This may be true in a sense. It’s true, in a sense, for the children of believing parents, isn’t it? If you die as a baby and your parents were believing parents, you will certainly be saved, and won’t even have to face a character test. But if God permitted everybody to die as babies, the population of the world would have been extinct just after Adam and Eve.


Perhaps the words “God chooses the best moment for everyone to die” do not express exactly what I mean, but I’m sure you got the idea. How, specifically, do you disagree with the idea I’m trying to convey?

it follows that ALL children of unsaved believers (who wouldn't later choose to accept Christ) would be better off dead.

This may be true in a sense. It’s true, in a sense, for the children of believing parents, isn’t it? If you die as a baby and your parents were believing parents, you will certainly be saved, and won’t even have to face a character test. But if God permitted everybody to die as babies, the population of the world would have been extinct just after Adam and Eve.

By this argument, you've disproved your own hypothesis. The "best moment" to die would be as a baby, so as to be sure to be saved (in the case of believing parents; maybe saved but certainly not lost for unbelieving parents) yet God doesn't do that, because the race couldn't continue. This is what I hear you saying. Therefore God doesn't choose the best moment for everybody to die.


Quote:
So either way the hypothesis that God chooses the best moment for everyone to die fails in the case of children of unsaved parents.

Perhaps the words “God chooses the best moment for everyone to die” do not express exactly what I mean, but I’m sure you got the idea. How, specifically, do you disagree with the idea I’m trying to convey?

If you wish to agree that it's not true that "God chooses the best moment for everyone to die" why not admit that, and start a new thread with whatever it is you are wishing to assert? I think that would be best.

I don't know what you mean. I've been assuming you meant what you wrote, that "God chooses the best moment for everyone to die." You may have noticed that I haven't said you were wrong, by the way. I've been presenting what I perceive to be logical difficulties with the position you've been presenting. This isn't something I've discussed before. I'm open to different possibilities. I'm just not seeing that the position you've been suggesting is logically viable.

TE: No, MM, what you are suggesting is not my argument. I invite you to consider each of the points a) through e). This argument is not dependent upon one's view of the future.

MM: There is nothing about your argument that takes into consideration the fact that God knows ahead of time exactly who will choose to be saved and who will not choose to be saved. Therefore, God will not allow anyone, certain slaves or children, to die before their final decision regarding salvation is obvious to the onlooking universe. Thus, your argument doesn't address my point.


Again, your argument assumes God does not know if a child would have been saved or lost if He had not allowed them to die. In light of the title of this thread - Does God Choose the Best Moment for Every Person to Die? - the answer is a resounding, Yes! not maybe or who knows.

TE: No, MM, what you are suggesting is not my argument. I invite you to consider each of the points a) through e). This argument is not dependent upon one's view of the future.

MM: There is nothing about your argument that takes into consideration the fact that God knows ahead of time exactly who will choose to be saved and who will not choose to be saved.

That's because the argument is neither addressing that nor is it dependent upon that.

Therefore, God will not allow anyone, certain slaves or children, to die before their final decision regarding salvation is obvious to the onlooking universe.

The slaves referred to and children before the age of accountability haven't made a final decision, because they never had the opportunity. That's why (excluding the saved children)
they aren't resurrected.

Thus, your argument doesn't address my point.

Which is what?


a)Millions of Jews before the age of accountability were killed.
b)Presumably most of these were brought up by unbelieving parents.
c)Some pct. of these will not be saved.
d)This leaves a huge number of children who will not be saved (i.e. take part in the first resurrection) unless you wish to make the claim that *all* children of unbelieving parents will be saved.
e)The only way that none of the huge number of children would be better off had they not been killed is if none of them would have been saved had they lived.

Again, your argument assumes God does not know if a child would have been saved or lost if He had not allowed them to die.

No, this assertion is wrong. My argument makes no such assumption.

In light of the title of this thread - Does God Choose the Best Moment for Every Person to Die? - the answer is a resounding, Yes! not maybe or who knows.

I'm having difficulty seeing how this is logically viable, as the above argument outlines. Perhaps you could address the argument.

Some other questions as well:

a.Did God choose the moment for the Jews of the holocaust to die, or Hitler? (or both; perhaps you are asserting that Hitler was simply following God's will.)
b.If it's a good thing for Jewish children to die in the holocaust, why wouldn't it be a good thing at other times as well? (I write "good thing" because I'm assuming that everything God chooses is a good thing)

In a sense, but this would be true just for Adam’s children (he wouldn’t have had grandchildren); if this happened, neither God’s nor Satan’s character would have been revealed, and the great controversy would go on indefinitely. Besides, Jesus died to afford man a second trial of character, and children do not have this trial.
The fact is that God affords the best opportunities for everybody to be saved, whether children or adults, within the limitations of their circumstances. God has in view even the future opportunities people will have of accepting Him, and preserves their lives accordingly. I don’t know how to express this in a better way than what I’ve already done. If you have a better way of expressing it, feel free to do so. Also, if you disagree with any of these ideas, feel free to say so.

