The Doctrine of Double Predestination in Peter

[jmdrake]

Point, set, flop. Here you go again with one of your conjured up "contradictions" because you are going to presume to tell me what I believe. You obviously are confused about what I believe. I believe the Bible. The Bible says man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps. God has a sovereign purpose for all of man's plans.

Why don't you believe this?

It's not conjured at all. The argument was never "Is man able to do everything he desires to do." Napoleon was not able to conquer England or Russia. Neither was Hitler. But they both planned to do those things. I believe the hand of God was involved in thwarting those plans. But I do not believe the hand of God drafted those plans. The Bible doesn't either. Your belief system isn't based on man being lost by what he does but by what he believes. I agree with that, though you've falsely claimed I don't. But planning speaks to what a man believes. Steps speak to what a man does. Therefore a Bible verse that teaches that man makes the plans but that God ultimately directs what a man does with those plans supports my belief system and not yours.

Point, set, match......again.

[acptulsa]

Your thread is on double predestination which is a theory popularized by Calvin based upon his beliefs of Augustine's writings. It is a loveless theory foisted upon others so that critics can be treated as inferior by the elect who fancy themselves made with superior genetics. Note, you can continue to repost the verses and reiterate your opinions but it won't make them any more valid for doing so.

I want to know what version of the Bible he's using. The New Calvinist Apologencia? The King James Version goes like this:

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Were not a people, but are now the people of God and had not obtained mercy, but now have. There's some predestination for you.

We are talking about the Bible when it says that the disobedient ones are appointed to their destruction. Why don't you believe the Bible?

Better we should be talking about the Bible when it says when the disobedient ones are appointed. When they disobey? When they fail to or refuse to repent? A thousand years ago? At the Beginning of Time (if there was such a thing)?

Only problem is, it doesn't say. I guess God loves you so that He wants to ensure you always have something to argue about. Glory to God for providing us what we need in this life...

Pity more of us don't feel more need for peace, isn't it? I'm sure He'd provide it if only we'd value it.

[Sola_Fide]

God chooses us, and we also choose God. It's like if a husband and wife get married, it's not the case that the husband chose the wife and the wife didn't choose the husband, or that the wife chose the husband but the husband didn't choose the wife. Obviously it's the case that they chose each other. It's also the case that it isn't that God chooses us and we don't choose God, or that we choose God and he doesn't choose us, but that we choose each other. We both choose to have a relationship with each other.

Let's see if that analogy works with how the Bible describes salvation:

Ephesians1:5-6

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.

No, it doesn't work. The correct analogy would be something like a man walking up to a tomb where a dead woman had been rotting for thousands of years. He then makes that woman alive and sets in her a heart that loves him forever.

THAT is a more apt analogy. Men are dead. Dead men don't choose.

[acptulsa]

Let's see if that analogy works with how the Bible describes salvation:

You figure if you ignore my post it'll go away?

No, it doesn't work. The correct analogy would be something like a man walking up to a tomb where a dead woman had been rotting for thousands of years. He then makes that woman alive and sets in her a heart that loves him forever.

THAT is a more apt analogy. Men are dead. Dead men don't choose.

You say it's a more apt analogy. I say that if God only chooses to show that mercy and forgiveness to those who choose God, even though those who choose God and those who don't are otherwise equal in having transgressed at risk of their souls, then that's God's right and glory to Him for showing anyone mercy.

[Sola_Fide]

Napoleon was not able to conquer England or Russia. Neither was Hitler. But they both planned to do those things. I believe the hand of God was involved in thwarting those plans. But I do not believe the hand of God drafted those plans. The Bible doesn't either.

Yes the Bible does. How many times did the Lord carry out His judgment on the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament? The God of the Bible is one that controls all things and brings glory to Himself in all things (even the bad things). God determines every single event that ever comes to pass, including the wars you mention.

This is the God of the Bible. The just and Holy God who has wrath against man's sin.

