Posts Made By: Brien Stratton

If the Creator of mankind had indeed exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man's creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: "Let us make man." (Ge 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the disciple James shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God's heavenly presence but are "earthly, animal, demonic" in source.-Jas 3:14-18.
Infinite exercise of foreknowledge? The argument that God's not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. Ultimately, God's own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect.-De 32:4; 2Sa 22:31; Isa 46:10.
To illustrate this, God's almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1Ch 29:11, 12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been obliterated long ago by God's executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. (Ge 6:5-8; 19:23-25, 29; compare Ex 9:13-16; Jer 30:23, 24.) God's exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy.-Ne 9:31; Ps 78:38, 39; Jer 30:11; La 3:22; Eze 20:17.

Brien

Similarly, if, in certain respects, God chooses to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him, then assuredly no human or angel can rightly say: “What are you doing?” (Job 9:12; Isa 45:9; Da 4:35) It is therefore not a question of ability, what God can foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26) The question is what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “everything that he delighted to do he has done.”—Ps 115:3.
Selective exercise of foreknowledge. The alternative to predestinarianism, the selective or discretionary exercise of God’s powers of foreknowledge, would have to harmonize with God’s own righteous standards and be consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word. In contrast with the theory of predestinarianism, a number of texts point to an examination by God of a situation then current and a decision made on the basis of such examination.
Thus, at Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jehovah advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Ge 18:20-22; 19:1) God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, Jehovah said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”—Ge 18:19; 22:11, 12; compare Ne 9:7, 8; Ga 4:9.

Selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them-not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God's arranging for a test by means of "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad" and his creation of "the tree of life" in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of "the tree of life."-Ge 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24.
To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God's Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to 'keep on asking and seeking' good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father's view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: "Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?"-Mt 7:7-11.

Brien

Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Mt 21:22; Jas 1:5, 6) He can in all sincerity urge men to 'turn back from transgression and keep living,' as he did with the people of Israel. (Eze 18:23, 30-32; compare Jer 29:11, 12.) Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness. (Compare Ac 17:30, 31; 1Ti 2:3, 4.) As Jehovah told Israel: "Nor said I to the seed of Jacob, 'Seek me simply for nothing, you people.' I am Jehovah, speaking what is righteous, telling what is upright. . . . Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth."-Isa 45:19-22.
In a similar vein, the apostle Peter writes: "Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise [of the coming day of reckoning], as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." (2Pe 3:9) If God already foreknew and foreordained millenniums in advance precisely which individuals would receive eternal salvation and which individuals would receive eternal destruction, it may well be asked how meaningful such 'patience' of God could be and how genuine his desire could be that 'all attain to repentance.' The inspired apostle John wrote that "God is love," and the apostle Paul states that love "hopes all things." (1Jo 4:8; 1Co 13:4, 7) It is in harmony with this outstanding, divine quality that God should exercise a genuinely open, kindly attitude toward all persons, he being desirous of their gaining salvation, until they prove themselves unworthy, beyond hope. (Compare 2Pe 3:9; Heb 6:4-12.) Thus, the apostle Paul speaks of "the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance."-Ro 2:4-6.

Brien

Finally if, by God's foreknowledge, the opportunity to receive the benefits of Christ Jesus' ransom sacrifice were already irrevocably sealed off from some, perhaps for millions of individuals, even before their birth, so that such ones could never prove worthy, it could not truly be said that the ransom was made available to all men. (2Co 5:14, 15; 1Ti 2:5, 6; Heb 2:9) The impartiality of God is clearly no mere figure of speech. "In every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to him." (Ac 10:34, 35; De 10:17; Ro 2:11) The option is actually and genuinely open to all men "to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us." (Ac 17:26, 27) There is no empty hope or hollow promise set forth, therefore, in the divine exhortation at the end of the book of Revelation inviting: "Let anyone hearing say: 'Come!' And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life's water free."-Re 22:17.- from the book-Insight on the Scriptures.

