Predestination and free will: Can they be reconciled or can they co-exist?

[Lovedtodeath]

I thought of a Bible verse for that too, I hope this one is more welcome.

 

"For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37)

[MamaSheep]

Thanks Amy. That is a lot to think about and it will be very difficult to get my mind around. I have always, always been taught that God purposed the whole world to be like that garden, forever. I really don't understand why he would tell them not to eat of the fruit if he wanted them to. But a lot of what you say makes sense. You seem to be annoyed with me. I am sorry. My purpose in these types of threads is to share what I know and also to learn more. I have been sick this week and I think it might be showing in my conversational skills.

 

I have only a moment, as I'm just checking in quickly between one thing and another, but I just HAD to jot this note to say I am definitely NOT annoyed with you AT ALL, and I am so sorry I came across that way! I was just trying to explain my thought clearly, but I can see that it came out a little terse. I hope you'll forgive me.

 

My understanding thus far was that Jesus was foreordained after sin yet before any human children were conceived.

 

I am examining the word foundation as used in the Bible. 1 Peter 1:20 uses the Greek term καταβολὴν also used in Hebrews 4:3 and 11:11 "Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed." and Hebrews 9:24: "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

 

Here's a page that might be useful. :)

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2602&t=KJV

[dangermom]

Thanks Amy. That is a lot to think about and it will be very difficult to get my mind around. I have always, always been taught that God purposed the whole world to be like that garden, forever. I really don't understand why he would tell them not to eat of the fruit if he wanted them to.

Yes, I think that's a very different belief with us LDS, that it was set up on purpose. But it seems to me that if God wanted the whole world to be Eden forever, he's been thwarted. And we already know that God doesn't get thwarted, yes?

 

IMO the whole Adam/fruit/Fall thing is one of the hardest to understand--I mean, yeah, why would he tell them not to eat of the fruit if they were supposed to? I don't claim to fully understand it. But as far as I can tell, Adam and Eve were supposed to make their choices freely, every step of the way. They could have chosen not to eat the fruit, and stayed innocent, stuck, without knowledge and without children, forever. Or they could choose to fall, and live with sin and death, but also learn and grow and have children. They chose the harder, but better way, and their way back to God was already provided for in Jesus. For this reason LDS people honor Adam and Eve.

 

It's my understanding that many Christians do believe that we were all meant to live in Eden, in innocence, forever, and that Eve is culpable for dooming us all to a fallen world. This has never made a lot of sense to me--why put the fruit in the garden if it would thwart God's plan? And wouldn't one of their children eventually have eaten of the fruit and made everybody fall anyway? Perhaps I don't understand the belief properly.

[Lovedtodeath]

I have only a moment, as I'm just checking in quickly between one thing and another, but I just HAD to jot this note to say I am definitely NOT annoyed with you AT ALL, and I am so sorry I came across that way! I was just trying to explain my thought clearly, but I can see that it came out a little terse. I hope you'll forgive me.

 

 

 

Here's a page that might be useful. :)

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2602&t=KJV

Thank you for letting me know. I have never thought that the pastors were annoyed with me, but that is probably because I am one of two women in the groups and they are very protective of us. ;) My DH says that we have disagreements on these forums more often because most of us are women. :001_huh:

 

Yes, I already had that page up. I learned about it from the pastors that I have discussions with. It is a wonderful resource! Before I found out about it I had to have quite a few books open and then I had to keep writing things down for the Interlinear at the library. It is so much easier with that web page.

 

Thank you for letting me know. :grouphug:

 

Thanks for adding your thoughts dangermom. (cool blogs!)

Edited March 25, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[MamaSheep]

I wonder if the purpose of Christ's becoming man (which was planned from before all time) didn't have more to do with the love He had for man, and sharing with them the experience of being human. It wasn't so much to "save" us (from the foundation of the world) but to let us be in union with Him, in a shared experience.

 

I had thought of that too. But then there's also Revelation 13:8.

