I wrote this some time back but didn’t conclude anything. I do think it relates to this conversation. I have a knew idea to explain this as well that I will write in another post. Libertarian Freedom is defined as a person’s absolute control over the decisions and actions they make. Nothing external to the person is able to determine what they decide to do. So in an identical set of circumstances, a person with Libertarian Freedom would be able to choose differently since nothing prior to their decision determines what they will do, necessarily, since their choices are completely contingent and free. This definition leads to the inevitable conclusion that a person with Libertarian Freedom would be impossible to predict. For, in the same set of hypothetical circumstances, a person with LF could contingently choose A or not A. This would also make a person with LF impossible to make definite plans, since his will could arbitrarily change at any moment. Since God has omniscience and also since he planned things in advance (like the sacrifice of his son for the sins of the world), it would follow then that not even God himself has LF. So how could humans have it? However, let’s suppose God does have LF for a moment. We do then gain some explanatory power over some of the harder passages in the Bible. I’m thinking of the passages where God regrets, where God repents, and where God changes his mind. Let’s suppose God made a plan or decree in eternity past and then created the world through the Big Bang. Then let’s suppose that since he has LF, at some point along the line of his decree, God makes a different choice than he had decreed. From that point onward, the entire world is now different than he had envisioned at the start. This would give some explanatory power to the verses that describe God as regretting making mankind. Maybe in the eternal decree God had decided not to make mankind and then in His Providence post-creation, made a last minute different choice to make mankind. And we see regret expressed over that choice that is genuine. This also helps in some way with explaining how God could change his mind. If he has LF, then he would be able to plan to do one thing and then change his mind at the last second and do something different, again aligning with the biblical account. One of the implications of this view, that God seems to have LF, is that God’s decree in eternity past, as usually thought of by theologians, is not true. There was no eternal decree in the sense of a definite world of sequential events that are set in stone prior to creation. At least not a necessary decree. At best, if there was a divine decree, every event was contingent on God and not settled until it took place in real time. The other implication is that God himself is not determined by the decree. Post-creation, He is not on autopilot and just going through the motions like a movie already plotted out. Rather there can be real change in Providence that was not foreseen in Eternity Past since a new choice could be made that permanently alters the world, not able to be known pre-creation. Recall that it is impossible to know what a person with LF would do beforehand since they can choose A or not A. If enough of these dissenting choices get made by God that don’t align to the original decree he made, then we end up having a world that looks nothing like God first envisioned it. Perhaps God can even be surprised by a choice he makes that he didn’t see coming. Perhaps by creating the world, God had to have faith that it would turn out like he planned, and as the world unfolded God came to realize things that were not possible for him before. Like regret, repentance, and even the changing of His mind. The implications of God having LF are astounding since he ends up being truly free and even malleable post-creation. Perhaps God desired to have this type of change in life, and wanted to take it to the extreme by becoming a man? By doing all of this, for the first time in His life, he was able to break free of the limitations of eternal static bliss, and experience a more fulfillling reality? Perhaps most of the world is going down exactly like God designed in the decree but little nuances and blips of flavor and spontaneity can arise that make the story more interesting. Maybe even the elect aren’t fully settled in the decree but there is room for God to change his mind? Or maybe all those choices that God makes differently from the eternal decree end up having backend consequences that change the specific makeup of who the elect are?

