Exhuastive Divine Foreknowledge is False

[Right Divider]

Do you deny that you said the following when we were discussing what was required for salvation for the Jews who lived under the law?:

I simply point out what SCRIPTURE says and you don't like it.... you always go back to your PET verses and IGNORE the rest.

Luk 18:18-20 KJV And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (19) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. (20) Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Why did Jesus NOT simply say "believe"?

 

[Clete]

So I see it was an empty hope to think Jerry would address the argument. No surprise. I wonder what he thinks I meant when I told him that I would not debate the answer I gave to his question? Not that I think he believes I meant anything other than what I plainly stated. He's just a dishonest jerk who isn't here for any of the right reasons. And yet they let him stick around wasting everyone's time while arbitrarily shutting down whole threads for the most trivial of reasons.

I can't even remember the last substantive exchange I had with anyone on this site (who doesn't already agree with me) that wasn't cut off right in the middle by a moderator who shut down the whole thread because two of the participants got just a little on the emotional side. This website sucks now. No one gives a damn about having a real discussion about anything. No one has any respect for an argument, never mind anyone else's time. What in the world is the point of this place anymore? Do you know? I don't! I frankly don't know why I care anymore. In fact, I don't believe I do!

You all can just go waste your own time talking about boring crap that neither challenges anyone's mind nor convinces anyone of anything.

I'm out.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The doctrine of exhaustive divine foreknowledge and free will are mutually exclusive.
Therefore, the doctrine of exhaustive divine foreknowledge is false.

THAT was a lot of work for nothing. Of course the simple answer is that if you Didn't (of your own free will) turn the light on "tomorrow at nine" God would already KNOW that, as part of his "Foreknowledge". Knowing what you'll do doesn't exert control over what you do, and if you decide to turn the light on at 10:00, you're still perfectly free to do so.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I simply point out what SCRIPTURE says and you don't like it.... you always go back to your PET verses and IGNORE the rest.

Why did Jesus NOT simply say "believe"?

Because He wanted the Jews to realize that they were sinners because none of them kept the commandments perfectly. I didn't ignore the rest because I pointed out what Paul said about those who tried to inherit eternal life by keeping the commandmemts:

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident" (Gal.3:10-11).​ I did not ignore what you said about the Lord Jesus telling them to keep the commandments but you falsely accused me of doing just that! AGAIN YOU LIE... Please QUOTE me saying that eternal life required works or law keeping. Talk about an insult to Christianity.... that's YOU ... Mr. Hypocrite. You have now admitted that you quoted the Lord Jesus in order to try to prove that eternal life required law keeping and despite that I am the subject of your abuse and false statements. it is not me you hate but instead the words of the Lord Jesus which contradict your petty ideas!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So I see it was an empty hope to think Jerry would address the argument. No surprise. I wonder what he thinks I meant when I told him that I would not debate the answer I gave to his question?

Clete, of course you don't want to debate the Scriptures which prove that believers are "individually" baptized into Him (the Body of Christ) because you have no answers to those facts:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).​

 

[Clete]

THAT was a lot of work for nothing. Of course the simple answer is that if you Didn't (of your own free will) turn the light on "tomorrow at nine" God would already KNOW that, as part of his "Foreknowledge".

Yeah, no kidding Captain Obvious!

The argument hasn't anything to do with what the action is or isn't. The point is whether the action or inaction is the result of a choice made by the person performing the action. T could be literally any action possible to mankind. T=Stepping into a lunar module. T=petting your cat. T=Sitting with your legs crossed and trying to think about the nature of nothingness. T=Typing up a post on the internet that completely misunderstands the nature of an argument. T= Deciding not to do any of that. T= Fill in the blank!

Knowing what you'll do doesn't exert control over what you do, and if you decide to turn the light on at 10:00, you're still perfectly free to do so.

Read the argument and tell me where the phrase "exert control" is either stated or implied?

I'll give you a hint. It isn't!

