Why would God create if destined for hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter onetimeposter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not so, for in your scenario, it is not “perchance” that God should foreknow everyone will choose Heaven. “Perchance” does not exist- perchance assumes that everyone chooses Heaven while having a real capability to choose Hell.
That is my scenario - everyone choosing Heaven while having a real capability to choose Hell. The question why God did not actualize such a world still stands. And your assertion that this would destroy free will is disproven.
In your scenario, God chooses everyone’s “choices” and destinies before they do- he doesn’t just foresee them- he CHOOSES them. In this way he completely controls their lives, making all their decisions, or at least the most important ones, before they were conceived, and then he allows them to act it all out afterward. Omniscience used to predestine comes out to practical Calvinism.
That is the absolute reverse of Free Will.
Compatibilists on the subject of free will would disagree with you. And in fact what you take to be my scenario is just what the Thomists say - and Thomism only avoids becoming Calvinism by claiming that God wills only the act of sin, not the defect of the will. I’m operating more from a Molinist perspective here. But the same problem still obtains. God doesn’t choose everyone’s “choices” in the strict sense - but he does choose the circumstances each individual finds himself in - which pre-determine those choices by brute fact.
 
I happen to use 3 or 4 translations, including a Catholic Bible. The meaning of the verse does not change. God arranges things in such a way that men will be prompted to find him. That’s what the passage says no matter what version you use. He couldn’t possibly set up boundaries and regions without manipulating some men.

Here’s another one for you:

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Greek word for draw is actually drag. It’s the same word that’s used when Peter draws his sword, when Paul is dragged from the city and stoned, and when James describes being dragged into court. The word appears 8 times in the NT. Every time it’s used it means drag. The Father drags us to him. Get over it. This requires, at the very least, the temporary suspension of free will. As I have already demonstrated quite clearly, and you ignored, there is at least one blatant example of God violating free will in the case of Pharaoh. There are others, but you can’t even deal with this one. Who’s the heretic? One who denies doctrines of man, or one who denies the Word of God?

Let me ask you a question. Did Adam have free will to choose not to eat the forbidden fruit? I say no, otherwise, Christ certainly could not have been slain from the foundation of the world. It was God’s will that Adam and Eve eat the fruit, and that’s why they did it.

For what it’s worth, I’m a member of a misnamed “non-denominational” church, but they’d consider me a heretic too, just like you do, but again, I’m not really that concerned with it.
**You actually believe that God sends people to hell simply because they were his “pawns”? Whether you wind up in h****eaven and hell is a matter of free will. I explained to you that God isn’t a cosmic rapist who forces himself on you or a monster who condemns you to eternal punishment to get his kicks. ****You have a pretty bizarre and immature view of God. **
]
As for Adam - he had free will and chose to sin. God couldn’t have made him sin because he is not the author of evil. To say otherwise is again, heresy.

One thing that you seem to be struggling with is that you want to understand everything about God but you simply can’t. Let me educate you.

God - who is out of time and space sees everything in the present. That is why we Catholics understand thet Jesus’ sacrifice is ongoing in heave before the Father. Yes, God knows what choices you will make before you make them but he is not the author of evil. Evil is what condemns you to hell - NOT God’s mercy. It’s our refusal of him.

Whereas the Church does teach that some are predestined for God’s plans, it doesn’t teach that others are predestined for hell.

Do you think that Protestantism is the will of God? Jesus prayed fervently in John 17 for the Church to be ONE. Is he God? Did it happen? Men broke away from God’s Church - he didn’t leave them. He chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus - but she still could have said, “No”.

If you’re so concerned with the literal meanings of biblical text, why don’t you believe what Jesus said about eating his flesh in John 6:54? The Greek word used there is “Trogo” meaning to “gnaw” or “chew”. People left him on that day because he used that word. They couldn’t believe their ears - like a lot of Protestants I know.

Chew on that for a while . . .
 
That is my scenario - everyone choosing Heaven while having a real capability to choose Hell. The question why God did not actualize such a world still stands. And your assertion that this would destroy free will is disproven.
I remember reading Father John Neuhaus asserting that we as Catholics can, at the least, pray that hell is free of any individuals. Something to ponder, I guess.

One question I’d have for you is - what if the introduction of some agents who could and would choose hell is necessary for the introduction of some agents who could and would choose heaven?

