Partial LA?

[makesends]

It is not speculation when based on what is plainly stated in scripture. There was a time when all the humans that existed were good and sinless. That is a fact of scripture. Now, none exist. That, too, is a fact of scripture. Had the good and sinless people died while still good and sinless they still needed the tree of life; the still needed Jesus, the resurrection because Jesus is the only way to the Father. All of those are facts of scripture. God made originally made all humans good and sinless and they all turned from God and became not-good and sinful. The loss was God's. All of that is also facts of scripture. From the bad and sinful people - of which all humanity is comprised - God has seen fit to save some and not others. Those are facts of scripture. How the saving of some occurs is a matter of much debate, but the fact all have sinned is not.

Given the facts of scripture one of the many logically necessary conclusions is this: Had God not acted all would remain lost in sin, and all would die without ever seeing eternal life. That is not speculation.

Certainly we can speculate based on what is plainly stated in Scripture. But when we invoke principles to arrange what did not happen, it remains only speculation.

makesends said:
A categorical error. God cannot fail, and furthermore, the 'given that...' in the 'what if...' did not happen.

That is the point!

Take a deep breath. Maybe a couple.

Lol, is that what you must do in order to see clearly? — Just pickin'!

Go back and re-read the posts following the reasoning contained therein. The point (one of them at any rate) is that God does not and cannot fail. That is exactly what would have happened had God not acted if salvation were a matter of human endeavor. Salvation is not a matter of human endeavor (other than the fact that it is humans being saved). The only thing sinners bring to their salvation is the sin from which they are being saved, and even if that were not the case, God needs nothing from human flesh and that is all humans absent the Spirit have; just flesh.

I said "categorical error" because the fact that he did not, shows that our conjectures are irrelevant to fact —that is, we pretend to know what would happen, when it categorically is impossible that it could happen, since it did not. God has decreed—thus nothing else ever happens. Only what he says could have happened could have, and even that is not quite what we mean by "could have" but him saying, "IF it had happened", from which we infer, but he has not implied, that it could have happened.

There are times when people ask "Where is the scripture?" because they do not know and want to know because they humbly realize there is something they may not know or have not considered. There are other occasions when people ask that question with a lack of sincerity. They're not genuinely interested in that information because their allegiance is to their already-existing beliefs and no amount of scripture will matter. It will be dismissed or explained away through doctrinal biases, such as the notion because God needs nothing. He can lose nothing. Therefore, any none-existent loss means God is not in control when God can willing lose something in time and space and later retrieve it and all of it be parts of His divine plan, will, and purpose. Either way, before the question is asked, the asker should always check for themselves before asking so as to save everyone - asker, answerer, and lurker - time and effort.

Hypothetical and non-personal though you made it sound, if it is relevant and worth mentioning, then it's a bit of an accusation, don't you think? Sounds like a reprimand, and an ad hom, to me.

Your take on what I said, if it leads you to think I was less than sincere, seems to me to reflect that you failed to consider, once again, that others don't have your worldview, er, uh, "One's take on what someone else said, if it leads one to think the other other was less than sincere, seems to me, to reflect that the one failed to consider that the others don't have the one's worldview.

I pretty much always try to think of God's works as being from beginning to end, and thus the in-between is not loss.

(Note: removed some of the text to keep the post less than too many characters — Makesends)

John 18:7-9
Therefore, he again asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus the Nazarene." Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he; so if you seek me, let these go their way," to fulfill the word which He spoke, "Of those whom You have given me I lost not one."

Genesis 6:6
So the LORD was sorrowful that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.


Be careful lest a strictly utilitarian worldview (worldly view of the kingdom) be unwittingly held that strips temporal events of their spiritual and moral significance and loss and grief of its substance. There are tons of scripture that speak of loss, and all of those that speak of human loss are temporal expressions of divine reality. Creatures made in God's image experience loss because loss is real, not something artificial or without real consequence. If God does lose something, it is only by His design and that does not negate the loss or the obligation of the lost. A shepherd whose entire flock goes astray has lost the flock. That he retrieves all the sheep he wants to retrieve does not negate the loss, nor erase what remains of that loss. Neither does the sheep going astray as part of the shepherd's plan, for the shepherd knows those not retrieved will fall prey to the wilderness, predators, and their own folly.

Red Herring, Moving the Goalposts. What his creatures lose is irrelevant. But, that a debater brought up the notion that our temporal reflects his eternal (yes, my paraphrase), that debater is adding to scripture (I think), to say that creatures temporally losing something reflects God losing something. The post above brought up that later he returns it to himself, so —he has not lost anything.

