Did God know?

[Guest]

"When you say 'all of us will be completed edified at the judgement' in laymans terms what do you mean? Do you mean purified for heaven or something different?"

It means that all claims to "not understand" will at the judgment be resolved. You'll get it, I'll get it. It's part of that "seeing through a glass darkly, but then face to face" thing.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Well then if at judgement everyone will understand then do you believe unbelievers will have an opportunity at judgement to repent and believe and be saved?

[Guest]

What benefit is there in person"A" observing the result of a litmus test given to person "B" if neither of them has free will? Neither would be able to do anything differently regardless of the test results. Just one string puppet "observing" another!

[Guest]

"Well then if at judgement everyone will understand then do you believe unbelievers will have an opportunity at judgement to repent and believe and be saved?"

No. You're sincerely missing the point. All of this is not for the edification of the unbeliever, but the believer. The believer's belief itself is authored by God. The unbeliever is a convincing shell. In C.S. Lewis' book "The Great Divorce" they are tiny insubstantial shadows. It is only in this life that they appear as equals to us, the elect. We neither know the future or their hearts so we do not know who God has chosen in life. Evangelize them all, let God sort 'em out. He told us to anyway.

"What benefit is there in person 'A' observing the result of a litmus test given to person 'B' if neither of them has free will?"

Time to get a little understanding of God not of man. You don't approach God through your reasoning, else you would find it. "Lest they would hear with their ears"?

"Neither would be able to do anything differently regardless of the test results. Just one string puppet 'observing' another!"

God is not trying to elevate your status like LDS doctrine teaches. God is trying (now that's anthropomorphic) to elevate your understanding of his doctrine which is about his power and his Glory. Go back, read what you said, see how it is all about "Me, me, me". It's not about you.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Hugh, I don't think i'm missing the point i was trying to understand what you believe because you tend to answer in dribs and drabs. OK now i know. I've listened on and off to Harold Camping for years so i'm familiar with predestination or election and i've heard the arguments for it. I think believers of this doctrine tend to assume that when the term is used it applies universally to everyone in all situations, which i disagree with. The verse you referred to with Homer "lest they would hear with their ears" Mark 4.11 is referring to the Pharisees or jewish listeners at that time IMO and not to all unbelievers at any time in history. There are many instances of election like God hardening Pharaoh's heart , but this seems to be to execute God's plan ,not a general principal.
I previously asked you about the reaction of God the Father in the "Prodigal Son" regarding the tremendous joy the Father had upon his Son repenting and becoming alive. How does that joy reconcile to predestination? You never did answer me.

[Guest]

God's foreknowledge doesn't make a particular action (or lack thereof) impossible.

But it does. And it doesn't even have to be God that knows in advance. If Joe Bloe knows in advance that you will raise your hand at midnight, you cannot refrain from raising your hand.

Actually, it's not the knowing itself that makes a different action impossible. It's because knowing that you raise your hand at midnight implies that the statement "Damon raises his hand at midnight tonight" IS TRUE! But statements about future events, if they concern the choice of free will agents, have no truth value NOW. They become true or false, depending on the choice of the free will agent.

It's knowing something in advance, not determining something in advance. One is passive whereas the other is active.

This is irrelevant when we see that knowing in advance what a person will choose, means that a statement about his choice has truth value NOW. But a statement that the future action of a free will agent has truth value prior to his choice is illogical and self-contradictory.

[Guest]

"I don't think i'm missing the point i was trying to understand what you believe because you tend to answer in dribs and drabs. OK now i know."

You need to know that my "points of view" stem almost entirely from reading scripture, for instance, I have no idea who Harold Camping is.

"I think believers of this doctrine tend to assume that when the term is used it applies universally to everyone in all situations, which i disagree with."

Some things are predestined, but others are not? Were they too unimportant or inconsequential to predestine? They couldn't effect the outcome so God did not bother with them? This is like leaving a little amusing randomness in the universe in places that cannot possibly matter so those things are allowed to work themselves out on their own. I find that far more depressing actually than total predestination.

"The verse you referred to with Homer 'lest they would hear with their ears' Mark 4.11 is referring to the Pharisees or jewish listeners at that time IMO and not to all unbelievers at any time in history."

So it's ok to damn a few Pharisees and Jews with predestination to show God is in control but the rest of us, God let's exercise "Free Will"? That is exhaustingly byzantine. It's also no more fair than total predestination.