 

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

The clear sense of this phrase, to me, is that Jesus was foreordained, or predestined if you will, from the very beginning to be "slain" for our sins--which again reinforces, IMO, the idea that salvation was planned well before the Fall ever happened. I can't think of another reason he would be considered as "slain" if not to be a sacrifice, and I know of no other reason for him to be a sacrifice if not to atone for our sins.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

One thing that has me scratching my head about this "predestination" doctrine, and I wonder if there's an explaination for it that perhaps just hasn't come up (or that I missed seeing) in the previous threads on this topic:

 

Why does God keep creating depraved people? I personally believe in a pre-existant state, but I know Calvanists don't, correct? That each new baby that's concieved is also a new soul created where there wasn't one before? Why is God creating millions and billions of depraved beings? Does He have no control over His creative process, that He could start creating non-depraved behings, rather than "choosing" a few already-created beings here and there to bring to Him?

 

Interesting thoughts:)

 

I for one do not believe in eternal hell since to me that would mean God is not loving or just at all. Instead I choose to believe that those who are especially evil will not reach heaven until they learn or choose goodness and love.

 

If God is all-knowing, then does not God know what he created? Did he not know that man would stray from the path and that we are not perfect? If God knew this, which he/she must if he were all-knowing, then it would make God a despot to condemn imperfect human beings to eternal hell.

 

Not every Christian believes in eternal hell or in the heavy emphasis on sin IMHO. Also I do not believe that the Buddha or Ghandi are in hell. I think God does not operate in a tiny box and has managed to speak to humans in a myriad of ways. I think there is more than one path to the god-head.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Here is a thought provoking article about a Christian pastor who has some different ideas:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42248810/ns/us_news-life/

[Lovedtodeath]

Great posts Pris. I love that article. I am posting it elsewhere right now.

 

I think that the scripture in Revelation that says, “They will be tormented day and night forever.” (14:9-11) is what I think points to hell more than any other. What is interesting though, is that the worshipers of the wild beast are not always pictured as burned up or tormented. Revelation 19:21 shows the execution, being left unburied and being consumed by the birds Rather than being buried as if meriting resurrection, their carcasses are left on the ground and carrion birds are to eat them.

 

related:

In 2000 Bro. Sparks was licensed with the ALJC and Pastored the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in Ashland Kentucky before entering Evangelism again and has been Evangelizing ever since. Bro.Sparks Pastors the Worldwide Church of Jesus Christ.

Most believe the dead will be resurrected but teach the dead go to heaven or hell and receive their reward and if that was the case there is no need for a resurrection and they have false teachings concerning eternal judgement as well. The righteous inherit everlasting life (Romans 6:23) and the wicked become ashes under the soles of our feet (Malachi 4:3). http://thebiblestruthsrevealed.wordpress.com/2010/05/

Anybody who teaches man has immortallity within his self or her self is teaching false doctrine. Only Jesus has immortality and this was given to him in his body which is to say in his flesh after his resurrection. ( 1 Timothy 6:16) who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. As I said this self sustaining life, immortality is given by the Spirit of God and Jesus himself tells us in

( John 5:25-26) Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/christianity-articles/the-destruction-of-body-and-soul-in-gehenna-924535.html#ixzz1HdjHEtzP

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

another message board discussion of these articles Edited March 25, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[dangermom]

He seems to be using a different definition of "immortality" than other Christians do, so I'm having a hard time understanding the passages. AFAIK most Christians believe that all people have an immortal soul, a spirit which will go on existing and being conscious forever wherever they end up, don't they?

 

He seems to be using the word to mean something glorified and self-producing, but I'm not sure.

[MamaSheep]

Thanks Amy. That is a lot to think about and it will be very difficult to get my mind around. I have always, always been taught that God purposed the whole world to be like that garden, forever. I really don't understand why he would tell them not to eat of the fruit if he wanted them to. But a lot of what you say makes sense. You seem to be annoyed with me. I am sorry. My purpose in these types of threads is to share what I know and also to learn more. I have been sick this week and I think it might be showing in my conversational skills.