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

[Christian Liberty]

Yes the Bible does. How many times did the Lord carry out His judgment on the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament? The God of the Bible is one that controls all things and brings glory to Himself in all things (even the bad things). God determines every single event that ever comes to pass, including the wars you mention.

This is the God of the Bible. The just and Holy God who has wrath against man's sin.

IIRC (though I could be misremembering) this passage is actually saying God brings calamity on people, not causes them to sin.

[Sola_Fide]

IIRC (though I could be misremembering) this passage is actually saying God brings calamity on people, not causes them to sin.

Men want to sin. Men have wills. Men want to do the sin they do. Men aren't forced to sin, its in our nature. And it is God who is the judge of man who brings down His wrath on the sin of men in this life and in the next.

[acptulsa]

Yes the Bible does. How many times did the Lord carry out His judgment on the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament?

Thus proving nothing. Mr. Drake already said he believes that God engineered Napoleon's and Hitler's destruction. And the Bible does not say God engineered the actions of Israel's enemies.

The God of the Bible is one that controls all things and brings glory to Himself in all things (even the bad things). God determines every single event that ever comes to pass, including the wars you mention.

This is the God of the Bible. The just and Holy God who has wrath against man's sin.

The God of Isaiah only claimed credit for light and darkness, and for prosperity and disaster, so far as I can see there. Not for micromanaging attacks on Israel.

So, has ignoring my post made it go away yet? Is it inconvenient when I interrupt your imitation of a broken record or a tape loop? Sorry. God made me do it.

[jmdrake]

Yes the Bible does.

Not the Bible you quoted to me. It clearly said that man made the plans. Are you doubting your own Bible now? Again direct quote from you quoting directly from the Bible.

Well, this is just more autobiographical of your feelings and not anything like an argument from Scripture. Proverbs 16:9 says, "The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps". There you go. Directly contradicting what you say here. Why not just turn to the Lord, be converted, and give Him all the glory when He saves you?

The mind of man plans his way

The mind of man plans his way

The mind of man plans his way

[jmdrake]

Men want to sin. Men have wills. Men want to do the sin they do. Men aren't forced to sin, its in our nature. And it is God who is the judge of man who brings down His wrath on the sin of men in this life and in the next.

I'm confused. Do you believe that those who reject Jesus are appointed to do so, or not? Quit contradicting yourself.

Edit: The more I think it about, the more I realize SOLA_FIDE JUST REJECTED DOUBLE PREDESTINATION!

Oh, I know you're try to worm you way out of that. But it's true. Claiming "God only predestines some people to be saved but He doesn't predestine anyone to be lost", if that's what you are saying, is not double predestination. It's single predestination.

Point. Set. Match.

/thread

[acptulsa]

I'm confused. Do you believe that those who reject Jesus are appointed to do so, or not? Quit contradicting yourself.

Oh, come now. If he's perfectly willing to contradict the Bible, and even to rewrite the Bible to fit his agenda, do you really think he'd let a little thing like contradicting himself bother him?

Everyone creates God in his own image. What else can we do? God boggles our limited imaginations; we cannot understand. If the micromismanager wants to create a micromanaging God because he cannot understand any other, what can we do about it? Except, of course, scratch our heads and wonder why it seems so important to him that others share his seemingly self-sufficient views...

[otherone]

Oh, come now. If he's perfectly willing to contradict the Bible, and even to rewrite the Bible to fit his agenda, do you really think he'd let a little thing like contradicting himself bother him?

He's not contradicting himself...he's just putting out contradicting biblical premises. It's SUPPOSED to not make any sense, UNLESS you are one of the Elect.
Christ and the scriptures are SUPPOSED to be a stumbling block for the pots made for destruction!

John 10:26
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.…

[RJB]

What about quadruple, super double secret predestination?