​ @theexaltedchrist7382 - here is a summary of the other point of view that I am pondering that may explain this quandary: I think the other plausible thing going on in the Old Testament is that it's the Son's viewpoint being expressed in the "regret" and "change mind" passages we see such as in Genesis 6 (PS: this also works for your passage about when YHWH said "Now I know" after Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac). And if the Son is not omniscient, then it would make sense to see expressions from YHWH sounding like they are from a person who doesn't know all things. My view is that the Son is created by the Father, the first of his creative acts, and does not possess all of the attributes that the Father has such as being uncreated and omniscient. And so in the OT, it's Jesus himself trying to work with Israel to get them to a point where he wants them to be (expressed so well in his "Jerusalem, Jerusalem " lament recorded in the Gospels). So this s the reason for why YHWH appears this way at times in the OT. Jesus really did change his mind and really regretted. But these are not expressions that the Father shares. I argue for this position in much depth based upon several passages: 1.) God can mean a type or species of thing that is spiritual, uncreated, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. 2.) God can also mean "a supreme power" or "one in a place of ultimate authority". Now in regards to the biblical arguments, I think that we have warrant in 3 places to suggest that the Son (the person) was created by the Father and so cannot possess the attributes of God in the #1 sense above. Here are the passages: “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth. I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was constantly at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.” - ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭8‬:‭22‬-‭31‬ ‭NIV‬‬ Many people will just dismiss the above as poetry, personifying “wisdom” but in light of Christ (whom Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 1 is “the wisdom of God”) and in light of what it says at the latter part above, about whatever this thing is being present with God during creation, and added to the fact that Jesus taught that the scriptures spoke about him in many places….. that this entire part of Proverbs is about Jesus. The person. In the passage, you will see that Jesus is formed as the first act that the Father did, before he made the world. And this aligns perfectly with John 1:1-2. Now some translations say "possessed me" in verse 22 instead of "created me" or "brought me forth". But the next verses describe this "act" as the first one God did, not a passive "having" but an active bringing forth at a point in time. A creative event. So I think the context proves that the phrase should not be "possessed me". Compare the ESV and you will get a sense of something off when you read verses 22-24 as if they don’t make sense together and there is a footnote for the word choice of “possessed”, stating it could mean “created”. The NASB2020 also chooses the word "created". If you look at many commentaries, they will talk about there being an issue if "logic" or "reason" or "wisdom” was a created thing since it would imply that God didn't possess it at first, but of course, I think they miss it entirely since it's actually about The Logos of John 1:1-3. Jesus. In most translations, this person with God in Proverbs 8 is called "a master workman" or "architect" heavily suggesting this entity having a role in what was being created as well (Let us make man in our likeness and our image). John 1:3 agrees. So it all fits! Much like Psalm 82 really impacted Michael Heiser and his work on "elohim", Proverbs 8:22-31 hit me like a ton of bricks once I began to believe it was about the Son. But there is more… I will end this section with a quote from towards the end of the Proverbs which I think is equally astounding in regards to what I said above: “Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man. I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!” - ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭30‬:‭2‬-‭4‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Moving along, the second passage that shows the Son being created is: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” - ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1‬:‭15‬ ‭NIV‬‬ This verse, if paired with the Proverbs 8 passage, seems to agree that the Son (the person of Jesus) was the firstborn over all creation, meaning the first thing the Father God created external to himself. It says later on in the same context of Colossians “so that in all things, he might be preeminent”. It makes sense then, if the Son is preeminent in everything, he would also be the first created thing, or else this statement would be false (scripture cannot be broken!). But wait, there is more! The 3rd passage. Jesus describes himself to John, post-resurrection and while in heaven: “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.” - Revelation‬ ‭3‬:‭14‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Notice how Jesus says of himself “the beginning of God’s creation”? This is perfectly in line with the testimony of Proverbs 8 and Colossians 1 from above! The Son was the first created thing God, His Father, made, and then through and alongside the Son, the Father created everything else, making the Son preeminent to all things created, since he was the first created thing. I can't fit the entire essay I wrote on here, but that is the main biblical arguments I make. Essentially I believe the Son is God in the #2 sense but not the #1 sense and so am more Unitarian.

@34:00 - this is not possible interpretation due to other texts like this: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭17‬:‭30‬-‭31‬ ‭ESV‬‬ If the day is fixed, like Paul says, there is no way to hasten it or make it happen on another day. ““But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24‬:‭36‬ ‭ESV‬ Unless God’s knowledge of “the day” can change based upon the actions in the world then I would say that the fact that God has knowledge of the very hour it will takes place also rules out your interpretation there in 2 Peter. As for what Peter means there, I do not know, admitting-ly. Perhaps it is sort of like a desire for Jesus to come quickly like is expressed here: “The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭22‬:‭17‬, ‭20‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Like a sense of “hurry Lord, we are ready for you”! Final point on this, in 2 Peter 3:14-15 it says "Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these things, be diligent to be found in him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him." The call to action here is to wait and be diligent to reform your walk and count the slowness of God's coming "as salvation" God is providing time for us to reach maturity before he comes. Paul talks about this in Romans 2 when he says: "Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed." And so I simply see no reason at all to think Peter had the idea that by being diligent about your walk with God and reforming it, this would have an impact in shortening the days before Jesus came back. Rather, Peter clearly means that you don't know when it is coming so be all the more ready for it and count any lengthy time as salvation, time for you to mature.

Multiverse and God's contemplation of it is total speculation amd entirely unbiblical. Talk about going beyond the text....yikes.