Now if you can demonstrate to me that his grief and pain are not for him more than made up for in what he recovers of his creation, I'm all ears.

And yes, I read the first part of your last paragraph, concerning a strictly utilitarian worldview. The spiritual and moral significance does not mean that God lost anything, unless only temporally, and thus only temporally significant, which is not where God lives. ("Already, but not yet"). I will happily admit, though, that if God lost anything at all in the end, it would be permanent damage for our sake —the bruised heel.

 

[makesends]

That is a categorical error. Loss is not based on need. I have no need for my dog, but losing him I grieve the very real loss. Were I able to resurrect him that would not change the facts of loss or their intellectual, emotional, and relational effects. I have no necessity to bear children but were any of my children lost (regardless of the type of loss) grief would be the exact right response. Were I to resurrect those who'd committed suicide I might find relief from the sorrow of that loss but not the fact they disobeyed, neglected, and ignored all that I have for them. Loss is not based on need.

• God made humans good and sinless.
• As a consequence of one man's disobedience all have gone astray and they are not merely wandering around in the wilderness; they have changed ontologically to become something not created.
• God, in His wisdom and grace, retrieves, saves, and transforms some from what would otherwise by loss so violently egregious it is beyond our comprehension.
• Lacking any ability to rescue, return, and transform themselves, God, in His wisdom and grace paid for the retrieval, rescue, and transformation because it was His will and purpose to do so. Had He not done so none would be rescued, retrieved, or transformed.

Genesis 31:42
If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the fear of Isaac, had not been for me, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God has seen my affliction and the labor of my hands, so He rendered judgment last night.

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matthew 24:22
If those days had not been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.


Facts of scripture, not speculation.

Do you deny his impassibility, his simplicity, his aseity?

Seems to me to attribute too much worth to the temporal.

Your argument attempts to bypass my complaint. By claiming that loss is not based on need, you invoke mere clinical lack of some thing. A vacuum in God's scheme of things, is not loss, but mere fact. If God doesn't have something, by his own design, of what he could have had, by his own making, he has lost nothing.

 

[makesends]

That is probably a bottomless (from our perspective) subject. It also deals with things not seen and not told by God, and the fact that we tend to look at the beginning of everything being the creation of our world, even though we know better. We have no clue what was taking place in eternity before God created our world and us. We know other things were created, even other beings. That is all we know on that score.

We know too, and only because God tells us in His word, that Satan is the instigator of mankind's fall and all that went with it as to the natural world as well as humanity. In the first chapter of Job we find an explicit encounter between God and the devil. We see Job challenge God and God give him permission to do something. I think from this we can safely assume that Satan can't do anything unless God permits him too, and if He does permit him, it is serving a purpose.

That being said, and before I get yelled at (not by you) "What does Job have to do with the OP!", I am responding to your quoted statement, and just as your statement pertains to TD and LA----so does this. It needed a preface.

We know that through the redemption of mankind, God is restoring all of His fallen creation, more accurately, a new creation. He is creating/choosing a people to populate this new creation, and after all is said and done, these people will be incorruptible, whereas Adam was corruptible but not yet corrupted. They will be immortal, whereas in Adam, they are mortal (they can die.) They are born from above in Christ instead formed from the earth as was Adam.

Christ removes every obstacle to this happening by defeating sin and death on the cross. At the present time it still exists but it has no power over those Jesus gives Himself as their kinsman redeemer, and takes the full weight of sins legal punishment. One and done. In God's timing, when all of these elect have been gathered to the Shepherd, the risen Christ will return and not only defeat sin and death, but destroy it by the destruction of the instigator of evil, and all those who worshiped him. And the dead in Christ will rise to life, those who remain will be changed, and there will not be a single person in which dwells any evil or evil desires, and no outside source of evil. Jesus is a warrior of epic proportions!!

If that is true, and at least the process and end result are true, even if I may have ventured in places outside the lines, how is that to possibly happen and remain all of God, unless all men are on equal footing as to position before God? And in that case, how can it happen and be all of God if He does not determine ahead of time who He will give to Christ, and bring them to Christ with absolute certainty? In which case, how can He do that and with certainty, since all are equally unreconciled to Him, unless He changes something in them first---namely their hard and corrupt heart, turning them to Him instead of their being turned away from Him. If all people are not saved, and they are not, it can only be because Jesus's work on the cross was never intended to save everyone, but only those God intended to save. The ones He gives Jesus.