The argument has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the foreknowledge exerting control over anything. It simply proves that a free will choice cannot be infallibly foreknown. An act is either foreknown or it free or it is neither but it cannot be both free and foreknown because that would be a contradiction.

And that makes total sense anyway, right? The fact that an action is foreknown doesn't mean that the knowledge causes the action but only that there isn't any possible alternative. If there isn't any other possible alternatives then there is no choice being made. If our actions are infallibly foreknown then the act of choosing is, at best, an illusion.

Just to be super crystal clear let me just state something that should be intuitive but that often turns out not to be for some....

The reason the phase "infallible foreknowledge" is used is to make it clear that we aren't discussing mere predictions or expectation. God is totally wise and has immediate access to and full understanding of every iota of information that might be pertinent to a particular situation including everything there is know about the person who is going to make a particular choice and as a result God is very good at "knowing" what we're going to do before we do it. But this is not the sort of knowledge being discussed here. No matter how well a person is known by God and no matter how well all the surrounding circumstances are understood, if a person is free to choose their own actions, then the possibility still exists that they can do something that God didn't expect. Of course, God also knows that! He knows that what He expects to happen is only the most likely outcome and He knows just exactly how likely that outcome is. The point here is that for an act to be likely is not at all the same as that act being certain.

As an example, when Jesus predicted the Peter would deny Him three times. There was very little doubt that Peter would indeed do so but there was SOME doubt, however small. Peter COULD HAVE repented and had he done so, Jesus would not have been upset nor would it have meant that Jesus was a false prophet or anything of the sort. Jesus would have been amazed and elated at Peter's faith and the story would have been extolled through the generations as one of Peter's greatest moments rather than his very worst. If this were not the case then there would be no moral component to Peter's actions because without the ability to avoid sin, there can be no commission of it. But on the contrary, we are told explicitly that where there is temptation there is also a way of escape.
.

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.​

Thus, in matters of morality there is always a possible alternative, there is always a choice being made. Take away the alternative and you take away the ability to choose. Take away the ability to choose and morality goes with it.

Clete

 

[Bob Carabbio]

It simply proves that a free will choice cannot be infallibly foreknown.

And naturally, it "PROVES" Nothing.

It all depends on how you "think" that TIME WORKS in God's Kingdom - of which you "KNOW" little or nothing.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

As an example, when Jesus predicted the Peter would deny Him three times. There was very little doubt that Peter would indeed do so but there was SOME doubt, however small. Peter COULD HAVE repented and had he done so, Jesus would not have been upset nor would it have meant that Jesus was a false prophet or anything of the sort.

The Lord Jesus predicted right that Peter would deny Him three times.

Just a lucky guess? The Lord just guessed that Peter would be confronted just three times and not four or five? Or not two times or just one time but instead exactly three times?

 

[Clete]

And naturally, it "PROVES" Nothing.

It all depends on how you "think" that TIME WORKS in God's Kingdom - of which you "KNOW" little or nothing.

On the contrary, it absolutely does prove it. You making the claim that it does not doesn't remove the argument from existence. It doesn't negate the valid premises nor does it cause the conclusions to fail to follow those premises. Your arbitrary declaration to the contrary doesn't magically cause the argument to be fallacious or in any way irrational.

In short, saying it doesn't make it so!

You see, what you seem to be missing here is that you've stumbled across a website where the idea is to actually debate one's doctrine. Nobody here gives a rip about your personal opinions, least of all me. I am not seeking your approval or friendship and I do not know you from Adam and so you've earned none of the respect that it would require for your disagreement with me to move me an inch. Thus, I am not impressed with your denials. In fact, they bore me blind! If you think the argument fallacious then show me how, if you can and we might just have the most substantive theological discussion on this topic that you've ever had in your entire life. Maybe we'll even learn something from one another. Wouldn't that be an earth shaking event!

I know as I write this that you won't. If I were God, you'd use that last sentence to "prove" infallible foreknowledge.


Clete

 

[Clete]

The concept of timeless existence is a rescue device and it is also irrational.

