Separated From God Again?

[JoeMo]

Regarding the last sentence, I don't think this is possible.  We always filter things through our paradigm/belief system; not sure what the correct term would be from philosophy.  So we never really hear God in an undiluted way.

I pretty much agree.  I  think that except for Jesus, most of the prophets even filtered their revelation through their personal filters.

Jesus Christ is amazing!  As an example of the power of an undiluted view (I just coined this phrase; hopefully it's clear), consider that Jesus said, "I do the things I see my Father do" and "I speak the things I hear My Father speak."  Where did He see and hear these things?  From Scripture.  So the beautiful picture of God's character which we see presented by Jesus Christ is based on how Jesus Christ read Scripture.  This blows my mind every time I think of it!  No one has every read the Scriptures like Jesus did!  Nobody has seen such a beautiful picture of God in Scripture.

As I think of this, this humbles me.  I recognize that there is a lot of me in the things I think and perceive, which is, of course, inevitable, and not completely undesirable (as God wants to keep our individuality in tact), but recognizing the limitations of my paradigm and understanding at least lets me be aware that there is a lot "out there" that I'm not getting, and makes me desire to be able to read Scripture like Jesus did.

All Revelation to Jesus and us doesn't come solely from scripture (Logos); a significant portion comes from the Spirit (Rhema). Take for example Acts 16:6-10:

"Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. ⁷ When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. ⁸ So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. ⁹ During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” ¹⁰ After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them."

Here is an example of Paul following the universal message of "go make disciples of every nation"; but the Spirit prohibiting him from going one place and commanding him to go someplace else.  The "Word" has the universal high-level command; and the Spirit takes it down to specifics suited to the individual recipient of the Spirit's words. Paul had the right idea of following the Spirit's urging to do what God was blessing rather than asking God to bless what he was doing.

[8thdaypriest]

Regarding the last sentence, I don't think this is possible.  We always filter things through our paradigm/belief system; not sure what the correct term would be from philosophy.  So we never really hear God in an undiluted way.

From the Spirit of Prophecy, there is a statement something like that in Scripture God is not on trial either in regards to logic or rhetoric, which makes perfect sense to me.  Only Jesus Christ had an "undiluted" view, and undistorted paradigm from which to understand God.

Jesus Christ is amazing!  As an example of the power of an undiluted view (I just coined this phrase; hopefully it's clear), consider that Jesus said, "I do the things I see my Father do" and "I speak the things I hear My Father speak."  Where did He see and hear these things?  From Scripture.  So the beautiful picture of God's character which we see presented by Jesus Christ is based on how Jesus Christ read Scripture.  This blows my mind every time I think of it!  No one has every read the Scriptures like Jesus did!  Nobody has seen such a beautiful picture of God in Scripture.

As I think of this, this humbles me.  I recognize that there is a lot of me in the things I think and perceive, which is, of course, inevitable, and not completely undesirable (as God wants to keep our individuality in tact), but recognizing the limitations of my paradigm and understanding at least lets me be aware that there is a lot "out there" that I'm not getting, and makes me desire to be able to read Scripture like Jesus did.

Double "Like" !!

I believe that we will grow and grow and grow in our "understanding" of God - His character, and His sacrifice for us, and His plan - for eternity.  How absolutely exciting and amazing!!

[B/W Photodude]

I believe that we will grow and grow and grow in our "understanding" of God - His character, and His sacrifice for us, and His plan - for eternity.  How absolutely exciting and amazing!!

That and he will give you glimpses, that have never been written, of what it will be like in heaven and the new earth.

KJV Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not. Jeremiah 33:3

[pnattmbtc]

I pretty much agree.  I  think that except for Jesus, most of the prophets even filtered their revelation through their personal filters.

Jesus did too, but He had a better filter!

I took a course on Inspiration and Revelation, and the instructor made the point that many (i.e. many Adventists, Fundamentalists have a different view) view only inspiration as involving the human element, but made the point that revelation did too.  A good example of this is Daniel, where Daniel would receive the revelation in chunks as he was able.  I wonder how often God has wanted to communicate things, but like not being able to find someone to mind the wall, no one could receive what He wanted to communicate (maybe there were all tuned to AM).

