Putting An End3 To The Free Will Versus Predestination Debate

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I suggested a reason why the ages of the patriarchs declined.

 

Shall we revisit my idea?

Sure

[Rev R]

I'm not certain why Free Will vs. Predestination is framed as an either/ or thing. Maybe it is from a biblical/ Christian standpoint, but it seems to me that neither proposition is true. I cannot fathom, let alone believe in, an intelligence patient enough to deal with the tedious micromanagement required for everything to have a set path. On the other hand, I don't consider our will to truly be free since our ability to choose in any given situation is bound together with circumstances. I cannot choose to drive from Baltimore to Morocco. I cannot decide that a pair beats a royal flush. Hells, I didn't choose the opinion I stated on predestination. It just kinda emerged from my study/ training, experience, and brief contemplation of the subject.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

18 minutes ago, Rev R said:

I'm not certain why Free Will vs. Predestination is framed as an either/ or thing. Maybe it is from a biblical/ Christian standpoint, but it seems to me that neither proposition is true. I cannot fathom, let alone believe in, an intelligence patient enough to deal with the tedious micromanagement required for everything to have a set path. On the other hand, I don't consider our will to truly be free since our ability to choose in any given situation is bound together with circumstances. I cannot choose to drive from Baltimore to Morocco. I cannot decide that a pair beats a royal flush. Hells, I didn't choose the opinion I stated on predestination. It just kinda emerged from my study/ training, experience, and brief contemplation of the subject.  

Its a given for us that neither is true. But it appears the bible promotes both. I'm thinking that this was a result of conflicting ideologies at war with one another in the early church. 

 

A good start would be to remove any scriptures on the subject that were written into the widely accepted forgeries like 2 Peter and 2 timothy. I would exclude all the scriptural evidence for any of the epistles which scholars say may be forgeries, just to be sure. 

 

Then see how much scripture is left for each. Its an idea anyway. 

 

DB

[Shinzon]

I tend to think of judas and his betrayal of jesus or the idea of free will in heaven or even the garden of eden anytime someone wants to have this discussion.

 

I would argue the garden of eden is another version of throwing a crack head in a crack house and punishing him for using.  Pretty much the whole of this topic could be summerized by that.  Vaguely yes it is free will, but functionally it isn't really free will at all.   Seems to me the whole of christianity is like that.   

 

In regards to judas, somebody had to be the bad guy for the story to work.  So in essence, god would have had to force somebody into a suitation where they would willingly do the wrong thing.  That is how god comes out not looking like a asshole tyrant plain as day, even though both of these cases were essentially varying degrees of a Kobayashi Maru.

 

Why I bring up heaven and free will should be taken in context of those other two points.   It seems the christian god is fully capable of creating suitations where he gets immoral shit done and gets away scot free like a trap from the saw movies.  If we aren't drones in heaven....then we have both deterministic aspects to our lives and free will.  In heaven you are put into suitations were you freely choose god, on earth you freely choose bad.

 

That is why I think topics like this are somewhat silly.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Posted yesterday at 11:09 AM

  On 12/8/2022 at 9:04 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

I suggested a reason why the ages of the patriarchs declined.

 

Shall we revisit my idea?

Sure

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ok DB,

 

My argument hinges on three things written in the bible - which trees Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from in Eden, a passage from 1 Timothy and the declining ages of Adam's descendants, which I've collated from Genesis 5 to the book of Judges and will list below.

 

First thing first.  There's a common misunderstanding about Genesis 3 : 22, where god says that the man must not eat from the tree of life and live forever.  Many people think that before that Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree of life.  But that's not what scripture says.

 

Genesis 2 : 9

 

The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

Genesis 2 : 16 & 17.

 

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

So, there were two magical trees, but Adam and Eve were only forbidden to eat from one of them - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Therefore, in accordance with god's ruling, they were free to eat the fruit of the tree of life.

 

Now we need to ask ourselves why they needed to eat from that tree.  The answer can be found in 1 Timothy 6 : 13 - 16.