Think of it this way. Let’s say there’s action X. Any individual who commits action X is, for whatever reason, damned. Agent 1 will certainly commit action X. Agent 2 certainly will not. But Agent 2s’ existence is contingent on Agent 1’s existence. Would an omnibenevolent God choose not to permit Agent 1’s existence, even though it means denying Agent 2’s existence? I don’t think that’s clear. In fact, I think that type of contingency provides sufficient reason for God to permit Agent 1’s existence in line with omnibenevolence.

All this, plus I think a lot of the argument hinges on the exact nature of hell.
 
One question I’d have for you is - what if the introduction of some agents who could and would choose hell is necessary for the introduction of some agents who could and would choose heaven?

Think of it this way. Let’s say there’s action X. Any individual who commits action X is, for whatever reason, damned. Agent 1 will certainly commit action X. Agent 2 certainly will not. But Agent 2s’ existence is contingent on Agent 1’s existence. Would an omnibenevolent God choose not to permit Agent 1’s existence, even though it means denying Agent 2’s existence? I don’t think that’s clear. In fact, I think that type of contingency provides sufficient reason for God to permit Agent 1’s existence in line with omnibenevolence.
Let’s translate this into an articulated example:

Any individual who rapes another is damned. Agent 1 will rape someone. Agent 2 will not. But Agent 2 is Agent 1’s son. Would an omnibenevolent God choose not to permit Agent 1’s existence, even though it means denying Agent 2’s existence when Agent 2 would eventually end up in Heaven?

The answer is that yes, indeed, God’s “will” is that no one rape anyone at any time. If that ends up meanign that Agent 2 is never conceived because his mother is never raped by Agent 1, that’s perfectly acceptable to God. Which is not the same thing as God “not wanting Agent 2 to exist”. It means only that God does not want Agent 1 (or anyone else to rape).

SK
 
You actually believe that God sends people to hell simply because they were his "pawns"? Whether you wind up in heaven and hell is a matter of free will. I explained to you that God isn’t a cosmic rapist who forces himself on you or a monster who condemns you to eternal punishment to get his kicks. **You have a pretty bizarre **and immature view of God.
There you go spewing your charity again. You are being pretty hypocritical, here, elvisman. You have accused me in other threads of being uncharitable, but you might want to take that plank out of your own eye.

I have to believe that God created some for destruction, because his Word says it quite explicitly. Read Romans 9.
]
As for Adam - he had free will and chose to sin. God couldn’t
have made him sin because he is not the author of evil. To say otherwise is again, heresy.

One thing that you seem to be struggling with is that you want to understand everything about God but you simply can’t. Let me educate you.
You reek of pride. Again, go dig out that plank.
God - who is out of time and space sees everything in the present. That is why we Catholics understand thet Jesus’ sacrifice is ongoing in heave before the Father. Yes, God knows what choices you will make before you make them but he is not the author of evil. Evil is what condemns you to hell - NOT God’s mercy. It’s our refusal of him.

Whereas the Church does teach that some are predestined for God’s plans, it doesn’t teach that others are predestined for hell.

Do you think that Protestantism is the will of God? Jesus prayed fervently in John 17 for the Church to be ONE. Is he God? Did it happen? Men broke away from God’s Church - he didn’t leave them. He chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus - but she still could have said, “No”.
If you’re so concerned with the literal meanings of biblical text, why don’t you believe what Jesus said about eating his flesh in John 6:54? The Greek word used there is “Trogo” meaning to “gnaw” or “chew”. People left him on that day because he used that word. They couldn’t believe their ears - like a lot of Protestants I know.

Chew on that for a while . . .
When did I ever say literal? The Bible certainly means what it says, but it is not always literal. There are things called simile, metaphor, and allegory. I know Jesus didn’t really mean eat his flesh off his body, because his disciples never did it, except at his last Passover meal, but it wasn’t the way the people you are referring to thought it would be, obviously. It’s the same way we know Jesus didn’t mean cut off body parts, among other things: by using our God-given reasoning abilities.
 