Good thoughts. Thanks.

I tend to think of 'what came before creation' as also part of creation. I don't know if you mean, 'before Genesis 1' or what, but anyhow... yes, there seems to be something to that.

(You may want to edit: "We know too, and only because God tells us in His word, that Satan is the instigator of mankind's fall and all that went with it as to the natural world as well as humanity. In the first chapter of Job we find an explicit encounter between God and the devil. We see Job (Satan) challenge God and God give him permission to do something. I think from this we can safely assume that Satan can't do anything unless God permits him too, and if He does permit him, it is serving a purpose.")

 

[Arial]

Good thoughts. Thanks.

I tend to think of 'what came before creation' as also part of creation. I don't know if you mean, 'before Genesis 1' or what, but anyhow... yes, there seems to be something to that.

(You may want to edit: "We know too, and only because God tells us in His word, that Satan is the instigator of mankind's fall and all that went with it as to the natural world as well as humanity. In the first chapter of Job we find an explicit encounter between God and the devil. We see Job (Satan) challenge God and God give him permission to do something. I think from this we can safely assume that Satan can't do anything unless God permits him too, and if He does permit him, it is serving a purpose.")

Thanks for the catch! I will do an edit.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I have a hard time understanding how one can go no further in their reasoning than the notion that the choices by free will are not determined according to God's decree. But then, I don't even see how the Reformed/Calvinist finds it a mystery. To me it is simple and obvious, that God determined all things, but is so above us that our choices are only free in the sense that our fickle hearts and silly minds always choose according to whatever we want most [at that moment of choice].

Question for you. Did God cause Adam to sin?

 

[Ladodgers6]

When I see how easily minds are changed by our passions and circumstances etc, (which passions and circumstances are THEIR claim to 'free will') and particularly the chemical and/or physical mental influences, I wonder how in the world they can think that THEY are the masters of what they decide. Cause-and-effect always prevails, and God is at the beginning of all cause.

I beg to differ with this comment. Try to change the mind of a Democrat or Republican to switch sides or even to agree with each other. Or like the Sworn enemies like Israel and Palestinians raging war against each other right now. Can you change their minds, easily?

 

[makesends]

Question for you. Did God cause Adam to sin?

Would like to hear your equations/implications/constructions before answering according to the term "cause to sin". But, according to what I think it means, yes, definitely. God caused that there be sin, and not by mistake, nor by random chance, but for his own purposes.

 

[makesends]

I beg to differ with this comment. Try to change the mind of a Democrat or Republican to switch sides or even to agree with each other. Or like the Sworn enemies like Israel and Palestinians raging war against each other right now. Can you change their minds, easily?

Haha! Well, I didn't say that I can change their minds. But maybe if someone slaps them up side the brain hard enough, they can change their mind...

Regarding Henry is an interesting and sometimes humorous movie about brain damage causing personality change with very obvious differences in how the same person behaves (the kind of choices he makes).

 

[Ladodgers6]

Haha! Well, I didn't say that I can change their minds. But maybe if someone slaps them up side the brain hard enough, they can change their mind...

Regarding Henry is an interesting and sometimes humorous movie about brain damage causing personality change with very obvious differences in how the same person behaves (the kind of choices he makes).

Easily, I presumed...LoL

 

[His clay]

Question for you. Did God cause Adam to sin?

The word "cause" is too vague, and because of the ambiguity it can be misleading.
Here is my attempt at spelling out the nuances of the word "cause." And I warn of the causal conflation fallacy.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/

 

[Josheb]

Red Herring, Moving the Goalposts. What his creatures lose is irrelevant.

Incorrect.

Grief is the emotion felt when loss has occurred. I was asked to provide evidence of God's loss and I did so. It's not a red herring or a move of the goalposts. When Adam sinned God lost the good, unashamed, sinless creature He'd originally made, and He did not lose only that man and His wife; God lost all good and sinless humanity because as a consequence of one man's disobedience sin and death came to all men. No human after Genesis 3:6 was as God made man. No human can restore to God or repay God what God lost : good, unashamed, sinless humanity. It's the notion this was all His plan that is the goal post moving red herring. Whether it was His plan or not it was a loss of what He'd made. God's plan included His loss.

 

[Josheb]

Do you deny his impassibility, his simplicity, his aseity?

Seems to me to attribute too much worth to the temporal.

Your argument attempts to bypass my complaint. By claiming that loss is not based on need, you invoke mere clinical lack of some thing. A vacuum in God's scheme of things, is not loss, but mere fact.