[Sola_Fide]

Claiming "God only predestines some people to be saved but He doesn't predestine anyone to be lost", if that's what you are saying, is not double predestination. It's single predestination.

No, that's not what I said in any way shape or form. I've never said that. That is one of your many "contradictions" that are popping up in your head.

Point. Set. Match.

/thread

Let's try to be a little more mature and just exchange on the issues. It's just the internet, my friend. No need to be so hostile.

[Sola_Fide]

And as is usual for this messageboard, I have again posted a verse up for discussion, and after 254 responses, not one post...not even one...was an exegesis of the verse in question.

I am still waiting for someone to exegete the verse I posted in the OP.

[acptulsa]

Let's try to be a little more mature and just exchange on the issues. It's just the internet, my friend. No need to be so hostile.

That wasn't hostility.

That was a fact.

And maybe a challenge for you to address what was said, instead of repeating your earlier dogma and hoping people forget the contradictions it poses.

Or shall we start quoting Jesus Himself, like we used to do, and see whose feet stumble over the stones His words are carved in?

And as is usual for this messageboard, I have again posted a verse up for discussion, and after 254 responses, not one post...not even one...was an exegesis of the verse in question.

I am still waiting for someone to exegete the verse I posted in the OP.

Your selective blindness is still serving you well.

I want to know what version of the Bible he's using. The New Calvinist Apologencia? The King James Version goes like this:

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Were not a people, but are now the people of God and had not obtained mercy, but now have. There's some predestination for you.

[GunnyFreedom]

A) No it doesn't. The word "then" is also used as an "if then" clause as in "if" this is true "then" that is true.

I cannot agree with this. If/then implies a sequence. If I flip the switch then the light turns on. Sequential action. That is a sequence of events, thus if and then.

B) If you want to take this out of time remember that according to the Bible Jesus was slain "from the foundation of the world". So from God's point of view Jesus died for everyone before anyone was created.

That's kind of my whole point. Yeshua was slain from the foundation of the world, so it's impossible for God to decide 'not to know' things that would be happening as a result of that action.

C) If God chose to act temporally, being God, He could do that and still be God. "When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His son."

I never said God could not act temporally, I simply said He could not be constrained by time. There is a big difference.

God doesn't stop being God by working in a particular way. It's wrong to say that He must work in a particular way, but it's also wrong to say He can't work in a particular way.

That's actually a strawman (unintentional I am certain), because I never said God could not act in a certain way. I said God could not be constrained by time, and He cannot. He knows the end from the beginning, He cannot be limited to knowledge that is temporally sequenced.

Indeed, if God acts upon the creation, then that activity must necessarily be temporal, because the creation is temporal. Therefore any action which God takes to do action upon this world, must necessarily be temporal or it would not intersect with the space-time continuum. Knowledge, however, is different. The statement I objected to was the idea of temporal knowledge, which is why I quoted "God know the end from the beginning."

There are a few things that God cannot do. He cannot be evil. He cannot contradict Himself. He cannot lie, and He cannot un-know the stuff He already knows. God knows the end from the beginning. Any argument that requires the sequential adoption of knowledge on the part of God cannot be valid, because God knows the end from the beginning.

[Sola_Fide]

Thus proving nothing. Mr. Drake already said he believes that God engineered Napoleon's and Hitler's destruction. And the Bible does not say God engineered the actions of Israel's enemies.

Yes it does. Here is an instance where God engineered the action of Israel's enemies:

God’s Judgment on Assyria



5
“Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger,
in whose hand is the club of my wrath!

6
I send him against a godless nation,
I dispatch him against a people who anger me,
to seize loot and snatch plunder,
and to trample them down like mud in the streets.

7
But this is not what he intends,
this is not what he has in mind;
his purpose is to destroy,
to put an end to many nations.

8
‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ he says.

9
‘Has not Kalno fared like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad,
and Samaria like Damascus?

10
As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols,
kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria—

11
shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images
as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?’”