The answer is that yes, indeed, God’s “will” is that no one rape anyone at any time. If that ends up meanign that Agent 2 is never conceived because his mother is never raped by Agent 1, that’s perfectly acceptable to God. Which is not the same thing as God “not wanting Agent 2 to exist”. It means only that God does not want Agent 1 (or anyone else to rape).
I understand what you’re saying, I think, but for myself it leads to a different result: I find it perfectly acceptable that God would permit evil in order to allow a good to actualize. God would not be “desiring that Agent 1 rape” or regarding the rape itself as a good thing. But since the rape is a contingent necessity to Agent 2’s existence, I think there’s as much (and perhaps more) justification to allowing evil on the grounds of what good may come of it, as there is to disallowing an evil in spite of what good may come of it.

I think one important but unemphasized point that Plantinga established with his argument against the logical problem of evil was the impossibility and/or undesirability of an utterly perfect world. Once that’s established, the rest (from my point of view, anyway) seems easy. Another important point is to realize that morality that binds us isn’t binding on God. It’s perfectly acceptable for God to bind humanity to ‘thou shalt not kill’ while God Himself allows killing.
 
You actually believe that God sends people to hell simply because they were his “pawns”?
What’s with all the COLOR? It adds nothing to the substance of your post and is actually quite annoying.
 
I remember reading Father John Neuhaus asserting that we as Catholics can, at the least, pray that hell is free of any individuals. Something to ponder, I guess.
Yes, I know. It’s not surprising some have resorted to universalism as an answer to the problem of evil. It’s evidence of how grave the problem really is.
One question I’d have for you is - what if the introduction of some agents who could and would choose hell is necessary for the introduction of some agents who could and would choose heaven?
There is no such necessity.
Think of it this way. Let’s say there’s action X. Any individual who commits action X is, for whatever reason, damned. Agent 1 will certainly commit action X. Agent 2 certainly will not. But Agent 2s’ existence is contingent on Agent 1’s existence.
And why should Agent 2’s existence be logically contingent on Agent 1’s existence, with an omnipotent God who could create Agent 2 without the existence of Agent 1.
Would an omnibenevolent God choose not to permit Agent 1’s existence, even though it means denying Agent 2’s existence? I don’t think that’s clear. In fact, I think that type of contingency provides sufficient reason for God to permit Agent 1’s existence in line with omnibenevolence.
It would, except that type of contingency does not exist, given God’s omnipotence.
 
Let’s translate this into an articulated example:

Any individual who rapes another is damned…
SK
Since only final impenitence leads irrevocably to eternal damnation this whole line of argument hinges on whether the existence of Agent 2 could be contingent on Agent 1’s final impenitence. There is no logical connection between the two so this line fails.
 
Yes, I know. It’s not surprising some have resorted to universalism as an answer to the problem of evil. It’s evidence of how grave the problem really is.
I’m not sure it’s really that grave - I think many people who ‘resort’ to universalism don’t do so necessarily because they’re impelled to by the problem of evil, but through another path.
There is no such necessity.
And why should Agent 2’s existence be logically contingent on Agent 1’s existence, with an omnipotent God who could create Agent 2 without the existence of Agent 1.
Because there are logical limits to omnipotence, and I think we’re seeing one in this example. I’ll use another example, going with SilentKnight’s thought.

In world 1, Agent 2 is conceived by an evil act of Agent 1.

In world 2, Agent 2 is conceived by a different act - Agent 1 is not involved at all.

I question the validity of saying world 1 agent 2 (w1a2) is the same person as w2a2 - it involves asserting that person A and person B are the same person, even if they both have a different history. I don’t think this is reasonable, regardless of the nature of the different history (IOW, it doesn’t need to be evil.) You end up with conclusions like, “In World 1, John is born to Craig and Marsha, he lives in Seattle, and becomes a professional violinist. In World 2, John is born to Ann and Douglas, he lives in Hong Kong, and becomes a sailor. But World 1 John and World 2 John is the same person.”

It seems to me that an omnipotent God cannot create the same person with a different history than they actually have. It’s on the same lines as saying God can make a square circle.
 
If we all have a choice, we all have a choice. If God sees that choice in advance and then does not create those who “chose” (in the future) hell - and does not indicate that He is doing this to the others who are choosing heaven - then the choice for Heaven remains a very real choice.
It only feels real to them. In reality, everything they “choose” was already chosen for them. They only choose it because God chose it for them first. That won’t be in their minds while they choose what God foreordained them to choose, but the fact that they can’t perceive it for themselves doesn’t mean it isn’t occurring.