[LifeHiscost]

 

Here is an example of Paul following the universal message of "go make disciples of every nation"; but the Spirit prohibiting him from going one place and commanding him to go someplace else.  The "Word" has the universal high-level command; and the Spirit takes it down to specifics suited to the individual recipient of the Spirit's words. Paul had the right idea of following the Spirit's urging to do what God was blessing rather than asking God to bless what he was doing.

…4Make me know Your ways, O LORD; Teach me Your paths. 5Lead me in Your truth and teach me, For You are the God of my salvation; For You I wait all the day......Psalms 25

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Samie]

Thank you for the responses to my separation question, namely what it would mean for an infant to be born separate from God.  Samie said it means not to have one's name written in the book of life.  8thday said to be born with a fallen nature.  Neither of these answers seems satisfactory to me, because neither one reflects what "separatation" means.

. . .

 To be separate involves being apart.  Obviously this has nothing to do with something being written in a book.

What is obvious to one may not be to another.  It's my way of giving a short and direct reply.  And here's a short explanation to that short reply:

Why is being separate from Christ, to me, means to be NOT written in the Book of Life?  Because to be separate from Christ is to be not attached to Him, not part of His Body, not a member of the family of God, and hence of the devil and therefore, bound for the lake of fire.  And Scriptures say that those NOT found written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15).

So, for me, it is obvious that when one is separate from Christ, his name is not written in the Book of Life.

[pnattmbtc]

To be separate involves being apart.  Obviously this has nothing to do with something being written in a book.

Samie:What is obvious to one may not be to another.  It's my way of giving a short and direct reply. 

But it's an answer which makes no sense.  Having your name written in a book may *reflect* the fact that you are separated from God, but it obviously has nothing to do with what it means to be separated from God, which was my question.

Samie: And here's a short explanation to that short reply:

Why is being separate from Christ, to me, means to be NOT written in the Book of Life?  

This isn't what it means!  It may be that those who are separate from God are written in the book of life, but that wasn't my question.

Samie: Because to be separate from Christ is to be not attached to Him, not part of His Body, not a member of the family of God, and hence of the devil and therefore, bound for the lake of fire.  And Scriptures say that those NOT found written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15).

So, for me, it is obvious that when one is separate from Christ, his name is not written in the Book of Life.

Again, the last sentence wasn't my question, but thankfully you did address it above.  To be separate from Christ is to be not attached to Him, a part of His Body, or the family of God, and hence of the devil.  My question was specifically in regards to the very young, to an infant, actually, if I recall correctly.  So, in regards to infants, if an infant were separate from God, that would mean the infant is not a part of Christ's body, a member of the family of God, and hence of the devil.  Ok, thanks for your response.

[Samie]

Again, the last sentence wasn't my question, but thankfully you did address it above.  To be separate from Christ is to be not attached to Him, a part of His Body, or the family of God, and hence of the devil.  My question was specifically in regards to the very young, to an infant, actually, if I recall correctly.  So, in regards to infants, if an infant were separate from God, that would mean the infant is not a part of Christ's body, a member of the family of God, and hence of the devil.  Ok, thanks for your response.

That explains why I believe people are born written in the Book of Life.  Scriptures I think tell us that our being conceived, our being born, when and where to be born, where we are to live are all ordained by God Who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. As Adam & Eve, in creation, came into existence NOT separate from God, so their descendants, in procreation, came into existence NOT separate from Him.

[pnattmbtc]

That explains why I believe people are born written in the Book of Life.  Scriptures I think tell us that our being conceived, our being born, when and where to be born, where we are to live are all ordained by God Who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. As Adam & Eve, in creation, came into existence NOT separate from God, so their descendants, in procreation, came into existence NOT separate from Him.