12 When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, “I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. 13 For he says:


“‘By the strength of my hand I have done this,
and by my wisdom, because I have understanding.
I removed the boundaries of nations,
I plundered their treasures;
like a mighty one I subdued[a] their kings.

14
As one reaches into a nest,
so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations;
as people gather abandoned eggs,
so I gathered all the countries;
not one flapped a wing,
or opened its mouth to chirp.’”



15
Does the ax raise itself above the person who swings it,
or the saw boast against the one who uses it?
As if a rod were to wield the person who lifts it up,
or a club brandish the one who is not wood!

16
Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty,
will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors;
under his pomp a fire will be kindled
like a blazing flame.

17
The Light of Israel will become a fire,
their Holy One a flame;
in a single day it will burn and consume
his thorns and his briers.

18
The splendor of his forests and fertile fields
it will completely destroy,
as when a sick person wastes away.

19
And the remaining trees of his forests will be so few
that a child could write them down.

[GunnyFreedom]

My last post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5766604

^^^ It is true that if/then can be used atemporally, such as if the water is frozen to ice, then the temperature was below 0°C. But in the statement I was responding to, it was not used atemporally. It directly implied a sequence. Paraphrasing: "First, Jesus sacrificed for all persons, then God decided whom to save." I could not possibly disagree with that idea more vehemently. Yeshua's sacrifice being effective for all, AND God decides whom to save I agree with completely. They are simply two different statements. One implies sequential action, the other does not.

Yeshua's sacrifice was already written before the world was made. The names of the saved were in the Book of Life before Adam was cobbled together out of dust from the ground. Unlike SF , I believe in free will. I also believe in predestination. I believe once you step outside of time, there is no conflict between free will and predestination. I believe the appearance of a conflict between free will and predestination, is an artifact of temporality.

[Sola_Fide]

Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post

I want to know what version of the Bible he's using. The New Calvinist Apologencia? The King James Version goes like this:

I Peter 2:

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Were not a people, but are now the people of God and had not obtained mercy, but now have. There's some predestination for you.

acptulsa,

It's 2nd Peter 2:10-16, not 1st Peter.

[acptulsa]

Yes it does. Here is an instance where God engineered the action of Israel's enemies:

Says who? You?

Says not any of those verses.

Tell us otherwise without twisting them. I dare you.

acptulsa,

It's 2nd Peter 2:10-16, not 1st Peter.

Um...actually I was just trying to get your take on 1st Peter 2:6-10. What is your take on it?

Who is talking about Calvin in this thread? Only you. I'll repost what Peter, an apostle, wrote concerning the salvation of men:

“Because of this, it is also contained in the Scripture: “Behold,” I lay in Zion” an elect, “precious Stone,” “a Corner-foundation;” “and the one believing in Him shall not be ashamed, never!” Then to you who believe belongs the preciousness. But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, to which they were also appointed. But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.

1 Peter 2:6-10

Note that in this verse, Peter is paraphrasing and quoting Old Testament prophecies. The elect and the disobedients appointing are so sure that prophecy has foretold it.

That's it. I'm done. I've never seen the verse that tells me I have to give the devil more than his due.

If the readers of this thread can't find the real path, and can't read Jesus' own words, then I can't get the logs out of their eyes.

And I'd suggest everyone else let him talk to himself, too. That's what he's doing anyway. His mind is better armored than a duck's back.

Oh, and I found that Second Peter passage you were looking for:

Well...with all due respect, that is not a Biblical prayer, because the verse in the OP says that Jesus Himself is the stumbling block that the ones appointed to destruction stumble over.

Actually acptulsa's prayer that God help us understand, and not twist, scripture is 100% biblical and straight from Peter.

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I agree. Let's not twist the Scriptures.

Yes, let's not. Think I'll go a step farther, and stop encouraging it by paying attention to it.