Perhaps I can explain better by getting into the illustration you offered.
An illustration: You get married and God reveals to you that you will have seven children and six of them will turn out well. The seventh will end up choosing to become and die as a drug addict. Knowing the future, you decide to use artificial birth control when the time comes to conceive your seventh child, to make sure they never come into existence (“They’re better off that way,” you reason.) Does this mean that children number 1 through 6 never had the chance or option of becoming drug addicts themselves? No, not at all.
From their perspectives, they have a choice to become drug addicts. Their perspectives are limited, though. In reality, you are behind the scenes choosing their fates by deciding whether to use birth control or not. You are manufacturing their destinies by using your foreknowledge to determine who your children will “choose” to become. When you only choose to allow people to come into existence who do what you want, their choices were already chosen by you and the people (whether they know it or not) HAD to take them. You actively chose them rather than passively allowing the people to decide for themselves. If there’s no possibility of failure, there’s no real success. Only the false perception of success (and in God there is nothing false).

Let’s say the father decides to allow all seven to survive, while foreknowing what they’ll choose because God told him. In this case, he has foreknowledge, but he is not using it to predestine the futures of his children. He does not choose their futures before they “choose” them, so their “choices” are not really his choices. By allowing one of his children to choose to become a drug addict, rather than using his foreknowledge to prevent that child from existing, everyone’s choice becomes a real choice of his or her own. The Dad is not secretly controlling the outcome, but is allowing it to come out as everyone wills.
They were entirely free to do as they pleased and turned out the way they did because of a free choice to do so, not because they were not free. You, knowing that your seventh child would freely choose to go astray, decide out of “compassion” not to allow him to be born in the first place. Thus, the seventh child (Who now doesn’t even exist in the first place) may not have had the “free will” to choose in the end, but the other six certainly did.
Did they? If one of the other six would have chosen differently, the Dad would have not made that one. By restraining one from existence rather than let him disobey, the Dad assumes control of the choices of all seven.

When the Dad only allows his children existence if they would choose the future he wants them to choose, the choices of all of them become only choices from their perspectives, and the real decisions are all coming from the Dad.

Imagine the six and the Dad die and go to Heaven, and the Dad confides in them there, “There wasn’t actually any risk. If any of you would have chosen to be a drug addict, I wouldn’t have let you exist in the first place!” Suddenly all his sons will feel both their efforts and their lives cheapened. They realize that while it had felt to them as though they faced and overcome real danger, from the Dad’s perspective, they had never been facing any danger. They could not have actually chosen anything the Dad didn’t want them to choose, even though they felt as though they could. So their efforts are cheapened by the lack of having endured any real danger. But not only were their efforts cheapened- their lives are cheapened by the fact that their Dad would have kept them from existing rather than allowing them to make real bad choices for themselves. Thus their lives only have value if they turn out the way the Dad wants.

This is very different from the Dad who goes to Heaven with his six sons, while the seventh goes to Hell. There, the Dad says, “I knew you’d do it! God told me that you would make it, and I knew you could do it, but your choices were your own and the possibility of deadly failure was real.” The efforts of the six do clearly deserve reward because they could actually have chosen what the Dad didn’t want, and their lives are shown to be enormously valuable, for even if they chose Hell and did what the Dad didn’t want, they still would have intrinsic value.

By preventing the existence of the seventh child, the Dad eliminated the reality of the choices of the other six. For by eliminating the seventh child, he eliminated the reality of the possibility of failure. If there was no possibility of failure, there was no true reality of success, even though his sons felt that there was a possibility of failure while enduring trials. I understand that the Dad did not actively force his existing six children to do the good they did (though one might argue he did, because if God told him he was going to conceive a son who would only do a little good, why wouldn’t he prevent that one from existing too, and only allow those that would do a lot of good to exist? We can take this scenario further), but the Dad did eliminate the reality of the possibility of any of them failing, so even if they wouldn’t have failed if the dangers had been real, they’ll know that their efforts and successes were ultimately cheap because they were decided for them (by them being allowed to exist, as they fulfill the Dad’s will).

It is also worthwhile to understand, here, that God’s relationships with his people are based on truth. So he won’t create everyone and allow them to go through their lives and all come to Heaven, and never learn either on Earth or in Heaven that he had prevented them all from having any possibility of failing, and that he had chosen both their goodness and their successes before they were conceived by choosing to create only great and perfect people. So that would eventually come out, and when it did, it would show that God’s predestination rules everything, and humanity is only what it was made to be, not what it chooses to be, for it only chooses to be what God chose it to be, so God’s choice is the only one that counts.
 