Divine timelessness is to Christian doctrine as Dark Matter is to the Big Bang Cosmology. It's nothing more than a rescue device! It comes in AFTER one's doctrine, whether it be exhaustive divine foreknowledge or predestination or immutability or whatever, in order to rescue the doctrine from it's own internal issues. The bible doesn't say one single syllable about God existing outside of time and it's a good thing that it doesn't because if it did, it would falsify the bible because the whole idea is self-contradictory. In fact, the bible speaks about God in terms quite contrary to the idea that He is timeless. The only place where the idea of god's existence outside of time is found in history in from pagan Greek philosophy (and Hinduism also but there's not much, if any, Hindu influence in modern Christian doctrine like there is from ancient Greek philosophers like Plato.) To find phrases like "timeless", "eternal now", etc., you can't look to the bible because such phrases and ideas aren't found in the bible. These ideas are found in Plato's writings and they found their way into Christian doctrine through Augustine. What is found in the bible, however, is unwavering and undeniable statements of God's existence in time. The bible teaches us that God is...

- Everlasting
- From of old
- Before ever He had formed the earth
- The Ancient of Days
- Before the world was
- From before the ages of the ages
- From ancient times
- He continues forever
- Immortal
- Remains forever
- Forever and ever
- God’s years
- God who is
- Alive forevermore
- Who was
- Who is to come
- Always lives
- Forever
- In the age to come
- Continually
- God’s years never end
- From everlasting to everlasting
- From that time forward, even forever
- And of His kingdom there will be no end.


This, as I alluded to a moment ago, is only just so much more evidence of the truth of the bible because if the bible did teach of a timeless eternity in which God exists, it would prove that the God of the bible was no more real than is Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. The idea of timeless existence commits what is known as a stolen concept fallacy. A stolen concept fallacy is the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically depends. In this case it is the concept of existence that is being "stolen" because existence implies duration. A thing that exists with no duration is an obvious contradiction. An event (i.e. an existence) that took no time at all didn't happen at all. Thus the idea of timeless existence is inherently self-contradictory because it uses the concept of existence while denying the concept of duration which the concept of existence is logically dependent.

Further, time is not an actual thing with its own ontological existence. It is an idea, an abstraction. Formally stated, time is a convention of language used to convey information about the sequence and duration of events. The fact that time itself does not exist in the ontological sense is the ONLY sense in which anything that does exist could be said to be "outside of time" and even then its more or less a play on words because that wouldn't just apply to God but to you and me and everything else. Everything that actually does exist only exists NOW. The past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. All that is, is (present tense). This is the foundational statement of all knowledge. The law of identity, "A is A" is present tense and could not rationally be otherwise and as such the very notion of timelessness is inherently irrational.

This is why it is impossible to discuss a timeless existence without contradicting yourself. It isn't because we're so much lower than God. It isn't because we're so imperfect as to be stupid. Its because it is a fallacious idea that cannot be discussed without contradiction because it is itself a contradiction!

So, no the introduction of a fallacious, self-contradictory, entirely unbiblical theological rescue device that wouldn't exist in Christian doctrine at all if Augustine of Hippo hadn't imported it from pagan Greek philosophy doesn't refute my argument in the least.

Clete


Bob Enyart's website rocks!
The Bible Proves that God is IN TIME

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Nobody here gives a rip about your personal opinions, least of all me. I am not seeking your approval or friendship and I do not know you from Adam and so you've earned none of the respect that it would require for your disagreement with me to move me an inch.

(Chuckle) - Standard "Christian Forum" protocol - as usual.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Bible Proves that God is IN TIME

No it doesn't!

The following passage proves otherwise:

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim.1:9; KJV).​

God knew which "individuals" would believe and it is "individuals" who are baptized into "Christ Jesus." He knew which individuals would believe "before the world began."

That means that God is not bound by time. Therefore, He exists outsiide of time.

 

[Clete]

(Chuckle) - Standard "Christian Forum" protocol - as usual.