 

13 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 

14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 

15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 

16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honour and might forever. Amen.

 

God alone is immortal.  Therefore, every human is not.  Which means that they require something to sustain their bodies and keep them ageless.  The fruit of the ordinary trees in Eden sustained their bodies but could not stop them from aging.  But the fruit of the tree of life could keep them ageless and immortal.  

 

There's more evidence for this to be found in Revelation 22 : 1 & 2.

 

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 

2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

 

Why does the tree of life bear fruit every month?  If the saved are immortal and ageless like god, there would be no more need of a magical tree that lets created beings like humans live forever with a truly immortal and ageless god.  Therefore, they must be doing what Adam and Eve did in Eden.  Eating the fruit to agelessly sustain themselves so that they can dwell with god forever.

 

If all of this is so and the tree of life gives immortality, what happens when that is taken away?  This happened when Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden.  As you will see, the life-sustaining power of the fruit decreased over time.  The magical influence of the tree of life, which was passed down from generation to generation faded.  Here's a list of the patriarchs and their ages when they died.

 

Adam 930

Seth 912

Enosh 905

Kenan 910

Mahalalel 895

Jared 962

Methuselah 969

Lamech 777

 

The Flood

 

Noah 950

Shem 500

Arphaxad 403

Shelah 403

Eber 430

 

Peleg 209

Reu 207

Serug 200

Nahor 119

Terah 205

 

Sarah 127

Abraham 175

Ishmael 137

Isaac 180

Jacob 147

Joseph 110

Moses 120

Joshua 110

 

There's a sharp drop after the Flood and another after Eber, but the downward trend is pretty clear.

 

I submit that their ages chart the declining power of the fruit of the tree of life.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I submit that their ages chart the declining power of the fruit of the tree of life.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

This is a well thought out theory and probably worthy of a new denomination. Lol. I think I see a couple of problems with it. But if i were a believer I could definitely see how this would make sense. 

 

I gotta ask. Is this something that was taught in your church when you were a believer?

 

I don't know when I will be able to reply. We have company coming today and we have a friends giving dinner to get ready for tomorrow. But I will reply. 

 

Thanks

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

This is a well thought out theory and probably worthy of a new denomination. Lol. I think I see a couple of problems with it. But if i were a believer I could definitely see how this would make sense. 

 

I gotta ask. Is this something that was taught in your church when you were a believer?

 

I don't know when I will be able to reply. We have company coming today and we have a friends giving dinner to get ready for tomorrow. But I will reply. 

 

Thanks

 

DB

 

No, this is just something I worked out for myself by reading the bible, DB.

 

But I wouldn't place too much store in it.  As you say, there are problems.  As usual the bible is so contradictory that if you see something somewhere it's most likely contradicted somewhere else.  Hence all of the denominations, schisms, doctrinal squabbling and fracturing of Christianity over the years.

 

For example, I'm now going to argue against myself, using scripture to 'disprove' the theory I've just put forward.

 

1 Corinthians 15 : 42 - 54.

 

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 

43 it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 

45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 

46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 

47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 

48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 

49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 

51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 

52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 

53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 

54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

 

1 Peter 1 : 23

 

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

 

So, if the saved are raised imperishable, then surely this means that they do not age and they do not die?

But if the citizens of the New Jerusalem are imperishable then what is the function of the tree of life in that city?

 

Revelation 22 : 1 & 2

 

1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 

2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

 

Revelation 22 : 14

 

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

 

The saved have the right to the tree of life.  To do what, then?  I submit that they can eat its fruit each month.  Why would they do that if not to gain some kind of benefit?  If they are already imperishable, as Paul and Peter say, then why would they need to gain any life-related benefit from the tree?   It's leaves are for the healing of the nations, so clearly there is some kind of benefit to be had by having a right to it.  But what?  We aren't told.

 

But if scripture say that we will be raised imperishable, then my life-sustaining tree theory goes up in smoke.