Brien

Mary was a descendant of the sinner Adam, hence herself imperfect and sinful. The question therefore is raised as to how Jesus, Mary's "firstborn" (Lu 2:7), could be perfect and free from sin in his physical organism. While modern geneticists have learned much about laws of heredity and about dominant and recessive characteristics, they have had no experience in learning the results of uniting perfection with imperfection, as was the case with Jesus' conception. From the results revealed in the Bible, it would appear that the perfect male life-force (causing the conception) canceled out any imperfection existent in Mary's ovum, thereby producing a genetic pattern (and embryonic development) that was perfect from its start. Whatever the case, the operation of God's holy spirit at the time guaranteed the success of God's purpose. As the angel Gabriel explained to Mary, "power of the Most High" overshadowed her so that what was born was holy, God's Son. God's holy spirit formed, as it were, a protective wall so that no imperfection or hurtful force could damage, or blemish, the developing embryo, from conception on.-Lu 1:35.
Since it was God's holy spirit that made the birth possible, Jesus owed his human life to his heavenly Father, not to any man, such as his adoptive father Joseph. (Mt 2:13-15; Lu 3:23) As Hebrews 10:5 states, Jehovah God 'prepared a body for him,' and Jesus, from conception onward, was truly "undefiled, separated from the sinners."-Heb 7:26; compare Joh 8:46; 1Pe 2:21, 22.-from the book- Insight on the Scriptures

Brien

Who here likes a good puzzle, or riddle? I have one. John the Baptist was the forerunner of Jesus Christ, and pointed the people to Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.

Here is the riddle: Jesus said the following:

" Truly I say to YOU people, Among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is." Matthew 11:11

Matthew, quoting Jesus Christ, written 41 C.E.

What does this verse mean? I am curious what your thoughts are. I will give my take on this passage later.

Brien

Yes, the virgin birth, with Mary is difficult to explain scientifically. The reason it is, is because it was a miracle, something that is out of the ordinary. Comparable to the miracle of life. One of the mysteries of life is reproduction. For many species there is a male and female. How did this difference originate?

"MIRACULOUSLY complex". Thus the journal Science News describes a woman's reproductive system. But an egg from a woman's ovaries cannot produce life on its own. For this to happen, a sperm cell from the reproductive system must combine with the nucleus of the egg. But what does the sperm do to make the egg develop? That question still puzzles scientists. Belief in evolution gives rise to another question: If the male and the female reproductive organs evolved, how had life been proceeding before the complete formation of both?

According to the theory of evolution, human life evolved from simple micoorganisms. But, unlike humans, most microorganisms come from just one parent. They reproduce on their own. How could this form of reproduction have evolved into the more complex form requiring two parents? Evolutionists find this hard to answer. This big jump is glibly described as "the invention of sexual reproduction". But some scientists have the courage to object. Professor Jaap Kies, of the University of the Western Cape, South Africa, describes it as "outrageous speculation".

Even Charles Darwin said: "We do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality; why new beings should be produced by the union of the two sexual elements, instead of by a process of parthenogenesis (reproduction requiring only one parent)...The whole subject is as yet hidden in darkness."-Charles Darwin, 1862.

With reference to Darwin's view, Science News, September 8, 1984, adds: "He might have been writing today."

"This book," states Professor George C. Williams in the preface of Sex and Evolution, "is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory."

Brien

Ernst Mayr, Profeesor Emeritus in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, in his book- What Evolution Is, page 101, says:

"Success in Darwinian evolution depends on the continuous availability of large amounts of variation. The greatest part of this phenotypic (the total of all observable features of a developing or developed individual) variation tends to be produced by recombination of the parental chromosomes, that is by sexual reproduction, a process invented by the eukaryotes."

Same book, page 48: "After about 1,000 million years of exclusively bacterial life on Earth, perhaps the most important and dramatic event in the history of life took place- the origin of the eukaryotes (amoebas, flagellates, algaes). Eukaryotes differ strikingly from prokaryotes (bacteria) by the possession of a nucleus surrounded by a membrane and containing individual chromosomes. The origin of the first eukaryote was a major evolutionary step."

Again, same book, page 47: "The origin of the eukaryotes was arguably the most important event in the whole history of life on Earth. It made the origin of all the more complex organisms, plants, fungi, and animals possible. Nucleated cells, sexual reproduction, meiosis (a special form of nuclear division that occurs in sexually reproducing organisms), and all the other unique properties of the more advanced multicellular organisms are achievements of the descendants of the first eukaryotes."

Brien

So, we have evolutionists attributing "creative powers" to the eukaryotes (amoebas, flagellates, algaes). They are the ones who "invented" sexual reproduction. Professor Mayr though, fails to say how this happened.

In contrast, people who believe in direct creation by God, can give a reasonable answer: God created the eukaryotes, he created them "male and female", so they could reproduce.

Same goes with man. They are male and female. How did this happen? According to the Bible at Genesis 1:27:

"And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him, male and female he created them." (see also Jesus' words at Matthew 19:4)

My opinion of course.

Brien