I'm not trying to make enemies either. The point is simply that I do NOT care about your opinions - period! Just as I don't give a rip about your doctrinal opinions, I also don't care about your opinions concerning forum protocols. Or didn't you notice that you were responding to my telling you that I don't care about opinions by expressing yet another personal opinion?

If you want to make an argument or make some attempt to refute an argument that has already been made then I'm happy to have the exchange of ideas but if all you going to do is spout your opinion around as though doing so makes those opinions turn into facts then you're just going to bore me to death.

So which is it going to be? Do you want to defend what you believe with soemthing more substantive that mere declarative statements or are you going to wimp out because I said something you feel is too harsh for a Christian to say?

Clete

 

[Lon]

To resume with the subject of this thread:

If God exists in "time" then His foreknowledge must be unchanging. That knowledge is settled and whatever takes place in history must come into being exactly as God foreknew it would happen. That is the "settled view of history."

"In time" is a part of the traditionally held orthodox view. The Creator of time as a property of the physical universe is important. The logic goes like this: A container 'contains' all that is in the universe with nothing outside of it, therefore time exists ONLY inside the container. The universe is limited, not limitless, therefore time, that is used for measuring ONLY limited change, cannot and does not apply to God who is eternal (no beginning or end). That a lot of Open Theists don't understand (perhaps cannot)? Understood. It is, however, and inescapable conclusion. Think this way: Time ONLY measures a limited period. You cannot tell me what time or year eternity is. Because of that the 'expression' of time is finite. It is a concept and only when it 'cannot' does it give us an idea of the eternal specifically because it cannot qualify or quantify it.

However, God exists outside of time then with Him there is no "before" or "after." William Ames, often known as "the Learned Doctor Ames" because of his great intellectual stature among Puritans, said the following:

"There is properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after."​

John Wesley, who along with his brother Charles founded the Methodist movement, wrote the following about this subject:

"The sum of all is this: the almighty, all-wise God sees and knows, from everlasting to everlasting, all that is, that was, and that is to come, through one eternal now. With him nothing is either past or future, but all things equally present. He has, therefore, if we speak according to the truth of things, no foreknowledge, no afterknowledge. This would be ill consistent with the Apostle's words, 'With him is no variableness or shadow of turning;' and with the account he gives of himself by the Prophet, 'I the Lord change not.' Yet when he speaks to us, knowing whereof we are made, knowing the scantiness of our understanding, he lets himself down to our capacity, and speaks of himself after the manner of men. Thus, in condescension to our weakness, he speaks of his own purpose, counsel, plan, foreknowledge. Not that God has any need of counsel, of purpose, or of planning his work beforehand. Far be it from us to impute these to the Most High; to measure him by ourselves! It is merely in compassion to us that he speaks thus of himself, as foreknowing the things in heaven or earth, and as predestinating or fore-ordaining them. But can we possibly imagine that these expressions are to be taken literally? To one who was so gross in his conceptions might he not say, 'Thinkest thou I am such an one as thyself' Not so: As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than thy ways. I know, decree, work, in such a manner as it is not possible for thee to conceive: But to give thee some faint, glimmering knowledge of my ways, I use the language of men, and suit myself to thy apprehensions in this thy infant state of existence."​

The LORD exists in "one eternal now," meaning that with Him there is neither past nor future so when the Scriptures refer to His "foreknowledge" what is said is not to be taken in a "literal" manner. Instead, what is being employed is the "figurative" language spoken of here:

"Anthropopatheia ; or, Condescension...Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things."​

The 'Container analogy' above illustrates this in the sense that whatever is 'in' the container is already there. The material can change, but because the very essence of change is all 'of' God, there is no 'part' that isn't from His being already.

An understanding of these things is the first step to understanding that the future is open.

Most Open Theists do not use the traditional formula to illustrate an 'open' future. They use it to illustrate why historical orthodox Christianity is 'closed.'

Think again of the container: The container (physical universe) is limited and created by an infinite God. Because the universe is indeed 'limited' the synonym would not be 'open' but 'enclosed' and fully known by God who knows ALL finite and limited things.