 

My understanding thus far was that Jesus was foreordained after sin yet before any human children were conceived.

 

Yes, I think that is the most common Christian view of what happened in the Garden. It's not what I see in the Bible, though. But then, there are a number of common Christian views with which I disagree--like the Calvinist concept of predestination and the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. But I love the people who hold those views, and I respect their love of Christ, even if I don't agree with all of their interpretations. I know this is not a 'mainstream' idea. I'm just explaining what I believe, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I expect everyone to make up their own minds. And I trust God to sort us all out in the end.

 

As far as why God told them not to eat the fruit if their doing so was part of the plan...well, I don't have all the answers (wish I did). I have some thoughts, but they're completely in the realm of speculation, so take them with that grain of salt.

 

One thought is that when we have small children we often give them rules in absolute terms that are actually temporary rules, but we say them in absolutes because that is the level at which the child can currently understand. Examples: Never, never, never fiddle with the knobs on the stove. Don't EVER cross the street. Thou shalt not touch the iron! (Ok, I don't say "thou shalt not" to my kids, I'm just playing.) When we do this, it's not that we literally don't EVER want them to learn to use the stove, cross the street, or iron their own clothes, it's just that they are not yet ready for those responsibilities and "never do that" is something they can process.

 

I have wondered, too, about what exactly God told them about the tree. The dialogue in Genesis is somewhat minimal. Did He even say that they should never, ever, under any circumstances ever touch that tree, and if they did the punishment would be death? Or did God tell them that they should not eat from that tree IF they wanted to stay in the garden because eating from that tree was to choose mortality and death, and all that came with that. What were the nuances in the original conversation? I'm not entirely clear on that.

 

Another thought has to do with some things I learned when my son was being diagnosed. He was five at the time. I was asked, at various stages of the process, by several of the people involved in the evaluation process whether we had rules at our house--basically whether we told him "no". When I said that yes of course we had rules, the follow-up question was ALWAYS whether or not he ever blatantly defied me when I told him "no". Did he ever look me in the face and do it anyway, just to see what I would do about it. Did he ever tell ME "no". And EVERY time I said yes, he's quite a defiant little imp, and it drives me nuts, they ALWAYS broke into a huge grin and said, "Oh GOOD!" as if that were a brilliant accomplishment. When I asked why they thought that was a good thing it was explained to me that this particular kind of defiance in the face of authority was an important indicator of where he was developmentally. It meant that his brain was developed sufficiently that he saw himself as a separate person from me and was able to separate his wishes from my wishes, and was experimenting with how the two interact. It also demonstrated that he had reasoning skills at a particular developmental level and was able to sort out important facts about the world around him. They said that was a crucial milestone and it was something to be happy about, even if it drives the parents bonkers. It is what children are SUPPOSED to do at that stage of development, and we should worry if they don't because it helps them develop a sense of right and wrong while their parents are there to keep them safe from the really dangerous stuff. One of these child development expert types then explained to me that the reason they asked about whether we had rules at our house was because some parents don't think that little kids can understand rules, so they don't set ANY boundaries at all. When this happens (and this is the interesting part, to me) it interferes with a child's normal brain development. The child needs to be told "no" in order to develop a self-identity and certain kinds of reasoning skills. If the child is given no boundaries these skills do not develop properly. It is the interaction with the "rules" and the "boundaries" and parental opposition to the child's own will that causes those synapses to develop in the human brain. Thinking about that over the years since, I have sometimes wondered if that was why God said don't eat the fruit. If Adam and Eve were like little children in the beginning, not knowing good and evil, maybe they needed a "no" to run up against in order to develop properly. And perhaps their act of defiance demonstrated that they had developed sufficently to handle life outside of the garden. I do not know if this is the case, but it has given me some food for thought over the years.