That is my scenario - everyone choosing Heaven while having a real capability to choose Hell. The question why God did not actualize such a world still stands. And your assertion that this would destroy free will is disproven.
:rolleyes:

Saying that my whole argument is disproven while only offering a response to one of my points is pretty weak.
Compatibilists on the subject of free will would disagree with you. And in fact what you take to be my scenario is just what the Thomists say - and Thomism only avoids becoming Calvinism by claiming that God wills only the act of sin, not the defect of the will. I’m operating more from a Molinist perspective here. But the same problem still obtains. God doesn’t choose everyone’s “choices” in the strict sense - but he does choose the circumstances each individual finds himself in - which pre-determine those choices by brute fact.
You put far too much emphasis on the power of circumstances, especially considering that circumstances are largely made up of the decisions of people, which I presume you think God does not control. I do think God uses circumstances and the environment to influence people, but it is taking environmental impact to an extreme to say it has absolute power over people.

Also, you seem to be missing my main point. You were asking why God does not choose to not create people who would choose Hell. I pointed out that if God chose to create only those people who would “choose” Heaven, purposefully not creating anyone who he foreknew would have chosen Hell, you have a God who does not only predestine through environment, but predestines through foreknowledge as well. For he only creates people he foreknows will turn out right. In fact, one could go further with this and say, “Why doesn’t he only create people who will do a lot of good, rather than creating some people who will only do a little good?” Then we have a nation of spiritual giants and wonder-workers, men and women who all are “after God’s own heart,” as David was.

This kind of predestination does not come through environment but through omniscience. God foreknows who would become extremely good people and only creates them. Therefore everyone “chooses” to do the spiritual exercise, resisting temptations and striving to do God’s will, and they reach the high places of Heaven. We have a few billion of Saints Mary, Peter and Paul, and people like them.

But they all only “chose” what they did because God chose it for them by only making them because he knew they would do just what he wanted. They had no real possibility of choosing evil, because God would have foreseen such a choice and not allowed the person to exist. Therefore ultimately all their choices come from God. He doesn’t overrun them and make them do things they wouldn’t naturally do – he doesn’t have to – he just foreknows all that this person will do if he makes him, so he makes him and everything comes out just as God wanted. So everyone does what God wants, and God decides everything and is in complete control of everything.
 
If God is all good, all loving and all powerful. If God knows how a person’s entire life will play out, why would God create a life if he knows the person will make choices that will send them to hell?

God creates a life, knowing that the person will reject him, knowing that the person will not repent and knowing that the person will condemn themselves to hell.

Why would an all good and all loving God create lives that He knows for certain will end up in hell for all of eternity?

Wouldn’t the loving and good thing to do, would be not to create the life in the first place, knowing that they will not have to face an eternity in hell?
Or!!! Why doesn’t God have an abortion? Think about it.

This is the flawed, lame reasoning that brings about a ton of abortions - “why am I going to bring this child into this world to suffer?” …“I’ll have an abortion”.

Why shouldn’t I have an abortion despite the suffering and evil in the world - and the possibility that my child will be abused or killed or this that and the other thing…?..to give my child a fighting chance…that’s why.

You know - God creates a person and, He doesn’t “un-create” that person just because we are bad or evil or stupid. That person - from the moment of conception, is going to exist throughout the rest of eternity. He created us to be like Him…for all eternity!

The choices you make will determine where you spend eternity. His grace will be the loving factor that will temper your decisions but will not “twist your arm”. In order to be like Him we must have a free will but, true freedom of will comes when all of our actions are directed towards good - for when we choose to continually do what is right and good - we are free! The moment we make a wrong or bad or evil decision…we are no longer free but slaves to our bad, evil decisions. God in whom there is no possibility of wrong or bad or evil is …infinitely free!

You will not be un-created. You will not just cease to exist. You will be around for all eternity after you complete your journey on earth.

God will not abort you or any other man or woman ever concieved from the beginning of time - 'till the end of all time.
 