The matter is ALWAYS about personal sensibilities: An Open Theist perhaps 'feels' more important in his/her universe, that they have to believe God made them autonomous and free of will, reasoning that only a being 'on par' with God in will is capable of 'loving' because it requires a 'free' will.

I disagree. Adam and Eve, in their perfect state were more capable. The Lord Jesus Christ who has a will to ONLY do the Father's will? No question He is the definition of love and relationship. There is no 'robot' talk with the Lord Jesus Christ who said "Not my will, but Thine."

The Fall created a 'free' will and so a freewill theist nearly worships his/her will over God (and it is somewhat evident, I see a LOT of self-will on TOL). The Lord Jesus Christ died to save us from this Fallen nature. We do have an autonomy, specifically and mostly from the sin condition, it opened a world of choosing 'other.' Otherwise? It'd have ALL been predetermined by the condition of a perfect world that was created 'good.' However I do theology, I'm constantly struggling between 'my will' (free) and God's will (the way I was actually made to be which is NOT the original condition of the will I was born with). While there are challenges in this post, I do pray that they are thought long over instead of causing knee-jerk reactions (most often in the free will flesh of course). I'm as much attacking my own idea of 'will' as anybody else getting hit by this. We are supposed to be 'His' willed. In Him -Lon

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The point is simply that I do NOT care about your opinions - period!

That pretty much says it all.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

However I do theology, I'm constantly struggling between 'my will' (free) and God's will (the way I was actually made to be which is NOT the original condition of the will I was born with).

Lon, what was the original condition of the will you were born with?

 

[Lon]

Lon, what was the original condition of the will you were born with?

A will that was just doing what it was 'created' to do. Relationship? Yes. That is a sense of the definition of will, but necessarily qualified in any meaningful way by 'free.'

What was it 'free' from? What was it 'free' for? An ability to disobey God? Adam and Eve certainly had the 'ability' to Fall, but were they 'free' to do so? Would it be fair of God to say "You are free to eat from any tree AND free to eat of the tree of knowledge, but its not going to be good for you?" Love constrains the will, doesn't make it 'free.' Perhaps in a sense, but autonomy is not a good place for a sinner and so I'm very careful about 'free' when describing the will. It is too broad to have any significant meaning and too indefinite to convey clear theological terms (imho).

 

[Clete]

A will that was just doing what it was 'created' to do. Relationship? Yes. That is a sense of the definition of will, but necessarily qualified in any meaningful way by 'free.'

What was it 'free' from? What was it 'free' for? An ability to disobey God? Adam and Eve certainly had the 'ability' to Fall, but were they 'free' to do so? Would it be fair of God to say "You are free to eat from any tree AND free to eat of the tree of knowledge, but its not going to be good for you?" Love constrains the will, doesn't make it 'free.' Perhaps in a sense, but autonomy is not a good place for a sinner and so I'm very careful about 'free' when describing the will. It is too broad to have any significant meaning and too indefinite to convey clear theological terms (imho).

This objection having to do with a consequence free will is a straw man argument. NO ONE believes in a consequence free will. No one.

A free will is simply a will that is able to choose between two or more possible alternatives. It is the ability to do or to otherwise. It isn't complicated or confusing at all.

It does not imply that the decisions can be made without consequence. In fact, it is only those who reject free will theism who have ever suggested that it might imply such a thing as a universe where there is no consequences to one's actions. Free will simply means that there is always an "if". It doesn't ever suggest that there is no resultant "then". Whether you're talking about an action that is volitional or not, every single event has both a cause and an effect. The question, when it comes to moral actions, is whether that cause was avoidable. Could the actor have chosen to act differently and thereby had a different result and therefore a different consequence?

