resort to what some of the things that has happened. I of course agree with you and the others that God knows everything (I John 3:20, John 21:17, Psalm 147:4,5, Acts 15:18, Isaiah 46:10, Psalm 139:4, 1 Kings 8:39...) And there is no where in the Bible that says that God doesn't know something. Absolutely no where. Those that are teaching there heresy of God not knowing all things are adding to the Scripture by making assumptions of things that are not there. God saying "where are you" doesn't mean that God doesn't know where they are at. If someone is playing hide and seek with their child may understand. You clearly seem them hiding behind something. But you ask, where are you....

God has all knowledge. there's nothing he has to learn nor is there anything that he doesn't know.

And God losing a wrestling match to Jacob doesn't make sense either, but that is exactly what the scriptures tell us.

I personally believe when God appeared to man that he limited himself. No man can look on God and live, yet there are many accounts of men seeing and speaking to God, such as Adam and Eve, Cain, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc...

I believe in this limited form God sat aside some of his attributes like his power, glory, and even his omniscience. Thus, God would be completely honest in asking where Adam and Eve were, or where Abel was, asking where Sarah was, going down to Sodom to see if they had done according to the cry he heard, telling Abraham that NOW he knows he fears God.

In this limited form, God can learn.

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, you need to study more, even John Gill a hyper-Calvinist said that Jesus took on human nature.



Once in awhile, even a Calvinist gets it right. But not often.

Winman,
Gill has it right, you do not understand what he is saying.
Let me say it this way so you do not think I am just out to attack you as a person...
You being dead set against calvinism strain yourself to twist or rewrite every verse to try and deny the teaching. You do this so much, you are losing any ability to see the truth. I am not kidding with this. Unless you are joking with these posts...this is not good Winman.
Jesus took on a real humanity.....but not a sinful humanity. That is why there wasa virgin birth:thumbsup:

 

[Zaac]

One, you cannot prove a negative...and two, your failure to answer says more than anything. I've debated you for 7 years. Unless your view has recently changed you have been in that camp since at least '05.

Truth doesn't change. It's repeated again and again and again.

It's opinions that arguments are added to because the person with the opinion has to come up with new ways to convince folks that his opinion is the "new truth". :laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

WD,
In relation to Phil 2

Jesus while always God.....veiled the visible manifestation of His glory.

No one verse says this as I have written, Those who write on it explain it this way......They look at the transfiguration and see a glimpse of His eternal reality.....The whole emptying of himself...or the phrase....did not think equality with God was something to be grasped...or held onto...shows that in taking on the form of a servant...was a humiliation ...but it was by addition to His Divine nature....not any subtraction...

 

[webdog]

Truth doesn't change. It's repeated again and again and again.

It's opinions that arguments are added to because the person with the opinion has to come up with new ways to convince folks that his opinion is the "new truth". :laugh:

My post wasn't addressed to you. I'm flattered you like to follow me around and all, though. You also hold to two salvations?