 

Your thoughts, DB?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Rev R]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

I submit that their ages chart the declining power of the fruit of the tree of life.

 

 

 

 

This is a really neat concept. Do you mind if I draw on these for some possible fiction?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 minute ago, Rev R said:

This is a really neat concept. Do you mind if I draw on these for some possible fiction?

I know its Walter's theory. But do ExChristians get a discounted copy? Lol just messing with ya Rev.

[Rev R]

18 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I know its Walter's theory. But do ExChristians get a discounted copy? Lol just messing with ya Rev.

LOL.
If I ever actually finish it, I'll hook you up with a copy of the manuscript.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

15 minutes ago, Rev R said:

LOL.
If I ever actually finish it, I'll hook you up with a copy of the manuscript.

I would be honored.

 

@walterpthefirst ill have to respond later. I only have time for a short post here and there right now. My apologies.

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

It's leaves are for the healing of the nations, so clearly there is some kind of benefit to be had by having a right to it.  But what?  We aren't told.

I'm curious as to why the nations would need healing once the New Heaven and New Earth are established.  Is it because the new overlords will be maniacal despots like the god they currently worship? 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Rev R said:

This is a really neat concept. Do you mind if I draw on these for some possible fiction?

 

Damn your eyes, Rev!  (Just joking.)

 

 

From reading your post I've just remembered where I first got the idea from about the decreasing lifespans mentioned in Genesis.  I'd completely forgotten about this and mistakenly said to DarkBishop that I'd worked it out for myself by reading the bible.  Well, I did work some of this out, but the initial idea came from this book.

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2519822.The_Ceres_Solution

 

In this story the Mollans are a virtually immortal race of powerful aliens who are identical to humans.  They have the mental ability to instantly teleport themselves dozens or even hundreds of light years, leaving one planet and appearing on another. 

 

One of the plotlines is that instead of evolution producing radically different alien races across the galaxy, convergent evolution seems to naturally produce human or near-human races, independently on many widely-separated planets.  Every such race also naturally evolves to become like the Mollans.  That is, endowed with life spans lasting thousands of years. 

 

A Mollan politician called Vekryn has developed an irrational fear of death and secretly orders that a 'primitive' planet in the Mollan sphere of influence be tested to see if the genetics of it's inhabitants can be altered to make them not just very long-lived but fully immortal.  This planet is Earth.  But the test goes disastrously wrong and has the opposite effect.  The natural, multi-millennial lifespans of the primitive Earthlings begins to decrease with each generation. 

 

Eventually human beings live for much less than a century and an early death becomes the accepted norm on Earth.  The human hero of the story (can't remember his name) realizes that certain chapters of the book of Genesis contain a garbled account of this decrease.  I seem to recall that he helps reveal that Vekryn has covered up his terrible crime against the Earth.   The climax of the story has Vekryn using Mollan technology to smash the asteroid Ceres into Earth, destroying all evidence of his meddling.  This disaster is averted when Ceres is diverted and crashes into the Moon.  This results in Earth escaping destruction but being circled by a ring of pulverized debris, leaving it looking a bit like Saturn.  Oh and Vekryn is killed in the collision, so his deranged attempts to live forever come to nothing.

 

 

And that's where I first came across this idea.  

 

The rest of it is my own input.  I cross-checked Revelation against Genesis and discovered a likely purpose for the fruit of the tree of life - to keep Adam and Eve immortal.  Then I found that quote from 1 Timothy that said that god alone is immortal.  Everything seemed to fit together.

 

And with the Rev mentioning a possible story all of these memories were unlocked and came flooding back.

 

So, the truth will out!

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm curious as to why the nations would need healing once the New Heaven and New Earth are established.  Is it because the new overlords will be maniacal despots like the god they currently worship? 

 

Why not ask aik, Prof?

 

He knows the mind of god.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

No, this is just something I worked out for myself by reading the bible, DB.

 

Hey walter,

Sorry about the late.... or I guess early reply where you are. But its been a busy day. 