Right, and so He could actualize a world with features in which we choose rightly. There is something metaphysically prior and determining of our choices, which is in God’s power to alter.
A) he can actualize a world in which some choose rightly, but not everyone chooses rightly;

B) nothing determines free choices. that’s what it means for a choice to be free: that it is undetermined.
40.png
SeekingCatholic:
You are saying that in certain situations it would be logically necessary for a creature to choose evil?
no. since no created being exists in all possible worlds, nothing that any created being does can be logically necessary.
40.png
SeekingCatholic:
Says the catechism. The good angels never sinned. Hence Plantinga’s position that for all we know, it may be impossible for God to create a world in which no one sins due to transworld depravity, is falsified.
this makes no sense: the ***good ***angels may not have sinned, but the bad angels did sin. so even if god had never created humanity, this is ***still ***a world with sin.
40.png
SeekingCatholic:
Well yes it is true. The syllogism goes as follows:
  1. Under either Thomism or Molinism, our actions are pre-determined by metaphysical realities. Under Thomism, it’s the presence of self-efficacious grace. Under Molinism, it’s the specific set of circumstances and the brute fact of counterfactuals.
  2. Under either Thomism or Molinism, God has the power over those metaphysical realities; He has the power to determine which world to actualize, or which graces to give.
  3. Therefore, God has the power to pre-determine our actions.
premise 1 is false: nothing pre-determines our actions in either Thomism or Molinism.

what we freely choose in the possible worlds in which we make free choices is up to us; god simply chooses which of those worlds to actualize. sure, there are worlds in which god provides grace to certain of his creatures, but the efficacy of it is constituted simply by god’s having actualized the world where the gifted creature co-operates with the grace.
40.png
SeekingCatholic:
There may indeed be some other values which can be instantiated with wrongdoing - but we are talking about eternal damnation here. Are you saying because eternal damnation gives God the opportunity to punish and show His justice this is a “value” greater than the evil?
i don’t think the kinds of goods (read: values) at stake here are commensurabe in the way you are suggesting: there isn’t a good that is “greater” than the evil of the sufferings of the damned; there isn’t one that’s “worse”, either. i reject consequentialism/utilitarianism both as a paradigm for the moral evaluation of human actions and for divine actions.

the values i am talking about could simply be the good of the specific kind of freedom instantiated in a world that contains beings who choose eternal hatred of god; and that good does not need to be “better” than the sufferings of the damned in order to justify them any more than the life of my son needs to be “better” than the life of my friend’s son for me to choose to save my son when i can save only one of the two drowning children.
40.png
SeekingCatholic:
With grace. Do you deny that efficacious grace moves our wills to choose good while still leaving them free?
see above.

i merely reiterate the possibility that there is no possible world in which every being co-operates with god’s grace.
40.png
SeekingCatholic:
Yes, but not eternal damnation.
sure, but “personal development” isn’t the only value capable of justifying the existence of hell.
 
Are some of us confusing predetermination with predestination?
Predetermination is exactly what it says a decision has already been made about your destiny not even allowing for your free will to determine the outcome (some post Lutheran idea).
Predestination on the other hand allows for the free will to come into consideration.
Imagine being invited to a dinner and everybody is allotted a place card, you have an option of turning up or not. The place card is the predestination - where you should be - and whether you turn up or not is your free will.
(This is somebody else’s idea, I apologise for the plagiarism)
Gerry
 
I think we should remember St. Augustine when he tried to uncover the mystery of faith. He realized that we are making a very SMALL hole to create a sea.

So let us think of now, and choose to be good. 🙂
 
Are some of us confusing predetermination with predestination?
Predetermination is exactly what it says a decision has already been made about your destiny not even allowing for your free will to determine the outcome (some post Lutheran idea).
Predestination on the other hand allows for the free will to come into consideration.
Imagine being invited to a dinner and everybody is allotted a place card, you have an option of turning up or not. The place card is the predestination - where you should be - and whether you turn up or not is your free will.
(This is somebody else’s idea, I apologise for the plagiarism)
Gerry
The Bible doesn’t say everyone is predestined, only some. For your interpretation to work, wouldn’t it be required that everyone is predestined?

In any case, I disagree. Being conditionally predestined is an oxymoron.
 
The Bible doesn’t say everyone is predestined, only some. For your interpretation to work, wouldn’t it be required that everyone is predestined?

In any case, I disagree. Being conditionally predestined is an oxymoron.
I thought the whole thread revolved around the assumption of the omniscience and omnipotence of Our Lord. That being the case I’m a little puzzled that some are and others are not predestined.
Also not sure about having put conditions on predestination.
Gerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top