 

Which brings up another thought. If Adam and Eve did not know good from evil, right from wrong, why should we think they understood that eating from the tree was "wrong" in the first place? Did they really understand that it was "wrong" to disobey God? Did they know it was "good" to obey God? Some things we have to learn through experience. Do we learn the idea of right and wrong by doing something wrong, like we learn the ideas of hot and cold by burning our fingers and holding ice cubes? Do we need to experience the contrast to really understand? If so, did God provide the tree of knowledge and say "don't eat the fruit" to provide a contrast for them to experience? We have this tendency to judge Adam and Eve based on OUR ability to see right and wrong. It's clear to US, so it should have been clear to them. That bratty Eve, she KNEW eating that fruit would be bad, but she did it anyway! But did she know? I've heard people say, "How could she not have known, my TWO year-old knows what 'no' means!" But that two year-old is a post-Fall person with a couple of years of experience of 'good and evil' under her belt. Eve was not.

 

I don't know....I wish I had the answer to that "why did God tell them not to eat if it was part of the plan that they would" question, but I'm still mulling it over. It's an excellent question. The idea that God told Adam and Eve they would "surely die" already KNOWING at that time that if they DID choose to die (and all that entails) there was a Savior already in place and ready to step up to the plate, is certainly different than the idea of a God who told them they would "surely die" if they disobeyed and then slapped together a contingency plan when they didn't do as they were told. Particularly when you take into account the bit about not knowing good from evil. And I agree, it is a little bit mind-bending to think through.

 

So no, I don't have all the answers. But I do know that where the rubber hits the road, I believe in a God who is firmly in control, has a plan, knows what he's doing, sees the end from the beginning, and is smarter and more powerful than Satan and/or all mankind. I do not believe in a God who muddles through by constantly trying to "fix" things as one plan after another goes haywire, who is repeatedly foiled by Satan or by the bad choices of human beings. I just don't.

 

...I am examining the word foundation as used in the Bible...

That sounds like a good idea. From what I've seen it seems to involve the idea of the preliminary stages of erecting a building or the idea of the conception of a baby before it is born. My conclusion is that "before the foundation of the world" would mean the planning stages before creation was begun, or else in the very beginning stages of creation. But I'd be interested to hear if you come to a different conclusion; I like new ideas to chew on.

 

I have heard some people express the opinion that the "foundation of the world" was when Adam and Eve left the garden and went out into the world and things became "worldly". In other words, they see it as "the world" as it is sometimes used as a contrast to things that are godly, if you see what I mean. But that seems a bit of a stretch to me, like they're trying to make the scripture fit their preconceived idea of what it should mean, based on what they've always been taught. But you know, that's my opinion and I respect that they are entitled to their own opinion--and again, I trust God to sort us out.

 

 

...

Yes, I already had that page up. I learned about it from the pastors that I have discussions with. It is a wonderful resource! Before I found out about it I had to have quite a few books open and then I had to keep writing things down for the Interlinear at the library. It is so much easier with that web page.

 

I have found it very useful, even though I disagree with the "commentaries" much of the time. The ease with which it allows one to compare different translations and to look things up in Strongs and cross-reference with other usages of the same Greek or Hebrew term is wonderful.

[Lovedtodeath]

He seems to be using a different definition of "immortality" than other Christians do, so I'm having a hard time understanding the passages. AFAIK most Christians believe that all people have an immortal soul, a spirit which will go on existing and being conscious forever wherever they end up, don't they?