The question of free will isn't so much about us as it is God Himself because everyone knows that they choose their actions. Even if they spend their whole career denying it, there's no way to get out of bed without making choices. Everyone makes 10,000+ choices every day of their life. Life is just a huge collections of choices people make. And so whether you believe in a free will or not, the life you live every day is testimony to the truth of reality. What is also real are the consequences of those choices and we are all created with an innate understanding of justice. People know justice when they see it. Even the most hardened criminal knows that what he is doing is wrong. All you have to do to prove it is to have someone do to him as he has done to his victims and see if he complains, which of course he will do. And it is this issue of justice (as well as all matters of morality) where the doctrine of free will has its most important relevance because there is no such thing as a Christian who doesn't believe that sin must be justly punished. The very gospel itself rests on the principle of justice.

So, is God just or isn't He? In what sense could any judge justly punish someone for an action if they had no ability to do otherwise? God gave Adam a warning, telling him exactly what would happen if he disobeyed and yet he disobeyed anyway. No one denies that God is just and it is precisely God's just nature that logically requires that Adam had the ability to tell Eve to go pound sand when she offered him that piece of fruit.

In other words, free will is not a premise upon which our doctrine is based, it is a conclusion based on the premise of what it means to be righteous, just, relational and loving. The starting point for the free will theist is not man's will but the moral character of God Himself.

Clete

 

[Lon]

The Lord Jesus predicted right that Peter would deny Him three times.

Just a lucky guess? The Lord just guessed that Peter would be confronted just three times and not four or five? Or not two times or just one time but instead exactly three times?

:up: Revelation, with the Apostle John literally seeing the future AND interacting there, is proof enough. It makes no sense to posture against this just to salvage some imagined sense with free will when many proof have been given that will exists in such a system. It needs a lot more discussion rather than posturing else actual thinking stops at the door in favor of indoctrination paradigms.

 

[Clete]

:up: Revelation, with the Apostle John literally seeing the future AND interacting there, is proof enough. It makes no sense to posture against this just to salvage some imagined sense with free will when many proof have been given that will exists in such a system. It needs a lot more discussion rather than posturing else actual thinking stops at the door in favor of indoctrination paradigms.

He did not travel to the future nor did John see the literal future. There are whole swaths of Revelation that may not ever happen if Israel repents, which I grant is unlikely but unlikely is not impossible. And this has nothing to do with attempting to "salvage some imagined sense with free will" it has to do with taking the bible to mean what it says and making every effort NOT to read one's doctrine into the text, not to mention just plain old fashion common sense and sound reason.

Further, your argument here is entirely crushed to powder when one realizes that there are several predictive prophecies in the bible that did not come to pass.

Jeremiah 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.


Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:

Judges 1:²⁷ However, Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages; for the Canaanites were determined to dwell in that land. ²⁸ And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites under tribute, but did not completely drive them out.

²⁹ Nor did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer; so the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them.

³⁰ Nor did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron or the inhabitants of Nahalol; so the Canaanites dwelt among them, and were put under tribute.

³¹ Nor did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Acco or the inhabitants of Sidon, or of Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, or Rehob. ³² So the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out.

³³ Nor did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh or the inhabitants of Beth Anath; but they dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land. Nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh and Beth Anath were put under tribute to them.

³⁴ And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountains, for they would not allow them to come down to the valley; ³⁵ and the Amorites were determined to dwell in Mount Heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim; yet when the strength of the house of Joseph became greater, they were put under tribute.

³⁶ Now the boundary of the Amorites was from the Ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela, and upward.

Judges 2: Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. ² And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? ³ Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ” ⁴ So it was, when the Angel of the Lord spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.


There are several others, not the least of which was one that Jesus Himself made...


Matthew 16:28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

And of course it is an attempt to salvage some imagined lack of free will that causes you to force those passages to mean ANYTHING AT ALL other than what they seem to mean when you simply read them.

As for Jesus' prediction about Peter, I find it amusing that Calvinists believe that if God wasn't able to sneak a peak into the future that He would be incapable of influencing events in such a way as to test Peter's faith and that He would be unable to keep roosters in the area quiet until He wanted one of them to sound off. You people worship a feeble and pathetic god who has to cheat to win or to even be trusted! Imagine that! You believe that if God isn't a control freak that plays tricks that He can't be trusted. Incredible!