That’s the ticket. I am sinful, moronic, and ignorant. The Bible is none of those things. 
Steve, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I’ve got a bit of time before my first class today and wished to offer you my thoughts on your inquiry.
The first thing to note is that I did not put aside those, “…references that Jesus sacrifice was pre-ordained before the foundation of the world…” I discovered those references to which you are referring to have been interpreted, and thus translated, in the light of Augustine’s fatalistic ideology; an ideology that in no way resembles the ideology of the first believers, which was the ideology of Universal restoration held to for as long as Greek was the language of scripture in the minds of the first and second century Christian apologists, not Latin.
Most of us are here because we recognized that the Latin interprets into scripture an eternal and everlasting hell of conscious torment, against the Original Greek. So, likewise was Augustine’s fatalistic ideology interpreted into the Latin translation, which became the defacto translation for our English Bibles. Augustine was a profligate who later embraced Manichaeisim before he became a Christian monk, highly influential in improving the Latin translation. That, in essence, is when Christianity changed into a religion, because Augustinianisim gave support to the developing divide of the ecclessia into clergy and laity.
In short, that understanding led to me becoming an, “Open Theist,” long before I knew there was a name for what I came to understand.
Hermano’s been writing a lot about how deadly fatalism is to understanding, so there’s no need for me to add any more of my pairings of pennies to that topic.
Now, I have never implied, much less said, that, “…God had no idea what would happen.” And I’m sure you do find that statement hard to believe, even as I would.
Instead, what I have been attempting to point out is that Jehovah could not know the outcome of a choice between trust and distrust that Jehovah had set before them.
Either one of two things was going to happen. That’s it.
Thus I am wishing to communicate that Jehovah put His trust in an optimistic outcome, while being aware that an unfavorable one was just as possible.
Therefore, the only thing He didn’t know was the one thing He couldn’t know, the outcome of their temptation to distrust. They were sentient and innocent, is my contention, and so the first two would set the course for human history to unfold either one way or another.
And don’t you know Jehovah knew what He would have to do, if they failed?
And that cost Him a lot. He has sacrificed much, including having to endure feeling His own anger and remorse at the evil we do, while enduring the same heart-break we endure that come from the Pain and Suffering we create, long, long before Jesus went to the cross as a Divine Human Being to enable us all to, one-by-one, be made complete, beginning, first, with those who will choose to love and trust Him. These first ones He fore-knows because He can read our hearts. And it is these that desire to be good that He elects to receive His grace which leads to an acceptance of faith by His working all things together for the good of them - oftentimes against the actions of other’s who’s actions are from hearts that Jehovah does not favor for having to know them.
Do you understand that every evil we create by our actions, every atrocity, every heinousness, every brutality, every depravity, every immorality, every malfeasance we commit around the globe, every single day, Jehovah feels - as well as the one’s that affect us - and He cares.
Do you think you could endure that kind of intimacy with human beings?
So, “…why not just forgive them, why curse Eve, why curse the ground with thorns and thistles, why appoint Adam as our representative and in effect punish us for Adam’s transgression?”
First of all, forgiveness does not equate to immediate restoration. From a human perspective, the purpose of forgiveness is to restore a damaged relationship, but it depends on both parties to forgive, which means both parties likely contributed something to the Pain and Suffering they endured for being in a relationship. We are weak in conscience and so our relationships suffer. Therefore, the need for our forgiving one another is a direct result of the reality of who we are.
Thus I see that, from God’s perspective, forgiveness could do nothing about the reality of what they now were - human beings who knew the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, but who will now have to struggle mightily to be good. My witness to this is Jehovah’s words to Cain when Jehovah was pleased with Abel’s offering, but not Cain’s:
Why would Jehovah of spoken this way to Cain, encouraging Him to resist the sin of not doing well and thus endure it’s consequent feeling of anger for not being accepted by his God, if Jehovah knew, as a fact, that Cain was later going to murder his brother? Thus, this knowledge of good and evil was now permanently and irretrievably in mankind. Yet, it was not the powerful thing Jehovah intended it to be, and so, in the likeness of Cain, human beings begin their struggle between what we want and what is right to do, rather than living from the opposite effect of the fruit in them which would have been that what we want is what is right to do, an effect that would have been made possible for enduring the temptation and then eating the fruit, with Jehovah’s permission.