 

Were you still a believer when you worked this out? Just curious if it was possibly an apologetic that resolved some issue while you were a believer. 

 

This take on the tree of life has all the feel an epic mythological story. I said several weeks ago that the tree should have a story all its own. It seems like something is supposed to be there and isn't. In a way it is almost like you filled in the gaps that are missing.

 

But this theory also fails because it takes an act of God to decrease the life expectancy of humans in chapter 6 of Genesis. So it wasn't an instantaneous life digression from the moment they left the Garden. It rocks on for awhile and then all of a sudden God looks down and says..... My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 

Then the lives begin to decrease. 

 

It could also be assumed that since it is appointed to man once to die. (Meaning a natural death) and after that the judgement. That the possibility of dying after being resurrected and entering heaven would be impossible. Other than the second death of hell.

 

Hebrews 9

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

 

It would be hard to reconcile all of this and any of scriptures talking about Jesus's gift of eternal life. If his gift is "eternal" life it couldn't be dependent on eating a fruit every month.

 

Like you said the bible often contradicts itself. You even gave a compelling argument against your own theory  

 

Praise the Lord the bible is alive and truly does say different things to different people lmao  

 

There is also the question of why God is so fearful of man eating of the tree of life after the fall. 

 

Genesis 3

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

There are a couple of things I get from this. 

 

1. It sounds like they hadn't ate the fruit yet. 

 

And 

 

2. That if they did eat the fruit that they would be like God. Being truly immortal. 

 

However, back to your point about Christians having the right to the tree of life through Jesus. Would it be a once and done thing, like what it indicates in genesis? Or would it be more like what is represented in Revelation where a different fruit grows every month?

 

There had to be more to this story originally. I wish I had a Jewish friend to ask if there was more about the tree through their oral tradition that has been passed down. Maybe that would help put the pieces together.

 

Either way though. I really like your thoughts on the tree of life. If the writers of the biblical narrative hadn't hacked it to bits maybe we could get the full story. 

 

Best regards,

 

Dark Bishop

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

58 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

second death of hell

This is another issue against having to eat of the tree of life to live forever. While the Christians in the bible are depicted as living forever in the presence of God in heaven. The unbelievers and sinners technically live forever suffering the second death of hell. Without the aid of the tree of life. They keep existing in the fire and don't perish. 

 

This also opens the possibility that if someone didn't eat the fruit that they would eventually die again. If that did happen would they end up in hell? 

 

I don't think there is any scripture to quote for that possibility. But if it were true that one had to eat of the tree of life monthly to have eternal life. Then the possibility for death is still there. And what would that death be if death had been truly conquered. 

 

Which is another point. Jesus is to conquer death in the end and even death gets cast into the fire. 

 

Revelations 20

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

So why would anyone need to continually eat of the tree of life if death has been conquered and cast into the lake of fire? 

 

And how does God's death angel feel about that end? Really sucks ass for him right? Kills the first born of Egypt. Does his job for millenia after millenia and then ends up being thrown in hell. For doing his job. 

 

Sounds like predestination to me  lol  

 

DB

[Rev R]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Damn your eyes, Rev!  

I get that a lot. (not really but it sounds cool and nonchalant)

 

Those reviews are not very gracious. Is it worth checking out?

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Rev R said:

I get that a lot. (not really but it sounds cool and nonchalant)

 

Those reviews are not very gracious. Is it worth checking out?

 

I liked Bob Shaw's work Rev, but I don't have a copy of The Ceres Solution any more.  Maybe I'll order it on Amazon.  Catch is, sometimes science fiction can be overtaken by current technology and then it becomes dated.  A good example is another book by Shaw called Night Walk.

 

In it an Earth spy (forgotten his name) is captured by the theocratic dictatorship of the planet Emm Luther.  These two worlds are about to go to war over the discovery of a new Earth-like planet.  Such planets are common in the galaxy, but finding them is next to impossible.  That's because travel through hyperspace jumps is beyond the navigational capacity of any computer.  This forces starships to follow tortuous routes involving tens of thousands of jumps.  