I find the exact same criticisms applicable to your dissent. It has not been proven loss is dependent on need, or that the self-existing God cannot and did not suffer loss, or that what I have said is merely temporal. It all reads as avoidant sophistry. No "vacuum" on my part was ever asserted and Humanity's change and God's grief are evidence of loss. Had God not chosen to save some from among the lost He'd have lost all humanity (and with it all creation).

If God doesn't have something, by his own design, of what he could have had, by his own making, he has lost nothing.

That would be true if Christianity were pantheistic, but it is not. God is not His creation, and His creation is not God. Creation, and all that is within it, is His possession, not His being. The loss of humanity and the grief He is reported to have felt do not compromise His ontology at all. Similarly, the loss being within His plan does not compromise His teleology (or that of creation) at all, either.

The irony here is that by denying God loss and grief God's omni-attributes and aseity is denied, not affirmed. God can do anything. Even lose a creature to sin, feel that loss, and express it. He is not a robot.

Would it be better that 50% of the lost be saved in comparison to, say, only 30%?
Would it be better for 100% of all sinners to be saved over only 10%?
if God is glorified either way, is salvation better in any way than damnation?

A strictly utilitarian God and a strictly utilitarian soteriology cannot answer those questions other than to say, "Well, whatever it is, it works, so it's all good."

 

[makesends]

Incorrect.

Grief is the emotion felt when loss has occurred. I was asked to provide evidence of God's loss and I did so. It's not a red herring or a move of the goalposts. When Adam sinned God lost the good, unashamed, sinless creature He'd originally made, and He did not lose only that man and His wife; God lost all good and sinless humanity because as a consequence of one man's disobedience sin and death came to all men. No human after Genesis 3:6 was as God made man. No human can restore to God or repay God what God lost : good, unashamed, sinless humanity. It's the notion this was all His plan that is the goal post moving red herring. Whether it was His plan or not it was a loss of what He'd made. God's plan included His loss.

Well answered.

You said, "Grief is the emotion felt when loss has occurred." But it seems at best, temporal loss, if truly loss at all, of which I'm not convinced. Loss, for humans, is a source of human grief. Furthermore, logically, if loss causes grief, it doesn't follow that grief is only from loss. I don't see loss as the source of grief for God, though sin in itself as rebellion of his precious creatures against himself is a source of grief, yet that is not loss, because even that is temporal only. That is, unless sin has indelibly damaged him for our sakes —something along the lines of a permanently bruised heel. I suppose though, it could be argued that claiming temporal grief is not loss, is to deny his immanence. That doesn't seem to me to fit, either, though —I don't know.

You seem to me to attribute more substance to what-could-have-been, than it merits. God's plan never included what-could-have-been, I think. It makes no sense to me to consider it loss, as there was no such possibility. But that is our old disagreement, I think.

But I wrote this as I was thinking about it, and it is not well arranged.

 

[Josheb]

Well answered.

You said, "Grief is the emotion felt when loss has occurred." But it seems at best, temporal loss, if truly loss at all, of which I'm not convinced.

Think it through. Everything inside creation is - by definition - temporal.

Consider another form of debt or repayment? How does the creature repay God for God's grace, mercy, and kindness? The New Testament answer is these are gifts, but that does not change the fact the whole of scripture contains many verses about our debt to God and the inability to repay what has been given.

Psalm 116:12
What shall I repay to the LORD For all His benefits to me?

Or is the word "debt" thought to be used without meaning?

Loss, for humans, is a source of human grief.

Non sequitur. I am not anthropomorphizing God so I will be ignoring that portion of the post. God Himself expressed His grief in His word.

You seem to me to attribute more substance to what-could-have-been, than it merits. God's plan never included what-could-have-been, I think.

I seem to be using God's word to prove my case. You? Not so much.

It makes no sense to me...

That is self-evident by simply reading the posts and increasingly clearer with each new post.

But I wrote this as I was thinking about it, and it is not well arranged.

Take some time. Think about the posts, the scriptures posted, and the reasoning employed to reach what was said. Be as critical of your own case as you are of mine. Loss is not necessitated on need, for example. That premise (and everything built upon it) should be discarded out of hand. It's simply not true. Falsely dichotomizing the eternal and the temporal (for God), likewise is something logically flawed, just as the conflation of ontology, teleology, and experientialism. Both should be discarded because they are built on flawed premises.

