You have to define terms. You said Daniel was probably settled into truth. Daniel was a sincere child of God. You are a sincere child of God. Are you settled into truth? If so, why? If not, why not?


You had said, “If none of those possible futures includes the person either rejecting God or accepting Him, as the case may be, then He can be sure of that person's future.”
So I assume you believe that no person who dies would ever have had, if he/she had remained alive, any other chance of accepting or rejecting God. Is this what you believe?

Following along with Rosangela's question, how would God know when a person has committed the unpardonable sin?

Daryl, What does "heaven itself was imperiled" mean? Under the perspective you are suggesting, which is, I understand it, that there is only one possible future which God knows see like a T.V. rerun, how could heaven be in any danger?

Are just some persons settled into truth or are all the sincere children of God?

You asked the question, so the terms are yours, so you have to define them. In particular, I've never used used the phrase "sincere children of God." What do you mean by that? Do you mean one who is settled into the truth? Or something else?

Tom:Regarding question two, God is going to resurrect everyone in one of two resurrections (assuming they are resurrected at all). How could He do this if He were not sure of their future?

Rosangela:You had said, “If none of those possible futures includes the person either rejecting God or accepting Him, as the case may be, then He can be sure of that person's future.”
So I assume you believe that no person who dies would ever have had, if he/she had remained alive, any other chance of accepting or rejecting God. Is this what you believe?

Why do you assume this? What I am saying is that the fact that God knows that someone will not reject Him does not imply that the future must be like a T.V. rerun.

People are judged according to the choices they made during their life, not according to what they might have done had they continued to live. I'm not following how you reason that believing that God can know that a person will not reject Him without seeing the future as being like a T.V. rerun would imply anything about what a person might have done had they lived.

In the first place, why would you think that God is dependent upon knowing the future at all to know that a person has committed the unpardonable sin? This is an aspect of character, not of foreknowledge.

Secondly, God knows everything a person can possibly do. If there is no future scenario in which the person responds to the Holy Spirit, as would be the case when one has committed the unpardonable sin, God would certainly know that.

The unpardonable sin is when one so hardens one's heart against the Holy Spirit that there is nothing more that God can do to win such a one. God could know when a person's heart is so hardened just by considering his/her present condition. God knows the heart.

Do I really have to define what a sincere child of God is? It's someone who is following Christ sincerely, who is not a hypocrite. If you fall in this category, please tell me if you are settled into truth, or when someone is settled into truth, or if everyone who dies is either settled into truth or lost. I just want to understand your view.


Sure. But we know, for instance, that the lives of some unsaved people are miraculously spared, after which they have the opportunity to accept Christ, while some unsaved people die prematurely. If God doesn't know the future of these people, this is unfair, isn't it?

Regarding things being fair, I think things are unfair because we live in a world which has been marred by sin. Just being born in such a world is unfair.

Your question seems to be predicated on the assumption that if a person would have chosen to accept Christ had they lived at some point in the future then it would be unfair for God to allow them to die without having accepted Christ. Is that correct?

We know there are slaves who were not given the opportunity to accept Christ because of being treated like brutes their whole life. They will not be resurrected. Their masters will be held responsible. Applying the same logic, wouldn't it have been unfair of God to have allowed this to happen? Surely if the slaves had not been enslaved, some of them would have accepted Christ and obtained eternal life. These didn't even have the opportunity to have eternal life. That's not fair.

Similarly there are children of unsaved parents who die who won't be taken to heaven. Surely some of these would have accepted Christ and received eternal life. That's not fair. Or is it your belief that God would not allow this to happen? (i.e. no child of unsaved parents who will not be in heaven would have accepted Christ had they lived).

Anyway, in answer to your question as to whether it fair or unfair, I do think that it's unfair, but not because of whether the future is single-threaded or open, nor because of any action of God.

To answer your original question, using your definition of a sincere child of God being someone who is not a hypocrite, I would say not every sincere child of God is settled into the truth. Peter jumps to mind as an example of this.

People who don’t have the mental capacity to accept Christ (whether children or slaves treated like brutes) won’t have to face the judgment and the lake of fire. Although they were in disadvantage, anyone can see that God will deal justly with them. In fact, God will deal justly with everybody. Even pagans who have never known Christ can be saved. What I believe is that God chooses the best moment for every person to die. I don’t believe God judges anyone on the basis of His foreknowledge of what would be the future choices of that person, but I do believe that God uses His foreknowledge to ensure that that person will have, within the limitations of his/her circumstances, the best opportunities to respond to the Holy Spirit’s work. Even sometimes sparing his/her life because He knows he/she will accept Him in the future.

I created a new topic out of Tom's response to Rosangela's post.