How many times does it take for an answer? If he joins or leaves the Catholic church, does it matter in his salvation according to double predestination.
Or, try this: According to double predestination is there *anything* he can do to change whether he is saved or doomed from the moment of his birth until the day he dies?
Ahhh. Thank you. That wasn't so bad, was it?
I answered it three times. God is omniscient means "all seeing, all knowing." The set of "everything that would ever occur in time at the moment of creation" is included in "all." Even more is included in "omniscient" than your question. Your question was answered twice before - assuming you know what omniscient means.
f you would or would not be joining Him in heaven, do you think there is any way you can change God's foreknowledge of that outcome?
Foreknowledge is not causal.
it seems to me that in order to be the sovereign Lord of all creation He says He is in Scripture, that whatever that "something" is will most certainly occur according to the omniscience of God.
Irrelevant to double predestination. Knowing is not causing. That's why I said to begin with, it's irrelevant to your point.
Now Calvinists believe that God not only foresees the future, but that He ordains the future. But for now, we won't bother with that.
I don't blame you. That way you head down the road towards the cruel, unmerciful, unjust god of Calvin.
So when you accuse Calvinists of saying a man's fate is already known to God and therefore set in stone, you are really challenging what you've already said you believe.
Horsehockey. Again a non sequitur from omniscience to double predestination.
You're still looking at it from the wrong perspective. A child of God would most likely not join an apostate church. If he did, he would eventually leave it.
Most likely. With God, all things are possible.
I understand your repetitive questions. I can only tell you that you they are nonsensical. A child of God will want to seek out a place to worship God according to the Scriptures. A man who is not a child of God will either head in the wrong direction or not care about God at all.
Foreknowledge is not causal.
I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing that if God has foreknown your eternal destination, how do you presume you can change it? At the moment of creation, God knew where you'd end up. Any alterations or changes of direction are all factored into God's omniscience.
What God knows is what is.
So you see, if you were to rid yourself of your "free will" myopia you would realize you just agreed that some men go to heaven and some men go to hell and those outcomes are set in stone and have been from the moment God created time and life.
So I'll ask you the same question you just asked me. "Is there *anything* he can do to change whether he is saved or doomed from the moment of his birth until the day he dies?"
Is there, if God already knows where that man will end up?
Horsehockey.
Tell it to God. Then tell us how you can change an outcome that you've already admitted God has foreseen as fact.
And "doomed" is not the Scriptural designation since "doomed" implies that an alternative result was desired by the man. The correct way to speak of these two difference courses is one man is acquitted of his sins and one man remains condemned in his sins.
And that acquittal is not "of him that runs or of him that wills, but of God who shows mercy."
Further, these several things:
First, God does not, strictly speaking "foreknow." He knows.
This follows from Aquinas's "First Way" and the impossibility that the uncaused Cause of All should change. Support for the changlessness of God is found in Ps 90 and 2 Peter 3:8, though one has to think a little.
Second, we know from the Incarnation and Passion that God's freedom and power are so beyond our understanding that they, just as changeless eternity comprehends time and change, comprehend restrictions on the exercise of power. Or one could say that God can direct freedom without compromising it.
Our opponents do not understand what transcendence means or the necessity of analogy in theology. They see the power of a dictator and extrapolate it beyond reason and apply it to God.
Third (really secundae secunda), they apply transcendence to the justice of God, so that they respond to objections by challenging our ability to understand God's justice, or our standing as clay to question the potter. But then they insist that they understand enough about omniscience to maintain that it necessarily means man cannot be free. They are inconsistent in the application of their own methods.