And is that not our restoration? Is that not the work that will be annulled in us when all that Jehovah has said is done?
This knowledge was now permanently and irretrievably in mankind, so I said.
And here’s why: some things can only be done at the very beginning, after that, whatever the outcome, there is no possibility of going back, of, “pressing the reset button,” because the reset button would be the killing of the first two - and all of us would never exist and Jehovah’s purpose in creating human beings would be thwarted, permanently.
Thus, Resurrection becomes the thing wherein He will catch the conscience of every being.
You said, “We are told we need to be more then conquerors, we need to be overcomers, we need to put on the full armour of God.”
Yes, indeed, WE are told to do this because that is relevant to the reality of who we are - people who know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil - and yet, apart from being re-sired of Jehovah (born anew), are unable to realize the ideal world such knowledge creates in us.
And that is why I say, over and over again because it’s so very true,
Be good! It is after all what you were created to be!
And what’s wrong with thinking like that?
Dennis!
Senate Chaplain Barry Black just prayed that ‘God’s providence will prevail.’
This verse seems to agree, Proverbs 21:30 ‘There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.’
Jeff, millions of people throughout the earth are planning evil acts daily, and many or most of them are successful in carrying out their plans.
Or do you think the success of their evil plans is not “against the Lord”—that the Lord is okay with them or has even ordained them?
I can think of at least one.
In instructing His disciples to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus asked them NOT to go to the Gentiles or the Samarians, but only to “the lost sheep of the household of Israel.”
(Matthew 10:5) These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
But after His resurrection, Jesus said to Ananias concerning Paul:
(Acts 9:15) But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.
There was a developing—a maturing of the Kingdom of God itself! Jesus spoke of this growth in many of His parables of the Kingdom.
So… at first Jesus instructed His disciples NOT to go the the Gentiles. After a bit or maturation, His disciple Paul, as well as others later on, were instructed TO GO to the Gentiles with the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Unlike the examples you gave, Jesus. instructions NOT to go to the Gentiles, was not a moral issue. But neither was God’s instruction to Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
I like all this interesting, thoughtful discussion!
**“…It says…” that the Lord creates evil. Isaiah says. Was Isaiah correct about this? ** Or possibly, did he occasionally, in ignorance, confuse God and Satan? We must read the Scriptures by the Spirit of Christ, through the lens of love.
The Bible says. Is the entire Bible “the Word of God”? Or instead, is the Bible only part of a progressive revelation that quotes, and points to, THE Word of God?
If I showed you a beautiful banana, and asked what it was, you would say “banana.” But if I peeled the banana, and held up the edible fruit in one hand, and the banana skin in the other, perhaps you might now identify them separately as “banana,” and “banana peel.” One is merely the container for the other. And while we certainly appreciate the packaging (the Bible), we only eat the fruit (The Word of God).
The Bible indicates that JESUS is the Word of God. (For example, John 1, Revelation 19:13.) Yet we all know Jesus is not a book. To see this distinction between Jesus and the Bible better, here is a good essay by Richard Murray, called Is "The Logos-Word of God” The Bible?
I like to describe the Scriptures as only part of a never-ending, progressive revelation of the goodness of God, in Christ.
Here is an explanation of what is meant by “progressive revelation” from another thread:
Blessings.
We got into this discussion before (in other threads here), about “God creating evil” - in the bible and language. I just need to dust off the Calvinist theologian (AKA CARM), Matt Slick’s answer at:
**The consensus among Christian theologians and linguists, would side with Matt - on does God create evil in Isaiah. ** 
For example, in:
Or this article, from the Christian Courier at:
Thank you, Hermano, for sharing your thoughts.