I'm not comfortable with the concept "born separated from God", even though it's used a lot.  I don't see how it makes sense when applied to an infant. We could say an adult is separate from God when he or she choose to live apart from God, but an infant is making no such choice.

If all having one's name written in the book of life meant to you was not being separate from God, that would be ok from my perspective, but it is the idea that every infant or child before the age of accountability, no matter how wicked, will be taken to heaven that doesn't make sense to me.  That would lead to the conclusion I've been pointing out, that the less we take care of the very young, so they don't die, the better.  Also it implies that one's character as a child (before the age of accountaility) is irrelevant as far as salvation is concerned, which is very odd.

However, I'm all in favor of the idea that God's intent is to save everyone, and from His perspective, all humanity is included in the death of Christ.  I agree with this idea, and it's a good emphasis, just not with the idea that *God* was in any way dependent upon the death of Christ to change or impact Him in any way.  Rather, God is agape, and that's why He gave His Son.

[JoeMo]

Again, the last sentence wasn't my question, but thankfully you did address it above.  To be separate from Christ is to be not attached to Him, a part of His Body, or the family of God, and hence of the devil.  My question was specifically in regards to the very young, to an infant, actually, if I recall correctly.  So, in regards to infants, if an infant were separate from God, that would mean the infant is not a part of Christ's body, a member of the family of God, and hence of the devil. 

I don't know if you have visited 8thdaypriest's website www.prophecyviewpoint.com.  She has a study on there called the 8th Day that has a very sound explanation of how God will deal with infants and others that never had an opportunity to hear and understand the gospel.  If you have an open mind, I highly recommend it.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't know if you have visited 8thdaypriest's website www.prophecyviewpoint.com.  She has a study on there called the 8th Day that has a very sound explanation of how God will deal with infants and others that never had an opportunity to hear and understand the gospel.  If you have an open mind, I highly recommend it.

Thanks.

[8thdaypriest]

My opinion concerning infants:  They are born - just physically born.  They are not "born again".  They are NOT reconciled to God, BECAUSE reconciliation is something that happens in the mind of the individual, WHEN the person HEARS the truth of God's love (spoken most plainly through the gift of His Son), with the help of the Spirit of Christ.   

God forgave all sin, back in eternity, because that's who He is.  He is "the forgiver".  But He cannot "save" you for His eternal kingdom, UNTIL you are reconciled to Him - changing from neutral (because you don't know who He is) or worse, from enemy - to friend. 

Those who DIE as infants, are certainly NOT enemies of God.  But neither are they friends.  They must be resurrected, then taught the truths of God.  If they are alive, they WILL CHOSE.  They will either respond to the truth, or they will resist the spirit.  Those who resist will join the army of Gog/Magog.  The same applies to all those people who died in pagan cultures before the missionaries could reach them. 

The redeemed will "rule the nations" under Christ as King.  When will we do that?  The Adventist scenario just has us watching as "the nations" are deceived by Satan turned loose, until we watch again, as "the nations" (notice it doesn't say "wicked") are executed. 

[pnattmbtc]

My opinion concerning infants:  They are born - just physically born.  They are not "born again".  They are NOT reconciled to God, BECAUSE reconciliation is something that happens in the mind of the individual, WHEN the person HEARS the truth of God's love (spoken most plainly through the gift of His Son), with the help of the Spirit of Christ.   

God forgave all sin, back in eternity, because that's who He is.  He is "the forgiver".  But He cannot "save" you for His eternal kingdom, UNTIL you are reconciled to Him - changing from neutral (because you don't know who He is) or worse, from enemy - to friend. 

Those who DIE as infants, are certainly NOT enemies of God.  But neither are they friends.  They must be resurrected, then taught the truths of God.  If they are alive, they WILL CHOSE.  They will either respond to the truth, or they will resist the spirit.  Those who resist will join the army of Gog/Magog.  The same applies to all those people who died in pagan cultures before the missionaries could reach them. 

The redeemed will "rule the nations" under Christ as King.  When will we do that?  The Adventist scenario just has us watching as "the nations" are deceived by Satan turned loose, until we watch again, as "the nations" (notice it doesn't say "wicked") are executed. 