Most do. He is the first modern non-Witness that I have found that does not. I would be interested in hearing of others. I think that 1 Corinthians 15:42, 44, 53 is probably addressing immortality in the way that Bro. Sparks did:

1 Cor. 15:42, 44, 53 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

 

In the first quote Br. Sparks is saying that death is the penalty for sin. How unjust would it be to say death and mean something else? The prize for the righteous is stated as eternal life. He cited two scriptures, but this is found repeatedly in even the most commonly known Bible verses. Someone at the other forum even quoted this one while arguing for the doctrine of hell: "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death," --Romans 1:32. This person mistakenly equates disbelief of the hell doctrine with Universalism. It is far from Universalism because the wicked are not rewarded like the righteous, in contrast, rather, they die.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks Amy. I think I am mostly in the mull it over stage right now. Wow, you have given me a lot to think about.

 

My understanding has been that Adam and Eve were created as perfect adults with plenty of understanding. "Knowing good and bad" is explained as deciding for themselves what is good and bad instead of staying under God's authority. My problem with that understanding is the verse where God says that "they have become like us knowing good and bad".

 

When I was reading Revelation, however, my immediate understanding of "from the foundation" in a couple of verses was the foundation of the heavenly kingdom, when people began to be resurrected to heaven.

 

I fully trust in God's justice. I know that he can read hearts perfectly including my brothers and sisters in different faiths and my own. I am sure that there are people in all faiths including my own that will say "Lord, Lord!" and he will say "I never knew you". When we do the best we can (and he knows if we are) with what we have and if we are wrong on some things I am sure that it will be sorted out easily enough when we are living in paradise under Jesus' rule. ;)

Yes, I think that is the most common Christian view of what happened in the Garden. It's not what I see in the Bible, though. But then, there are a number of common Christian views with which I disagree--like the Calvinist concept of predestination and the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. But I love the people who hold those views, and I respect their love of Christ, even if I don't agree with all of their interpretations. I know this is not a 'mainstream' idea. I'm just explaining what I believe, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I expect everyone to make up their own minds. And I trust God to sort us all out in the end.

 

As far as why God told them not to eat the fruit if their doing so was part of the plan...well, I don't have all the answers (wish I did). I have some thoughts, but they're completely in the realm of speculation, so take them with that grain of salt.

 

One thought is that when we have small children we often give them rules in absolute terms that are actually temporary rules, but we say them in absolutes because that is the level at which the child can currently understand. Examples: Never, never, never fiddle with the knobs on the stove. Don't EVER cross the street. Thou shalt not touch the iron! (Ok, I don't say "thou shalt not" to my kids, I'm just playing.) When we do this, it's not that we literally don't EVER want them to learn to use the stove, cross the street, or iron their own clothes, it's just that they are not yet ready for those responsibilities and "never do that" is something they can process.

 

I have wondered, too, about what exactly God told them about the tree. The dialogue in Genesis is somewhat minimal. Did He even say that they should never, ever, under any circumstances ever touch that tree, and if they did the punishment would be death? Or did God tell them that they should not eat from that tree IF they wanted to stay in the garden because eating from that tree was to choose mortality and death, and all that came with that. What were the nuances in the original conversation? I'm not entirely clear on that.

 

Another thought has to do with some things I learned when my son was being diagnosed. He was five at the time. I was asked, at various stages of the process, by several of the people involved in the evaluation process whether we had rules at our house--basically whether we told him "no". When I said that yes of course we had rules, the follow-up question was ALWAYS whether or not he ever blatantly defied me when I told him "no". Did he ever look me in the face and do it anyway, just to see what I would do about it. Did he ever tell ME "no". And EVERY time I said yes, he's quite a defiant little imp, and it drives me nuts, they ALWAYS broke into a huge grin and said, "Oh GOOD!" as if that were a brilliant accomplishment. When I asked why they thought that was a good thing it was explained to me that this particular kind of defiance in the face of authority was an important indicator of where he was developmentally. It meant that his brain was developed sufficiently that he saw himself as a separate person from me and was able to separate his wishes from my wishes, and was experimenting with how the two interact. It also demonstrated that he had reasoning skills at a particular developmental level and was able to sort out important facts about the world around him. They said that was a crucial milestone and it was something to be happy about, even if it drives the parents bonkers. It is what children are SUPPOSED to do at that stage of development, and we should worry if they don't because it helps them develop a sense of right and wrong while their parents are there to keep them safe from the really dangerous stuff. One of these child development expert types then explained to me that the reason they asked about whether we had rules at our house was because some parents don't think that little kids can understand rules, so they don't set ANY boundaries at all. When this happens (and this is the interesting part, to me) it interferes with a child's normal brain development. The child needs to be told "no" in order to develop a self-identity and certain kinds of reasoning skills. If the child is given no boundaries these skills do not develop properly. It is the interaction with the "rules" and the "boundaries" and parental opposition to the child's own will that causes those synapses to develop in the human brain. Thinking about that over the years since, I have sometimes wondered if that was why God said don't eat the fruit. If Adam and Eve were like little children in the beginning, not knowing good and evil, maybe they needed a "no" to run up against in order to develop properly. And perhaps their act of defiance demonstrated that they had developed sufficently to handle life outside of the garden. I do not know if this is the case, but it has given me some food for thought over the years.