"I previously asked you about the reaction of God the Father in the 'Prodical Son' becoming alive. How does that joy reconcile to predestination? You never did answer me."

I did, why is God's joy tied to surprise at the son's life? Why doesn't God simply enjoy a plan coming together?

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

"If God's system is double predestination, God alreadly knew Cain wouldn't be accepted, but He tells Cain he will be accepted if he does well."

Cain doing well is of course, theoreticly possible.

How can it be "theoreticly possible" if double-presentation is true. This is an illogical statement. Either you are elect or not. God said 'if you do well will you not be accepted"? Meaning choice. The "ball" is in his court. I mean, if God is one of choice then how could He have stated it any clearer? He could have just meant what He said, and yes, it applies to all of us too.

First of all let me say that we make the assumption that Cain is of the damned, or at least some of us do, that's an unsafe assumption.

1Jo 3:12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous.
1Jo 3:13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.
1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.
1Jo 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Seems as clear as Eph 2:8-9 to me. Sure, God could still save Cain. I mean, he could just save everyone (I don't think He will, just making a point). 'If you confess Jesus is Lord you will be saved' and 'every knee will bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus is Lord'. But 1 John seems clear, in singling out Cain as the poster child of someone who does not have eternal life.

What God asks of Cain is more rhetorical, more for us that watch than it is for Cain I think.

I disagree. I mean, anything's possible I guess. I just take it as it reads, Cain is given a choice.

Furthermore the presentation of a choice to any one of us is more a revealing litmus test than it is a request for men to exercise their non existent "Free Will". God asks, our answer reveals our nature to others and to ourselves. God already knows.

Hugh McBryde

Well when you presuppose that free will is non-existent then I guess you are right. I mean, when you have already made a conclusion before going to the text then there really is no reason to discuss the text, it's no longer relevant. The presupposition overrides anything the text says.

I can quote predestination texts and convince someone that free will doesn't exist. I can also quote free will passages and prove free will exists. Does it really make sense to just quote some of the Bible as if the rest of it doesn't exist?

Example:
If I quote Jesus saying that He doesn't know the day or the hour, only the Father knows, and my presupposition is that Jesus isn't God, then nothing you say would convince me, because I've already made up my mind and am ignoring other quotes to the contrary. All verses need to be reconciled together.

[Guest]

Despite the fact you may find individual instances of election to be depressing or byzantine IMO that's exactly what scripture indicates. There are numerous examples of free will and also instances of God exercising sovreignty therefore if scripture is read without a presupposition it appears both are true. God has an overiding plan for mankind and to execute this plan he does intervene when necessary to accomplish this plan. And no i don't believe he damns people by hardening their hearts.
You said that the Prodicals Son's Father was joyful because he enjoyed his plan coming together, but if predestination is true then God's predesigned plans ALWAYS come together every second of every day and God s/b jumping for joy non stop for eternity as his plans never stop coming together. God would look like a permanent jumping jack IMO. No the reason God was joyful was because his Son made the right decision on his own and became alive.
The same theme is found in the 2 parables right before the "Prodical Son" which is that there is joy in heaven when even one sinner repents. Hardly sounds like predestination.

[Guest]

God's foreknowledge doesn't make a particular action (or lack thereof) impossible.

But it does. And it doesn't even have to be God that knows in advance. If Joe Bloe knows in advance that you will raise your hand at midnight, you cannot refrain from raising your hand.

Have you ever studied Quantum Mechanics, perchance? Have you ever heard the theory that the very act of observing an interaction between subatomic particles changes what's being observed, so that one cannot know with absolute certainty everything that there is to know about them (such as position versus velocity)?

I posit that the same is true about God communicating His foreknowledge of events. The very act of communicating God's foreknowledge to people has the potential to change their future actions. Nevertheless, there are certain things that God can declare with absolute certainty, which cannot be altered.

For instance, God is determined to bring about the salvation of the world through the ministry of Jesus Christ, no matter how impossible it might seem. In other words, just looking at things on a carnal level, there's no way that this world can hope to keep from destroying itself. Nevertheless, no matter how impossible it might seem, God intends to instead make all of Creation permanent and eternal as a reflection of the permanent and eternal character of His saints, which is Godly love and trust.

Anyway, that's how it makes sense to me.

Damon