 

[Mr GLee]

PSA's Relevance
I stated the following for a very important reason. "Again, I fully hold to penal substitutionary atonement. Jesus died in my place to satisfy the just demands of God's wrath against sin." The relevance of this statement deserves further elaboration. The double jeopardy argument is that if God dealt with all people's sin on the cross, then for what reason are the unbelieving in hell? Are the paying for their sin a second time?

I would suggest they did not have a proper understanding of the appointment to die once .The death we workout in these bodies of death. Yoked with Christ our daily burden of hell is made lighter

No need for retrial or double jeopardy. The second death is the "death of death"

The letter of the law" death (Romans 7:6) "Thou shall not or you're dead. It is tossed in the judgment fire it will not rise up and condemn to death another whole creation. . . the former things to include the bible will not be remembered forever more.

Now is the time to memorize

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell (sufferings) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.. . . . . . . The death of death

Hell, sufferings unto death not dead never to raise. He was wounded and not dead. The Father in jeopardy of his own Spirit poured out his Holy Spirit on his flesh. Bruised for our iniquities keeping him from death never to rise. . . a living sacrifice.

The beginning, Garden of Gethsemane the three days and nights promised demonstration. When finished they moved to demonstration of the cross the hill of the Skull and last the demonstration of the tomb .

Matthew 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

 

[makesends]

I find the exact same criticisms applicable to your dissent. It has not been proven loss is dependent on need, or that the self-existing God cannot and did not suffer loss, or that what I have said is merely temporal. It all reads as avoidant sophistry. No "vacuum" on my part was ever asserted and Humanity's change and God's grief are evidence of loss. Had God not chosen to save some from among the lost He'd have lost all humanity (and with it all creation).

That would be true if Christianity were pantheistic, but it is not. God is not His creation, and His creation is not God. Creation, and all that is within it, is His possession, not His being. The loss of humanity and the grief He is reported to have felt do not compromise His ontology at all. Similarly, the loss being within His plan does not compromise His teleology (or that of creation) at all, either.

The irony here is that by denying God loss and grief God's omni-attributes and aseity is denied, not affirmed. God can do anything. Even lose a creature to sin, feel that loss, and express it. He is not a robot.

Would it be better that 50% of the lost be saved in comparison to, say, only 30%?
Would it be better for 100% of all sinners to be saved over only 10%?
if God is glorified either way, is salvation better in any way than damnation?

A strictly utilitarian God and a strictly utilitarian soteriology cannot answer those questions other than to say, "Well, whatever it is, it works, so it's all good."

I don't deny God grief.

It has not been proven that grief is dependent on loss.

But ok

 

[Mr GLee]

I find the exact same criticisms applicable to your dissent. It has not been proven loss is dependent on need, or that the self-existing God cannot and did not suffer loss, or that what I have said is merely temporal. It all reads as avoidant sophistry. No "vacuum" on my part was ever asserted and Humanity's change and God's grief are evidence of loss. Had God not chosen to save some from among the lost He'd have lost all humanity (and with it all creation).

That would be true if Christianity were pantheistic, but it is not. God is not His creation, and His creation is not God. Creation, and all that is within it, is His possession, not His being. The loss of humanity and the grief He is reported to have felt do not compromise His ontology at all. Similarly, the loss being within His plan does not compromise His teleology (or that of creation) at all, either.

The irony here is that by denying God loss and grief God's omni-attributes and aseity is denied, not affirmed. God can do anything. Even lose a creature to sin, feel that loss, and express it. He is not a robot.

Would it be better that 50% of the lost be saved in comparison to, say, only 30%?
Would it be better for 100% of all sinners to be saved over only 10%?
if God is glorified either way, is salvation better in any way than damnation?

A strictly utilitarian God and a strictly utilitarian soteriology cannot answer those questions other than to say, "Well, whatever it is, it works, so it's all good."

I would think he was sad because of their unbelief, misunderstanding, Their loss not Gods .

God has no needs but satisfies all.

John 111: 35 Jesus wept.

 

[Josheb]

I don't deny God grief.

Okay. If that is the case, then the dissent must argue God grieves without loss and the word scripture uses does not mean what it ordinarily, normally means. That is not a better argument.

It has not been proven that grief is dependent on loss.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Look up the word "grief"! That grief is the emotion felt when someone dies or loss has occurred is axiomatic!

Wiki: Grief is the response to the loss of something deemed important, particularly to the loss of someone or some living thing that has died, to which a bond or affection was formed.