 

Which brings up another thought. If Adam and Eve did not know good from evil, right from wrong, why should we think they understood that eating from the tree was "wrong" in the first place? Did they really understand that it was "wrong" to disobey God? Did they know it was "good" to obey God? Some things we have to learn through experience. Do we learn the idea of right and wrong by doing something wrong, like we learn the ideas of hot and cold by burning our fingers and holding ice cubes? Do we need to experience the contrast to really understand? If so, did God provide the tree of knowledge and say "don't eat the fruit" to provide a contrast for them to experience? We have this tendency to judge Adam and Eve based on OUR ability to see right and wrong. It's clear to US, so it should have been clear to them. That bratty Eve, she KNEW eating that fruit would be bad, but she did it anyway! But did she know? I've heard people say, "How could she not have known, my TWO year-old knows what 'no' means!" But that two year-old is a post-Fall person with a couple of years of experience of 'good and evil' under her belt. Eve was not.

 

I don't know....I wish I had the answer to that "why did God tell them not to eat if it was part of the plan that they would" question, but I'm still mulling it over. It's an excellent question. The idea that God told Adam and Eve they would "surely die" already KNOWING at that time that if they DID choose to die (and all that entails) there was a Savior already in place and ready to step up to the plate, is certainly different than the idea of a God who told them they would "surely die" if they disobeyed and then slapped together a contingency plan when they didn't do as they were told. Particularly when you take into account the bit about not knowing good from evil. And I agree, it is a little bit mind-bending to think through.

 

So no, I don't have all the answers. But I do know that where the rubber hits the road, I believe in a God who is firmly in control, has a plan, knows what he's doing, sees the end from the beginning, and is smarter and more powerful than Satan and/or all mankind. I do not believe in a God who muddles through by constantly trying to "fix" things as one plan after another goes haywire, who is repeatedly foiled by Satan or by the bad choices of human beings. I just don't.

 

That sounds like a good idea. From what I've seen it seems to involve the idea of the preliminary stages of erecting a building or the idea of the conception of a baby before it is born. My conclusion is that "before the foundation of the world" would mean the planning stages before creation was begun, or else in the very beginning stages of creation. But I'd be interested to hear if you come to a different conclusion; I like new ideas to chew on.

 

I have heard some people express the opinion that the "foundation of the world" was when Adam and Eve left the garden and went out into the world and things became "worldly". In other words, they see it as "the world" as it is sometimes used as a contrast to things that are godly, if you see what I mean. But that seems a bit of a stretch to me, like they're trying to make the scripture fit their preconceived idea of what it should mean, based on what they've always been taught. But you know, that's my opinion and I respect that they are entitled to their own opinion--and again, I trust God to sort us out.

 

 

 

I have found it very useful, even though I disagree with the "commentaries" much of the time. The ease with which it allows one to compare different translations and to look things up in Strongs and cross-reference with other usages of the same Greek or Hebrew term is wonderful.