That's easy for you to say because you do not believe God knows the future like He knows the past, like a rerun.


Maybe from your perspective, but you don't know people like God does. He knows the end from the beginning. He knows who will choose to be saved and who will not choose to be saved before they are even conceived. He also knows precisely when they will make their final decision, thus He can allow someone to die before they make it. Because God knows what decision they are going to make, He can allow them to die before they make it without jeopardizing their eternal destiny. It is imputed.


That God knows who will choose to be saved and who will not choose to be saved before they are even conceived, and that He knows the best moment for every person to die.


The reason your argument does not include God's foreknowledge is because you do not believe He knows ahead of time who will choose to be saved and who will not choose to be saved. Your argument does not indicate that God knows the future like a rerun. I assume it doesn't because you do not believe it.


I did, but you are unable to see it because you do not believe God knows the future like He knows the past, like a rerun. Otherwise, you would see that your A thru E argument is based on our inability to know the choices people would have made had they not died.


A. As you know, many Jews were miraculously saved from death during the Holocaust. Others were not. Why? I believe it is because God was in control - not Hitler. God decides if people are going to live or die; He chooses the best moment for every person to die.

B. It is always the right time when God allows someone to die. He doesn't need a holocaust. True, God allowed Hitler to murder Jews, but He would have preferred it if circumstances did not lead to such atrocities. God hates sinning and death. He wants everyone to live for Jesus. But sinning and the great controversy make death a necessary evil.

It was God who denied mankind access to the Tree of Life. Thus, death is not only inevitable, it is also a blessing in disguise. Nevertheless, God chooses the best moment for every person to die. He does not leave it to random chance, or to any other thing. God is in control of when someone dies - not death, not disease, not accidents, not sin, not Satan, not evil people.

By this argument, you've disproved your own hypothesis. The "best moment" to die would be as a baby

In a sense, but this would be true just for Adam’s children (he wouldn’t have had grandchildren); if this happened, neither God’s nor Satan’s character would have been revealed, and the great controversy would go on indefinitely. Besides, Jesus died to afford man a second trial of character, and children do not have this trial.

This is just more evidence that your hypothesis was false. I agree with what you're saying.

The fact is that God affords the best opportunities for everybody to be saved, whether children or adults, within the limitations of their circumstances. God has in view even the future opportunities people will have of accepting Him, and preserves their lives accordingly. I don’t know how to express this in a better way than what I’ve already done. If you have a better way of expressing it, feel free to do so. Also, if you disagree with any of these ideas, feel free to say so.

Here's what we can affirm:

a.Because of God's character (being good, just, loving, etc.), God will always act in the best interest of those He loves, even though it involves sacrifice on His part.
b.We live in an unjust world, and people suffer unjustly.

I think we simply don't have enough information to assert more than this. I take it we can agree that you hypothesis that God chooses the best moment for everyone to die is false?

We can agree that God takes all things into account, including the future, in making decisions as to whether He will intervene, but these factors are just so vastly complicated, beyond our ability to fathom, that we can't assert more than that God will act in harmony with His character of love, justice, mercy, and so forth, as He has revealed Himself to be in Jesus Christ.

Here's a specific example. There was a case where a person was about to die, and Ellen White prayed for this man to be healed. This was a man who was not right with God. God healed the man, and he was three times worse after being healed than before. Ellen White asked God why He healed the man. He responded, "Because you asked." That's one of my favorite stories.

Here we see an example of God's healing a person, not because it was the best time for him to die, but as an answer to prayer. Hezekiah might be another example.

We can trust that the judge of the earth will do right. But it's a solemn reality that we live in a world of sin, and unjust things happen, which can have eternal consequences.

TE: No, MM, what you are suggesting is not my argument. I invite you to consider each of the points a) through e). This argument is not dependent upon one's view of the future.

MM: There is nothing about your argument that takes into consideration the fact that God knows ahead of time exactly who will choose to be saved and who will not choose to be saved.

That's because the argument is neither addressing that nor is it dependent upon that.

That's easy for you to say because you do not believe God knows the future like He knows the past, like a rerun.

It doesn't matter, MM. As I've pointed out several times now, this isn't relevant. I can easily find people for you who would agree with the points I'm making here who don't share my perspective on the future.

Because God knows what decision they are going to make, He can allow them to die before they make it without jeopardizing their eternal destiny. It is imputed.

What does this mean? Are you saying something like God looks at one of the Jewish children who died in the holocaust, sees what they would have done had the lived, and if they would have accepted Christ at some point in the future, He takes them to heaven?