I agree with the progressive-revelation concept. Like Richard Murray, I think that the ancient Hebrew concept of Satan, was that he was an agent of Yahweh, and so that Satan had committing an act was considered to be tantamount to Yahweh committing the act
I must say that I was greatly surprised that Richard Murray should say this. For example, “the word of God” (Logos tou theou) in the book of Acts does not refer to “Jesus’ divine presence” or to “the Spirit of Christ” but rather the expression refers to the gospel (good news):
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.
Acts 6:2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
Acts 6:7 And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.
Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
Acts 11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
Acts 12:24 But the word of God increased and multiplied.
Acts 13:5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them.
Acts 13:7 He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
Acts 13:46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
Acts 17:13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds.
Acts 18:11 And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Well hush my mouth, HFPZ, but little old me is not buying the common position laid out by Matt Slick and others. Their explanation may be “tried,” but (if your read my above comment links, you will see why) I don’t think it’s “true.”
-“God” morally uses the devil as His attack dog, so that He won’t technically get His hands dirty?
-“God” sends calamity and disaster, death, disease, and destruction, to “help” people?
-A “merciful” God casts most people into a hell that the “experts” agree is a never-ending torture-chamber?
-“Evangelism” should be a coercive marketing tool to sell fire insurance?
I refuse to redefine “love” to accommodate the more popular explanations of Matt Slick, or any other theologian.
Blessings.
Yes, it’s a common “solution” to God creating evil according to Isaiah 45:7 to use the translation “calamity” rather than “evil.” Many people seem to think this gets God off the hook, since creating calamity isn’t nearly as bad as creating moral evil. But isn’t it evil to create calamity. If a human being deliberately creates calamity for others, he will be jailed if found out.
However, Whether it’s calamity or whether it’s what’s usually thought of as moral evil—creating it is morally wrong. Richard Murray’s solution is far more satisfactory. That it is Satan that creates this evil (whichever kind it is), but it is attributed by Isaiah to God since the Hebraic view at the time was that Satan was an agent of God who could do only what God allowed him to do, so one might as well say that God did it.
Paidion, again I have to disagree. Adam and Eve decided to follow the words of a liar and deceiver instead of the word of God. Even in maturity, we should not do this. It would be breaking the first commandment, that we should not put any other gods before God. From what I understand the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents what man says is good and evil rather than what God says. It is a case of man choosing to be his own authority.
Actually, there are different alternatives to ECT - that are accepted today:
Metaphorical view of hell
Exile - where folks torture each other - not God
Annihilation
P-Zombie - where folks become sub-human (Rev. N.T. Wright)
Universalism
When we reject what history gives us, via creeds and common consensus, then any number of equally compelling, Biblical exegesis emerge:
Christian Science (everything is ideas and evil and matter don’t exist)
God pulls the strings and there are is no free will
Etc.
Actually, from a standpoint of pure brilliance…Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science spin of scripture, is more compelling to me…then some of the versions, presented on this forum. 
I think Mary Baker Eddy does express love brilliantly, in her exegesis. And it’s more compelling to me, then what you are presenting (i.e. if I ignore historical creeds and common consensus). 
And don’t forget my own original, Biblical exegesis, I presented here at P-Zombies and Universalism 
http://www.thebackpew.com/uploads/4/2/4/9/42493387/5993352_orig.jpg
Ok, about creeds , common consensus- two quotes, one short, one longer
- This is a short excerpt from a GREAT essay:
"My aversion to human creeds as bonds of Christian union, as conditions of Christian fellowship, as means of fastening chains on men’s minds, constantly gains strength.