[moostraks]

Here we go with Calvin again. What is it with you and John Calvin? Who in this entire message board is talking about John Calvin except you?

Peter said about the disobedient ones:


We aren't talking about John Calvin. We are talking about the Bible when it says that the disobedient ones are appointed to their destruction. Why don't you believe the Bible?

So wait a minute, YOU are entitled to bring up the origins of an idea but no one is allowed to question the origin of your position? And please enlighten us to how your intention was civil debate when you drop gems such as arguing with your egocentric position of double predestination is equivalent to not believing the Bible? The proof is in the pudding as to where your philosophy plays out in the manner you approach others for "civil" discussion.

[moostraks]

Unlike SF , I believe in free will. I also believe in predestination. I believe once you step outside of time, there is no conflict between free will and predestination. I believe the appearance of a conflict between free will and predestination, is an artifact of temporality.

Yep!

[Sola_Fide]

Says who? You?

Says not any of those verses.

Tell us otherwise without twisting them. I dare you.

You...dare me? Okay. I'll break it down for.

God says he is going to use the Assyrian army to judge the people of Israel:

Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger,
in whose hand is the club of my wrath!

6
I send him against a godless nation,
I dispatch him against a people who anger me,
to seize loot and snatch plunder,
and to trample them down like mud in the streets.

But the Assyrians don't know they are part of God's plan, they are just simply murdering and pillaging like they always do:

7
But this is not what he intends,
this is not what he has in mind;
his purpose is to destroy,
to put an end to many nations.

After the Lord uses the evil Assyrians for His own purposes in judgment, He is going to punish them for their pride of heart!:

12 When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, “I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. 13 For he says:


“‘By the strength of my hand I have done this,
and by my wisdom, because I have understanding.
I removed the boundaries of nations,
I plundered their treasures;
like a mighty one I subdued[a] their kings.

Then I love this part of the text, because God is chiding the person who possibly says that it was not God who did all these things. Does the axe (the instrument being used) raise itself against the person swinging it (the person using it)? No. The person is in control of the axe. Just as God is in control of the Assyrian armies.

15
Does the ax raise itself above the person who swings it,
or the saw boast against the one who uses it?
As if a rod were to wield the person who lifts it up,
or a club brandish the one who is not wood!

16
Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty,
will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors;
under his pomp a fire will be kindled
like a blazing flame.

[GunnyFreedom]

He's not contradicting himself...he's just putting out contradicting biblical premises. It's SUPPOSED to not make any sense, UNLESS you are one of the Elect.

This is actually almost true, although probably not in the way you intended. It's actually simple mechanics. It's the perspective of temporality vs eternality. Much of the scripture cannot be understood except from an eternal perspective. I said almost above because one has to be elect in order to have an eternal perspective, but almost is because it is in fact just possible to grasp eternality in the same way it would be possible for a flatlander to grasp the concept of spacetime. Vaguely, but the knowledge is not actually impossible. One could obtain a working knowledge of the eternal perspective without themselves being eternal minded, and therefore understand (or 'unlock' if you prefer) verses which appear to contradict from a temporal perspective, but do not in fact contradict from an eternal perspective.

Christ and the scriptures are SUPPOSED to be a stumbling block for the pots made for destruction!

John 10:26
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.…

[Sola_Fide]

So wait a minute, YOU are entitled to bring up the origins of an idea but no one is allowed to question the origin of your position? And please enlighten us to how your intention was civil debate when you drop gems such as arguing with your egocentric position of double predestination is equivalent to not believing the Bible? The proof is in the pudding as to where your philosophy plays out in the manner you approach others for "civil" discussion.

We aren't talking about the origins of ideas. We are talking about the text of the Bible right in front of your face.

“Because of this, it is also contained in the Scripture: “Behold,” I lay in Zion” an elect, “precious Stone,” “a Corner-foundation;” “and the one believing in Him shall not be ashamed, never!” Then to you who believe belongs the preciousness. But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, to which they were also appointed. But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.