[MamaSheep]

Interesting thoughts:)

 

I for one do not believe in eternal hell since to me that would mean God is not loving or just at all. Instead I choose to believe that those who are especially evil will not reach heaven until they learn or choose goodness and love.

 

If God is all-knowing, then does not God know what he created? Did he not know that man would stray from the path and that we are not perfect? If God knew this, which he/she must if he were all-knowing, then it would make God a despot to condemn imperfect human beings to eternal hell.

 

Not every Christian believes in eternal hell or in the heavy emphasis on sin IMHO. Also I do not believe that the Buddha or Ghandi are in hell. I think God does not operate in a tiny box and has managed to speak to humans in a myriad of ways. I think there is more than one path to the god-head.

 

An interesting thought. It does seem to me that a just God would make some kind of arrangement for a place where people could be who don't WANT to be with God...y'know...permanently....

 

But then I subscribe to the more complex LDS concept of life after death and have always found the stereotypical Christian heaven/hell dichotomy somewhat overly simplistic.

[MamaSheep]

Thanks Amy. I think I am mostly in the mull it over stage right now. Wow, you have given me a lot to think about.

 

My understanding has been that Adam and Eve were created as perfect adults with plenty of understanding. "Knowing good and bad" is explained as deciding for themselves what is good and bad instead of staying under God's authority. My problem with that understanding is the verse where God says that "they have become like us knowing good and bad".

 

Interesting. My understanding is that they were created as adults, but were innocent, like little children, and everything was new to them. I'll have to do some more digging and see what I find. I appreciate the new perspective to consider.

 

Off the bat, the first thing I thought was to look up the Hebrew over there on blueletterbible.org, and it seems that in "knowing" good from evil, the word 'yada' is the 'to know' verb in question. According to that site, at least, it means things like percieving, learning, discerning, recognizing, discriminating--that sort of thing (and I admit I'm particularly intrigued by the "to know by experience" definition in the list). I don't see any options where it could mean deciding for yourself rather than distinguishing between the two, though, so at least at first pass I'm not seeing how that meaning would fit with the Hebrew. It's an intriguing interpretation, though.

 

When I was reading Revelation, however, my immediate understanding of "from the foundation" in a couple of verses was the foundation of the heavenly kingdom, when people began to be resurrected to heaven.

 

Hmmm...well, since the Greek that's translated as 'world' there is 'kosmos' and can refer to pretty much the entire universe and all of existence, OR the heavens, OR the earth, OR several other things, I can see where you could come to that conclusion. To me, the 'foundation' would be the beginning of creation, but I see your position.

 

I fully trust in God's justice. I know that he can read hearts perfectly including my brothers and sisters in different faiths and my own. I am sure that there are people in all faiths including my own that will say "Lord, Lord!" and he will say "I never knew you". When we do the best we can (and he knows if we are) with what we have and if we are wrong on some things I am sure that it will be sorted out easily enough when we are living in paradise under Jesus' rule. ;)

:grouphug:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

But getting un-dead is something done to us in this belief system. We have no choice or say in the matter. And that's a very un-orthodox belief. Look at the parable of the prodigal son. The father didn't go find his son and make him come home. He waited at home until the son chose to return to him. And when he did, the father ran out to greet him in joy. There is NO wrath in this parable. None. Just a loving father delighted to have his son back home.

I love this post. It is so important for us to remember. Thank you Milovaný.

[Lovedtodeath]

But it forgets that for the first 200 years, there was a verbal and written tradition passed down and that those teachings and what he's saying is that those lessons, from Apostles no less, are wrong.

Do you have reading in this area to recommend? It makes sense to me to go back to that first 200 years and see what they had to say then. Maybe it will clear some of this up.

 

(oh, and I reread the post and I can see your point about that quote) :001_huh:

So here, he's basically saying that God made us so full of sin that we couldn't possibly understand it for ourselves and we need to look only at the written word of God.