 

Apparently in the early days of star travel Earth sent out millions of automated probes but only a few made it back, carrying with them the data of the many jumps they'd made to find habitable planets.  This data must be followed with absolute precision in order to reach the dozen worlds colonized by humans.

 

Anyway, the spy is tortured and in attempting to escape has his eyes destroyed.  He is imprisoned but with the aid of sighted prisoners and a sympathetic official in prison he eventually makes a pair of glasses that pick up the brain waves of nearby people.  He can tune into what they are seeing and so see the world from their point of view.  

 

He escapes and steals a starship, but is on his own.  Therefore he has no other eyes to tune into to pilot the ship back to Earth.

 

Can you see how the story fails at this point, Rev?

 

Shaw wrote this before Alexa or any any other speaking computers existed.  In the future onboard computers on starships would have audio links and the spy could then just order it to plot a course for Earth.

 

So, his books are a good read but they are a bit dated now.

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

the theocratic dictatorship of the planet Emm Luther

So, they were Lutherans?

[Rev R]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Can you see how the story fails at this point, Rev?

 

It would probably have benefited him to be aware of the breadth of the genre even in 1967. It's not a big jump from robots to voice assisted piloting.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, they were Lutherans?

 

Yes.

 

Shaw mentions the names of only two of the twelve worlds that have been colonized by Earth; Emm Luther and Parane.  The latter seems to be a liberal democracy but the former is a theocratic regime founded on the religious principles of Martin Luther.

 

The head of Emm Luther is the Temporal Moderator and he oversees the spiritual and physical needs of his flock on that planet.  Defiance of his will or transgression of Temporal Law leads to imprisonment and in serious cases interrogation and torture by the secret police.  The justification for that is said to be that since the Moderator represents god's will on Emm Luther, to defy him is to defy god.  If a person will not recant then it is ruled that they have selected themselves for temporary punishment in this life and eternal punishment in the next.

 

Our earth spy Tallon, is interrogated by Cherkassky, a senior figure in the secret police.  It is Cherkassky who puts out his eyes.  Tallon escapes by making an open ended (i.e., unguided and unplanned) hyperspace jump.  Cherkassky got aboard just before the jump and now the two of them are marooned in uncharted space, with no way to return to Earth, Emm Luther or any other human world.

 

Cherkassky realizes what Tallon has done and attacks him.  They fight and Cherkassky is killed.  The problem for Tallon  is that he has to rely on the vision of other people to see anything.  By killing Cherkassky he's effectively doomed himself to dying alone, tens of thousands of light years from home.

 

Here's where I said the story falls apart.  But I've remembered some more details about it. 

 

We thought that even a blind man should be able to issue spoken orders to the ships computer and tell it to navigate to Earth.   But it can only do that if it knows where the ship is.  By making an unplanned, open-ended jump Tallon has sent the ship into uncharted space.  He could make millions of jumps and never get home.

 

The author could have worked around the problem of the ship's computer being able to accept spoken orders if the shots exchanged between Tallon and Cherkassky damaged it in some way.  If it's audio circuits were damaged it could only display messages on screens and then Tallon wouldn't be able to see them.  That would restore credibility to the storyline.

 

Forced to think outside of the box by his desperate situation Tallon cracks the hyperspace navigation problem.  

 

His discovery brings the impending war between Earth and Emm Luther to a halt.  Instead of humans fighting for the precious few worlds they can navigate to using thousands of jumps the whole galaxy is opened up for human colonization.  There's no shortage of living space and resources.  They all live happily ever after.

 

                                                                                            THE  END

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Rev R said:

It would probably have benefited him to be aware of the breadth of the genre even in 1967. It's not a big jump from robots to voice assisted piloting.

 

So what do you think of my workaround, Rev?