That God knows who will choose to be saved and who will not choose to be saved before they are even conceived, and that He knows the best moment for every person to die.

God may know the best moment for every person to die, but that doesn't mean He chooses it for them. For example, the best moment for a Jewish child of the holocaust to die could be seen by God to be after living a long, propersous life, somewhere along the way having accepted Christ. But Adolf Hitler had this child killed, and the moment that God foresaw would be the best moment for the child's death didn't happen.

Evil men counteract God's will. We pray, "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" precisely because God's will is not done on earth as it is in heaven.

The reason your argument does not include God's foreknowledge is because you do not believe He knows ahead of time who will choose to be saved and who will not choose to be saved. Your argument does not indicate that God knows the future like a rerun. I assume it doesn't because you do not believe it.

No, MM, this has nothing to do with it. As I stated, I can easily find people who would agree with the argument who do not share my view of the future. You're trying to introduce something into the argument which doesn't belong there. The argument stands as stated regardless of whether one holds to an open view of the future, or the traditional Armenian model.

I did, but you are unable to see it because you do not believe God knows the future like He knows the past, like a rerun. Otherwise, you would see that your A thru E argument is based on our inability to know the choices people would have made had they not died.

No, MM, you haven't addressed the argument. A logical argument has premises and then a reasoned conclusion. To address the argument you need to look at the premises and the reasoned conclusion. You need to argue that one or more premise is incorrect, or that the reasoning from premises to conclusion is invalid. You have not done this. I would welcome you to do so.

A. As you know, many Jews were miraculously saved from death during the Holocaust. Others were not. Why? I believe it is because God was in control - not Hitler. God decides if people are going to live or die; He chooses the best moment for every person to die.

The question of whether God chooses the best moment for every person to die is what we're discussing. You can't simply assert it. That has no value. You need to develop some sort of an argument to support the assertion.

To follow logically from what you're written, if God is in control, and not Hitler, then every person that Hitler killed is because that was God's choice. Do you agree with this?

This falls within God's permissive will, and everything God permits has a purpose.


If you will reason in terms of God's perfect will, the best moment for every person to die is never. But if He must permit people to die, He always has in view their salvation. I believe He won't permit anyone to die unsaved if this person could be saved in the future.

Tom:To follow logically from what you're written, if God is in control, and not Hitler, then every person that Hitler killed is because that was God's choice. Do you agree with this?

Rosangela:This falls within God's permissive will, and everything God permits has a purpose.

Certainly the first part of what you wrote is true, as God is all-powerful, and could prevent anything He chose from happening. The second part is less clear. Certainly the purpose of the thing God permits is not necessarily God's purpose, in the sense of something God wants, desires, or plans should happen.

For example, God permitted Lucifer to rebel, but this served no purpose. The alternative would have been worse, so God determined to allow the rebellion to continue, so its fruit could be seen, but God did not desire or intend or plan that the rebellion should happen.

In relation to the holocaust, God did not want millions of Jews to be killed. He did not plan, intend, or desire that millions (or hundreds of thousands; whatever the number is) of unsaved children should perish without ever having had the opportunity to respond to the Gospel. The only purpose served was to demonstrate the sinfulness of sin.


Quote:
God may know the best moment for every person to die, but that doesn't mean He chooses it for them. For example, the best moment for a Jewish child of the holocaust to die could be seen by God to be after living a long, propersous life, somewhere along the way having accepted Christ. But Adolf Hitler had this child killed, and the moment that God foresaw would be the best moment for the child's death didn't happen.

If you will reason in terms of God's perfect will, the best moment for every person to die is never. But if He must permit people to die, He always has in view their salvation. I believe He won't permit anyone to die unsaved if this person could be saved in the future.

This argument looks to fall down. From before:

a)Millions of Jews before the age of accountability were killed.
b)Presumably most of these were brought up by unbelieving parents.
c)Some pct. of these will not be saved.
d)This leaves a huge number of children who will not be saved (i.e. take part in the first resurrection) unless you wish to make the claim that *all* children of unbelieving parents will be saved.
e)The only way that none of the huge number of children would be better off had they not been killed is if none of them would have been saved had they lived.

You either have to argue that all children of unsaved parents will be saved (in which we should kill them all), or there will be a huge number of unsaved children who would never have had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. If, say, 5% of these would have accepted Christ, that's maybe 100,000 children that could have been saved that won't be. One could argue that God would miraculously prolong the life of someone to have the opportunity to be saved, and no doubt He did do that in some cases, but not in 100,000 cases. There's just too many children not accounted for to make the argument that not a single child died unsaved that wouldn't have been saved had he or she lived. The evidence doesn't fit the suggested hypothesis.