Merriam-Webster: deep and poignant distress caused by or as if by bereavement (as in the death of a son).

Cambridge: a very great sadness, especially at the death of someone.

Oxford: a feeling of great sadness, especially when someone dies.

Dictionarydotcom: keen mental suffering or distress over affliction or loss; sharp sorrow; painful regret.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology: The Hebrew root for "grieve, " nhm [;j"n], communicates a mixture of divine indignation against sin and a heartfelt anguish concerning the plight of his creation.

Bible Hub Topical Dictionary: Sorrow; mental suffering arising from any cause, as misfortune, loss of friends, misconduct of one's self or others, etc.; sorrow; sadness.

GotQuestions: Grief is a deep and powerful emotion caused by the loss of someone or something we held dear.

American Psychological Association: Grief is the anguish experienced after significant loss, usually the death of a beloved person.

Mayo Clinic: Grief is a strong, sometimes overwhelming emotion for people, regardless of whether their sadness stems from the loss of a loved one.... Grief is the natural reaction to loss.​

It is very easy to verify what I posted many posts ago and building from consensus is a good thing.

But ok

meh

 

[Josheb]

I would think he was sad because of their unbelief, misunderstanding, Their loss not Gods .

God has no needs but satisfies all.

John 111: 35 Jesus wept.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Isaiah 53:3-6, 10
He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face he was despised, and we did not esteem him. Surely our griefs he himself bore, and our sorrows he carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon him, and by his scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him..... But the LORD was pleased to crush him, putting Him to grief.

God feels grief. All three Persons of the Godhead are reported experiencing it. No claim of need in God was ever asserted (it was the dissent who incorrectly claimed need is necessary for grief). Grief is the completely normal and ordinary emotion felt when death of a loved one or other significant loss occurs (it is a good thing). Grief is relevant to this op because atonement is much larger than simply repaying a debt. Atonement entails restoration of damage and reconciliation where estrangement previously existed. Christ paid the debt, and his life is sufficient for all, but only some are restored and reconciled beyond the mere payment of debt. That "some" is based on God's will and purpose, not that of the unregenerate sinner. There is no "uneasy tension" so anyone's "main struggle," is due solely to not correctly and adequately understanding some fairly easily understood concepts the scriptures themselves report.

 

[makesends]

@Josheb said: The irony here is that by denying God loss and grief God's omni-attributes and aseity is denied, not affirmed. God can do anything. Even lose a creature to sin, feel that loss, and express it. He is not a robot.

makesends said:
I don't deny God grief.

Okay. If that is the case, then the dissent must argue God grieves without loss and the word scripture uses does not mean what it ordinarily, normally means. That is not a better argument.

It's not an argument at all. It's just a denial of what you implied —that I deny God both loss and grief

makesends said:
It has not been proven that grief is dependent on loss.

Look up the word "grief"! That grief is the emotion felt when someone dies or loss has occurred is axiomatic!

Wiki: Grief is the response to the loss of something deemed important, particularly to the loss of someone or some living thing that has died, to which a bond or affection was formed.

Merriam-Webster: deep and poignant distress caused by or as if by bereavement (as in the death of a son).

Cambridge: a very great sadness, especially at the death of someone.

Oxford: a feeling of great sadness, especially when someone dies.

Dictionarydotcom: keen mental suffering or distress over affliction or loss; sharp sorrow; painful regret.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology: The Hebrew root for "grieve, " nhm [;j"n], communicates a mixture of divine indignation against sin and a heartfelt anguish concerning the plight of his creation.

Bible Hub Topical Dictionary: Sorrow; mental suffering arising from any cause, as misfortune, loss of friends, misconduct of one's self or others, etc.; sorrow; sadness.

GotQuestions: Grief is a deep and powerful emotion caused by the loss of someone or something we held dear.

American Psychological Association: Grief is the anguish experienced after significant loss, usually the death of a beloved person.

Mayo Clinic: Grief is a strong, sometimes overwhelming emotion for people, regardless of whether their sadness stems from the loss of a loved one.... Grief is the natural reaction to loss.
It is very easy to verify what I posted many posts ago and building from consensus is a good thing.

Ok
makesends said:
But ok

meh

I said ok bc I'm tired of discussing this. I relent. I humbly acknowledge you win the debate. I still disagree, but I don't care.

You lay value in the temporal. To me, what happens in the temporal is only real in comparison to the eternal, because of its results in the eternal: Christ and his Church. Scripture otherwise describes the temporal as a vapor, in contrast to the eternal.