[pantheory]

On 11/8/2022 at 9:23 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

In several of our recent threads here in The Den, we have touched on the centuries-old debate over free will versus predestination.  Given that the question of free will is essential to god's supposed omniscience, just as predestination is to his supposed omnipotence, this subject comes close to the very heart of any argument either for or against the possible existence of a god, and certainly the god of the bible.  As such, I thought it might be a good time to have (yet another) general bowdy-how on the subject.  Lamentably, our own @Edgarcito is the only christian currently in our midst; but perhaps, if god both wills and predestines it, more will happen along and chime in.  With that said, this is Ed's opportunity to put forth the best arguments he has to support his position on the subject (if he so chooses to take up the mantle, of course).  I will say that, as a christian, I was a firm believer in free will; but have found enough scripture suggesting predestination that I could also mount an effective argument supporting it as well.  What say you, Ed?  Free will, or predestination?  And, more importantly, why do you believe in whichever one you believe in?  Can it be supported with scripture?  Without speculation?  Or, would you rather just tell me to go engage in various forms of self-fornication?

 

I thought I already dipped my toes in the water concerning this thread but since I couldn't find any comment of mine, I will give one.

 

Man's Free will is clearly stated in the Bible staring in the book of Genesis. But Predestination is only implied IMO -- albeit by many quotes:

 

https://www.openbible.info/topics/knowing_the_future

 

Bottom line, or course, is that most or all of  Bible is simply BS IMHO. -- but an afterlife is appealing to the gullible.

 

 

[Rev R]

On 12/10/2022 at 12:30 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

So what do you think of my workaround, Rev?

It's as good as anything else, but the editor really should have spotted that and told him "Hey! You've painted yourself into a corner here."

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I thought I already dipped my toes in the water concerning this thread but since I couldn't find any comment of mine, I will give one.

 

Man's Free will is clearly stated in the Bible staring in the book of Genesis. But Predestination is only implied IMO -- albeit by many quotes:

 

https://www.openbible.info/topics/knowing_the_future

 

Bottom line, or course, is that most or all of  Bible is simply BS IMHO. -- but an afterlife is appealing to the gullible.

 

 

 

And yet, if it were that easy Pantheory, why is the debate about predestination still raging after two millennia?

 

 

If we freely choose to send ourselves to hell or to heaven then why does Paul first say that we are chosen according to god's will before the beginning of all things and then also say the opposite a verse later?  As in Ephesians 1 : 11 - 14.

 

11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 

12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

 

Verses 11 and 12 clearly say that we do not choose our destinies for ourselves and by ourselves, but it is chosen for us,  according to god's will.  Not our will.  But his.

 

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 

14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

 

Then Paul flips around and says that we become Christ's when we heard the Word of god.  Not before, when god predestined us in advance, long before we were born.  

 

So Paul seems to give equal weight to two contradictory scenarios.  The first, where god imposes his will on us and predestines us to heaven or hell according to his plan.  And the second, where we are free to choose to save or damn ourselves within the span of our lives.  That our salvation or damnation is not something worked out in advance by god but which proceeds in real time in respect of our free will.

 

So, which is it?  These are two mutually exclusive scenarios.

 

And what about Romans 9 : 11 - 24?   Please note the highlighted verses.

 

11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 

12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 

15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 

17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 

20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 

23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 

24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 

 

Before the twins Esau and Jacob were born god's purpose for them was planned.  If they had the free will to choose their own destinies then nothing could be planned for them.  Esau could have chosen to be god's beloved.  But it did not depend on Esau's desire or efforts.  His destiny was settled because god had chosen not to have mercy on him.

 

If we have free will Pantheory, how can god prepare some people in advance to be objects of his wrath in hell?  In the same way, how can god prepare other people in advance to be glorified in heaven?  Surely people with free will prepare themselves by their freely made choices?  And only do so in their own lifetimes?

 

But it's one or the other, not both.  People can't have the choice made for them before they live and then also have the freedom to choose for themselves during their own lifetimes.  

 

The bible sends mixed messages, first blowing one way and then the other, contradicting itself over and over again.

 

Hence, the ongoing disagreements within Christianity over predestination and free will.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.