My first objection to them is, that they separate us from Jesus Christ. To whom am I to go for my knowledge of the Christian religion but to the Great Teacher, to the Son of God, to him in whom the fulness of the Divinity dwelt? This is my great privilege as a Christian, that I may sit at the feet not of a human but divine Master, that I may repair to him in whom truth lived and spoke without a mixture of error, who was eminently the wisdom of God and the light of the world. And shall man dare to interpose between me and my heavenly guide and Saviour, and prescribe to me the articles of my Christian faith? What is the state of mind in which I shall best learn the truth? It is that in which I forsake all other teachers for Christ, in which my mind is brought nearest to him; it is that in which I lay myself I open most entirely to the impressions of his mind. Let me go to Jesus with a human voice sounding in my ears, and telling me what I must hear from the Great Teacher, and how can I listen to him in singleness of heart? All Protestant sects, indeed, tell the learner to listen to Jesus Christ: but most of them shout around him their own articles so vehemently and imperiously. that the voice of the heavenly Master is well nigh drowned. He is told to listen to Christ, but told that he will be damned if he receives any lessons but such as are taught in the creed. He is told that Christ’s word is alone infallible but that unless it is received as interpreted by fallible men, he will be excluded from the communion of Christians. This is what shocks me in the creed-maker. He interposes himself between me and my Saviour. He dares not trust me alone with Jesus. He dares not leave me to the word of God. This I cannot endure. The nearest possible communication with the mind of Christ is my great privilege as a Christian. I must learn Christ’s truth from Christ himself, as he speaks in the records of his life and in the men whom he trained up and supernaturally prepared to be his witnesses to the world. On what ground I ask, do the creed-makers demand as sent to their articles as condition of church membership or salvation? What has conferred on them infallibility? “Show me your proofs,” I say to them, "of Christ speaking in you. Work some miracle. Utter some prophecy. Show me something divine in you, which other men do not possess. Is it possible that you are unaided men like myself, having no more right to interpret the New Testament than myself. and that you yet exalt your interpretations as infallible standards of truth. and the necessary conditions of salvation? "
2.From ‘God in Search of Man’ by A.J. Heschel. Wonderful book -
Murray’s so-called exegetic quote below… what an abortive load of tripe, “IMO” of course. This is EXACTLY what I mean by “prevalent gymnastics” — or let me restate that in full…
“That understanding when applied carte blanch leads to all manner of prevalent gymnastics to have God NOT doing “evil”, where in fact certain texts plainly say otherwise.” 
Hermano, with all due respect to you… the inspired (by God) Isaiah was neither ignorant nor confused! You may as well apply Murray’s concocted blancmange he calls “exegesis” (cough) and magically massage it into ANY so-called “troubling passage” i.e., one that upsets the gut of any sacred cow. I feel I could use any number of other choice words here… but I’m not sure I’m getting the “impulse” quite right. 
blancmange!! Just for using the word, you get:
Dave, without creeds how does one avoid theological and moral chaos? Is there any one thing, and I mean anything, that all self-described Christians believe in? (Remember, some “Christians” do not believe in the existence of God!)
And it’s not just doctrinal disagreement. There is also moral disagreement. Is there any moral statement, even one, that all self-described Christians believe in? Some think abortion is fine, others recognize it as murder. Some think that forbidding remarriage is monstrous, others think that permitting it is monstrous. Some are anarchists, some are statists (of every stripe imaginable). Some are pacifists, some are war-mongers. Some are capitalists, some believe that property is theft. Etc.
Given the above, does the word “Christian” not lose any meaning? If a total stranger tells me that he is a Christian, I have no idea what he believes (or even if he believes in the existence of God), and I have no idea if he holds to moral theories that I recognize as Satanic.
Is there anything to be gained by a “unity” that amounts to nothing other than, ‘We all like to use the word “Christian” to describe ourselves’?
I knew that very question would be asked, G. How do you answer the points that were brought up?
Edit: let me withdraw that question. You are an eloquent spokesman for the EOx church, so at best we will be trading viewpoints back and forth until the Second Coming. 
What I quoted in my post is where I stand.
Since DaveB doesn’t like creeds…and P-Zombies and Zombies are not mentioned in them…I can “cut lose” with my P-Zombies and Universalism Biblical exegesis.
And even dedicate a Zombie love song - to it 
And can you sing along, DaveB and Hermano - to this “church hymn” 
or
Starting to dislike the zombies here! But they are a great way to derail a discussion; maybe I need to put a few in my back pocket.