1 Peter 2:6-10

Do you see that?

[GunnyFreedom]

The problem for you in accepting Gunny's interpretation is that it links justification with sanctification and makes no distinction between the two.

I'm pretty sure that I make a distinction between justification and sanctification. (checking personal memory banks) Yep, I absolutely distinguish between them

And the mechanism of how He did that? Providing for the sacrifice that He knew they would accept. It's like I have a picnic where kosher Jews are invited along with Southern Baptists and on one table I have all kosher food and on the other table everything has pork in it. My making the provision that I know one group will choose and another will not is not making the choice on their behalf.

It's not that your understanding is incorrect, it's that it's only half of the story. You and SF appear to have contradicting theologies. From the realm of eternity they do not contradict, only within the temporal realm do they contradict. Free will and predestination coexist, and they move around each other, together, like partners in a dance. SF is a lot more militant about 'people who do not see it my way must be lost,' but there is a little bit of that going on here too. I can understand why. Arguing with SF has a tendency to rub that spot raw and make it over-sensitive.

BOTH free will AND predestination are correct. It's like the predestinators are looking at the head of the coin, and the free willers are looking at the tail of the coin, and both arguing with each other that the other side is wrong. Just because I am at the moment describing the predestination side of the coin does not mean I disbelieve the free will side.

[otherone]

Αυτό είναι στην πραγματικότητα σχεδόν αληθινό, αν και ίσως όχι με τον τρόπο που θέλετε. Είναι πραγματικά απλή μηχανική. Είναι η προοπτική της προσωρινότητας vs αιωνιότητα. Μεγάλο μέρος της Αγίας Γραφής δεν μπορούν να γίνουν κατανοητές, εκτός από μια αιώνια προοπτική. Είπα σχεδόν παραπάνω γιατί δεν έχει να εκλέξει, προκειμένου να έχουν μια αιώνια προοπτική, αλλά σχεδόν είναι επειδή είναι στην πραγματικότητα απλώς δυνατό να κατανοήσουμε αιωνιότητα με τον ίδιο τρόπο θα ήταν δυνατό για ένα flatlander να κατανοήσουν την έννοια του χωροχρόνου. Αόριστα, αλλά η γνώση δεν είναι πραγματικά αδύνατο. Κάποιος θα μπορούσε να λάβει γνώση εργασίας του αιώνια προοπτική, χωρίς οι ίδιοι να είναι αιώνιο πνεύμα, και ως εκ τούτου, να κατανοήσουν (ή «ξεκλειδώματος» αν προτιμάτε) εδάφια που φαίνεται να έρχονται σε αντίθεση από χρονική άποψη, αλλά δεν κάνουν αντίθεση με στην πραγματικότητα από μια αιώνια προοπτική.

Thanks for trying to explain it to me, but it's a pearls before swine thing....

[GunnyFreedom]

I know they believe that . That's what I said in that post. It is an impossibility. God cannot know all things, and those things not come to pass infallibly. Omniscience logically implies predestination. If God knows the future, then the future is a fixed one.

Only if God is a part of time. If God is outside of time altogether, such constraints do not exist. God knows the end from the beginning. To Him it is not 'future' it is 'now.' He knows what happens in the year 2055, because from His perspective, the year 2055 is happening RIGHT NOW. Just like 2015 is happening RIGHT NOW, just like the year 1815 is happening RIGHT NOW. We are in time, He is not. God does not know the future in the sense that "this thing will happen after so much time passes," He knows the future in the sense that "this thing is currently (1815) happening at this point, and that thing is currently (2055) happening at that point."

[GunnyFreedom]

\

Thanks for trying to explain it to me, but it's a pearls before swine thing....

Such was absolutely NOT my intent. I was trying to open up a concept, I was making no implication (or if I was, certainly not intentionally) that you were unable to obtain an eternal perspective.