Without dealing with specifics, I agree with the general approach here, which appears to me to be looking to put God in as positive a light as possible.  The one thing that I had issue with was this:

God forgave all sin, back in eternity, because that's who He is.

One problem with this, from my perspective, is that it looks to be assuming that sin was inevitable, which I disagree with.  Also forgiving sins isn't something that can be done before sins exist.  God could be *predisposed* to forgive, should the sin happen, but He couldn't actually forgive sin until there were sins to forgive.  In order for God to actually have forgiven sin, the sin would have to exist, which would make sin eternal.

I don't see sin as either eternal or inevitable, but more as an unfortunate and costly blip, which need not have happened.

[8thdaypriest]

I believe That GOD KNEW.  He "knows the end from the beginning".    I do NOT believe that God was surprised, that sin "happened".   

If He created beings with free will - with the power to choose, HE was also creating the POSSIBILITY of sin.  Not the probability - just the possibility. 

But IF God created beings without free will, then there could be no LOVE.  And God wanted children who could LOVE. 

THIS is the reason why Satan blames God for the mess - because God was the ONE who created beings with free will. 

And God DID pay the price - for sin.  He gave His only Son, who also PAID the price. 

I believe that God beget a Son (in His express image) BEFORE anything was "created" BECAUSE of the possibility of sin.  The Father would NEED the Son, in order to reconcile created beings back to Himself. 

[No - I do NOT believe that the spirit (of God) is a third divine being.  There is NO command to worship the spirit, pray to the spirit, glorify the spirit, or praise the Spirit.  "If you know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will THE FATHER give the holy spirit to those who ask Him."  We are to pray FOR the spirit, never to the spirit.  ]

Sin led to evil men and evil angels to MURDER their own Creator.  And for created beings, sin leads inevitably to DEATH - not at the Creator's hand, but because of His absence (when created beings LEAVE HIM). 

Once sin "happened" - once Lucifer made those selfish choices, there was only ONE WAY to win back - to fully reconcile - some of the created beings.  1.  Created beings had to see, each one himself,  where sin would lead.  AND 2.  There had to be a full revelation of the LOVE of God.  (Jesus was that revelation.)

It is our understanding of THESE TWO THINGS that will keep us from EVER questioning God's character, or His will - EVER again, for all eternity, while STILL RETAINING our free will. 

You may be right pnatt, about forgiveness only happening AFTER the sin is committed.  But - if God "knows" how many hairs are on the head of each and every human being,  and sees every sparrow fall, and "declares things not yet done" (Isa. 46:10) - including the exact small town where His son would be born into the world, and the method by which He would be murdered, THEN I believe God "knew" the entire history of this world, and the history of everyone in it - from the day it was created (from the beginning). 

And if He knew about the sins that would be committed, could He not also forgive those who would commit those sins? 

God "knew" that His son would pray "Father forgive them.  They know not what they do." 

The Father does not forgive BECAUSE we "go home".  The Father has forgiven, and that is WHY we can "go home". 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2015 by 8thdaypriest

[pnattmbtc]

I believe That GOD KNEW.  He "knows the end from the beginning". 

This means He knows the end as in the end of the road.  So don't go down this road, because the end is bad.  It doesn't mean the future is a single-threaded thing of which there is only one possible path which God sees. 

[pnattmbtc]

8thday: You may be right pnatt, about forgiveness only happening AFTER the sin is committed.  But - if God "knows" how many hairs are on the head of each and every human being,  and sees every sparrow fall, and "declares things not yet done" (Isa. 46:10) - including the exact small town where His son would be born into the world, and the method by which He would be murdered, THEN I believe God "knew" the entire history of this world, and the history of everyone in it - from the day it was created (from the beginning). 

And if He knew about the sins that would be committed, could He not also forgive those who would commit those sins? 

God "knew" that His son would pray "Father forgive them.  They know not what they do." 

