I don't know what you mean by a "compound" God. We believe in the God revealed to us in the scriptures, which includes the OT. You appear to reject that revelation.
FK: ... how do YOU answer the question "Did God want Jesus to die on the cross?" Yes or no.
The question is wrong. Christ died because He (Christ) willed it. Either He is fully God, or He is a lesser God or not even God.
I suppose I'll take that as a "yes". But doesn't that ruin the Orthodox view that God has nothing to do with death? You just told me that God willed death. The OT says the same thing.
And what is He going to "do" after the End of Times?
Other than reign in Heaven and be our loving Father, the Bible doesn't tell us.
According to the Reformed "theology" God is the author of what happened, in which case there is no reason whatsoever for Him to grieve.
So, are you saying it is impossible to be the author of something and when the expected results happen one has reason to grieve? I remember that a few years ago there was a lone rock climber who got his arm wedged between a boulder and a wall. Knowing he was going to die because he was in a remote location, he wound up sawing off his own arm to free himself. He was the author of an expected result. You are telling me here that he had no reason to grieve the loss of his arm.
That is an anthropomorphic God by necessity, since God cannot be adequately comprehended or expressed in limited human capacity. What the Bible describes is not God as He is, but a God expressed in human words will fall short of what God is.
I do not reject the revelation, but I do reject the anthropomorphism of the Bible. We can not positively express what God is. WE can only do it by negation, i.e. of what He is not.
The OT is anthropomorphism based on revelations, interpreted and expressed in human terms and human capacities. The Gospels are eyewitness accounts. Apples and oranges. One is an approximation; the other is factual reporting.
God is simple and umcompound, because only that which is simple and single, a monad, cannot be divided or subdivided, and only that which is perfectly simple is in perfect harmony with itself; complexity leads to disharmony and diversity, and diversity leads to change; God doesn't change, and God cannot be subdivided, He is One.
I suppose I'll take that as a "yes". But doesn't that ruin the Orthodox view that God has nothing to do with death? You just told me that God willed death. The OT says the same thing
He willed it for Himself, so that others may live. But He is not the source of death, since death was already ushered into the world; He merely took our sins and paid with His life for them. That was His choice. He didn't will it on anyone else.
[Kosta: And what is He going to "do" after the End of Times?] Other than reign in Heaven and be our loving Father, the Bible doesn't tell us.
Clever. Of course not. It leaves it up to our fancy, FK.
So, are you saying it is impossible to be the author of something and when the expected results happen one has reason to grieve? I remember that a few years ago there was a lone rock climber who got his arm wedged between a boulder and a wall. Knowing he was going to die because he was in a remote location, he wound up sawing off his own arm to free himself. He was the author of an expected result. You are telling me here that he had no reason to grieve the loss of his arm
That is inconsistent with the Reformed view of God. God would never be caught in such a do-or-die situation. If the world turned wicked, it wasn't a "fate" that was imposed on God so that He had to do something radically to save it, but a result of His will. And if God made the world wicked, there is no reason for Him to grieve the wickedness of the world.