The Father does not forgive BECAUSE we "go home".  The Father has forgiven, and that is WHY we can "go home". 

I'm just going to address this part, as the other points seemed different topics to me.  

That's God knows all the haris on the head of each one has to do with the quality of God's knowledge, which is perfect.  Indeed, a Being who can create the Universe just be speaking, a Universe so large we cannot begin to fathom it, has intellgience the size of which is also beyond our understanding.  The question, however, is not espitemological, but ontological, which, I guess, seems to be a difficult point to grasp, but all it means is that the *content* of God's knowledge is what's under discussion, not the quavlity of God's knowledge.

So given that God knows the future perfect, He must know the future as it actually is, as opposed to as it is not.  What I am suggesting is that the future is not single-threaded, meaning there is no such thing a one given future that God can look forward and see, because it simply doesn't exist -- there is no such thing.

Instead what there is is a sea of possibilities, which only become realities until self-detemining creatures make them so.  So there was the possibility of sin, inherrent in the creation of beings with free will, but no one-given-future-where-sin-exists for God to see, only all of the possibile futures, which God saw.

So God made provision for the emergency, should it occur, but sin was at no point inevitable, which it would have been had God foreseen sin as the only possibile future. (Here people often are confused; it's not that God's foreknowledge of one given even would *cause* that event to happen, but the *logically* it wouldn't be possible for some other future to happen other than the one which God foresaw, which, among other things, would mean that our sense of free will would be illusionsary, at least under the defition of free will that Arminians used, as opposed to Calvinists.  I think that's the longest parenthetical sentence I've ever written.)

[8thdaypriest]

I'm gonna use a very small example. 

I contracted to cover a hospital 2 hours away from my home.  It's a small hospital, with only two operating rooms.  I was on call every other night, with a second CRNA.  My contract was for 3 months. 

I got a call from the agency who had set up the contract.  This was only one week into the contract.  They messed up with their scheduling, she said.  We need you to take off one week, the first week the second month, of your 2-month contract.  I said fine.  It would give me some time at home.

As I drove homeward on Monday morning of THAT week, I got a call from my husband, to tell me that my Mom had a massive stroke - just THAT MORNING.  I got to her bedside an hour later.  I was with her for 5 days, until she died.  Then I had 2 days off.  Then I went back to my assignment. 

Now - did God "see" the exact time, when my Mom was going to throw that blood clot to her brain.  I believe so.  He arranged the time off - for me.   Or maybe his angel made that blood clot break off and float up to Mom's brain, 'cause God knew it was time for her to go. 

[8thdaypriest]

pnatt,

 I don't understand why you think our "free will" would be "illusory" if God can "see" the future.  Just 'cause he "knows" something is going to happen, doesn't mean that He makes it happen.  Those are two different things.  

I can "see" that a kid is making the wrong choices, and pretty much "know" that he's going to end up addicted, or dead, or in prison.  That doesn't mean I made that happen. 

[pnattmbtc]

I'm gonna use a very small example. 

I contracted to cover a hospital 2 hours away from my home.  It's a small hospital, with only two operating rooms.  I was on call every other night, with a second CRNA.  My contract was for 3 months. 

I got a call from the agency who had set up the contract.  This was only one week into the contract.  They messed up with their scheduling, she said.  We need you to take off one week, the first week the second month, of your 2-month contract.  I said fine.  It would give me some time at home.

As I drove homeward on Monday morning of THAT week, I got a call from my husband, to tell me that my Mom had a massive stroke - just THAT MORNING.  I got to her bedside an hour later.  I was with her for 5 days, until she died.  Then I had 2 days off.  Then I went back to my assignment. 

Now - did God "see" the exact time, when my Mom was going to throw that blood clot to her brain.  I believe so.  He arranged the time off - for me.   Or maybe his angel made that blood clot break off and float up to Mom's brain, 'cause God knew it was time for her to go. 

The question is, is there more than one possibility as to what can happen in regards to the clot?  Or, is it destined to do something at a specific time?  I don't know enough about clots, but I would suspect that there are different factors involved, and something could happen to the clot at different times, depending upon these factors.  So let's simplify things and say there are 20 different scenarios, wherein something happens with the clot at different times.  Maybe all of these scenarioas happen within a short time of one another.  In this case, it would certainly be knowable that something would happen to the clot within a certain time period.

In reality, there are trillions of different possibilities (more than that), and God sees all of these.  In all of these let's say something happens to the clot between 10:00am and noon say on a given day.  God would know this, and be certain that it would happen.

What I'm arguing against is the idea that there is such a thing as *the* future which is knowable.  It's not that there is any deficiency on the part of God, but it's like asking if God can make a rock so big He can't life it.  There simply isn't any such thing as "the future".  Instead there are possible futures, and that's what God sees.

Also, and this is very important, God is not simply a passive observer.  In certain cases, God participates, and acts to accomplish His will.  Of course God can foresee His doing His will.  There doesn't have to be only one future for this to be the case.

[pnattmbtc]

8thday: I don't understand why you think our "free will" would be "illusory" if God can "see" the future.  Just 'cause he "knows" something is going to happen, doesn't mean that He makes it happen.  Those are two different things.

I addressed this in my comments.  It's not an issue of causation, but of logic.
 

8thday: I can "see" that a kid is making the wrong choices, and pretty much "know" that he's going to end up addicted, or dead, or in prison.  That doesn't mean I made that happen. 

Again, causation is not the issue.  The issue is logically if there is only one possible future, then you cannot have free will, under the Arminian definition of free will (you can under the Calvinist defition).  This doesn't involve God.  It's a question regarding whether or not the future consists of one possibility, that we simply don't know (but God does), or if the future consists of possibilities (which we also don't know, but God does).

When I have time, I'll go into more detail about this.  It's an interesting topic.

[pnattmbtc]

Here's a mathematical type proof there cannot be "one future".  It's a proof by contradiction.

Assume there is one future, and God, being omniscient, of course sees this future perfectly, and dictates to an angel
everything that will happen in a book, the book of all known facts, which has recorded everything that will happen for
any moment in time anywhere in the universe.  You are given the book to look at, and look up the time now and the location
where you are, and notice the book says, "You are reading this book."  You decide to look at what's written in one hour,
and do the following:

1.If the entry says you are not looking in the book, you will look in the book in one hour.
2.If the entry says you are looking in the book, you will not look in the book in one hour.

In either case there is a contradiction, hence there can be no such book.  However, there's no reason if there's "one future"
that such a book shouldn't be able to exist, hence there is no such thing as "one future".

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding free will, there are two main definitions used in theology, being:

1.Compatibilistic free will
2.Incompatibilistic free will, also known as libertarian free will.

Compatiblistic free will is compatible with the idea that God has ordained/predestined everything which will happen, and the idea is one has free will if one is able to do that which one wants to do.  Calvinists use this definition.

Incompatibilistic free will is incompatible with the idea that one's future is predestined, the idea being that free will means
not only can you do what you want to do, but you are able to determine your own future, by choose X instead of Y, or Y instead
of X.  There are two different choices involved, and you can choose either of these choises.  Under compatibilistic free will, there is only one choice you can choose, X, but this is ok under the Calvinist point of view because you doing what you want to do.  In other words, you are said to have free will because God is not forcing you to do something against your will, but the Arminian idea of free will is a more inclusive idea.

Now if there is only one future, which God sees, then this boils down to 1.  You have the illusion you could do either X or Y, but if God knows you will do X, you can't logically do Y.  It's not that God's knowledge forces you to choose X (actually God's knowledge is irrelevant, except for establishing the fact that there is only possible available, X) but there's a logical problem involved; if there is only one future, the future where you choose "X", then you can't choose "Y".

Think of the book of all known facts in the previous post.  If this book records you will choose "X", then you will choose "X".  You cannot choose "Y".  Even if you read in the book it says you will choose "X" and decide to choose "Y", you cannot, because it would contradict the hypothesis that there is one future which God sees and is written in the book.

[8thdaypriest]

The question is, is there more than one possibility as to what can happen in regards to the clot?  Or, is it destined to do something at a specific time?  I don't know enough about clots, but I would suspect that there are different factors involved, and something could happen to the clot at different times, depending upon these factors.  So let's simplify things and say there are 20 different scenarios, wherein something happens with the clot at different times.  Maybe all of these scenarioas happen within a short time of one another.  In this case, it would certainly be knowable that something would happen to the clot within a certain time period.

In reality, there are trillions of different possibilities (more than that), and God sees all of these.  In all of these let's say something happens to the clot between 10:00am and noon say on a given day.  God would know this, and be certain that it would happen.

What I'm arguing against is the idea that there is such a thing as *the* future which is knowable.  It's not that there is any deficiency on the part of God, but it's like asking if God can make a rock so big He can't life it.  There simply isn't any such thing as "the future".  Instead there are possible futures, and that's what God sees.

Also, and this is very important, God is not simply a passive observer.  In certain cases, God participates, and acts to accomplish His will.  Of course God can foresee His doing His will.  There doesn't have to be only one future for this to be the case.

There was NO WAY to know just when that clot would break loose, and where it would be carried to (what kind of stroke it would produce).  First there would have to BE a clot formed.  Then it would depend upon patients position, movement, blood pressure, etc. etc. etc. etc.  But the LORD knew exactly WHEN I would need those days off, (so I would not loose the whole contract), and HE knew it, three  months in advance.  OR - the whole thing was just co-incidence. 

And there's another factor.  My husband came over to spend the weekend with me, just before Mom had her stroke.  He prayed that the LORD would allow my Mom to pass, because her dementia was getting worse, and worse.  She was already in assisted living facility.  He told the LORD that he would continue to go visit the old folks at the facility, even after Mom passed.  That was in 2002, and he STILL visits there.  Serves coffee at brkfast. 

So - Mom's passing was also an answer to prayer. 

[8thdaypriest]

I believe that God created "time".  It is just one dimension.  Like the spiritual dimension (where spirits exist that we can't see) and the physical dimension. 

There are at least 5 dimensions, and probably many, many more. 

I believe that GOD exists outside of and thru every dimension.  He already exists in the future, just as He exists in the present.  So of course He "knows" what's not yet known, to us. 

Think of a river.  God is looking down on the river from space.  The river is TIME.  HE is not "in" the river.  He is looking down on the whole river.  He can "see" the river and what's in it, from one end to the other.  HE can "see" me now - at this moment, and He can see me three years from now.   He can "see" the Second Coming, and who's there. 

BEFORE He created "time" and the beings who live in that dimension - before the "beginning" of time, then there was no river, and nothing to "see" or "know". 

Our is a philosophical difference.  I believe GOD "knows" every detail of the future, because He is already "there".  

You believe that God is just infinitely good at reading the signs, and predicting, based upon probabilities.  

We humans cannot possibly "know" what or how much, God "knows".  So it's not something we can find conclusive "proof" for. 

But it is a very interesting question. 

Edited September 15, 2015 by 8thdaypriest

[JoeMo]

Rachel; I agree that the circumstances about the timing between your work schedule and your mom's demise are more than coincidence.  They are an example of God arranging the timing of events to maximize your blessing and support of your mom.

pnatt; you make a good case.  However, I don't think God thinks deterministically (one cause leads to one result); I believe God thinks stochastically or in terms of probabilities.  He takes a "random walk" (does the equivalent of a Monte-Carlo simulation for all you statistical geeks ou there); and sees every scenario a person's life can take; and offers a solution for every risk taken or threat manifested.  Jesus is NOT in the Driver's seat; He's more like a GPS telling us how to get from here to the Kingdom.  When we make a wrong turn; He says something like "Recalculating - turn [to] right[eousness] at the next opportunity".  We make a choice for or against that directive; and the process starts over.  The challenge is to reach your destination (the Kingdom) before you run out of gas (die).