@nuclearboy: I think Ecc 9:11 is discussing the aspect I called man's will / choices and decisions (strong, swift, well-trained, whatever), with respect to time and chance (laws and systems that are rigid and definite).

What I mean is that there are "internal" requirements: your own choices, preparation, decision, etc and then there are the external ones: the laws and systems that give no regard to anyone, but are like clockwork, like the planets in revolution around the Sun. And of course, there is God's design: the intervention of God [by the way, I think God's intervention happens far more often than we even know about. My point was that we can't force his hand and "make him" do stuff].

So when Ecc 9:11 says the fast don't always win, it means that, for instance, as a friend said yesterday, LOL, maybe, "Make una train, train, train, sotey, E go shock you say na Serbia go win world cup".   meaning that there are external factors that you need to be tuned in to. It's not just about you: you are swift, you are intelligent, etc but there are things beyond you that unravel through time and (look like) chance. They are systems and laws in operation, IMHO.

@toba: LOL its nuclearboy, not viaro.

Que sera sera is nonsense.
Man determines the outcome and not God.
After setting in motion all lifes machinery in Genesis, God has put man in charge of all things including free will, to act and take decisions that determines his future.
Is it God that told people like dawkins not to believe in him after giving them free will. A Drug baron was killed in 2008 and his fellow. He knew drug trafficking was unlawful and sin against God engaged in it till death. He simply choose his destiny and not God

@Inesqor:

Your post then suggests that it is God that determines destiny. Brazil practices, trains etc and is the best but Serbia wins because as you have rightly said, God intervenes (rightly as you've said: more often than we think or know).

I remember Proverbs "the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" and the story of Pharaoh's sturbonness being attributed to God's intervention. How then does a man believe he is responsible for what obtains?

Conversely though, and this is (to me) confusing comes the idea that we have freewill. The way most intepret this is that man chooses to do wrong as the human "jesus" amongst us has just said, whist God chooses to do right. Yet God refuses to define Himself except as HIMSELF (not good or bad, fair or not, etc) Consider the idea that God foreordained some as sons etc which does not involve their will. Those not foreordained; can they become sons?

@nuclearboy: Actually, I wouldnt say God absolutely determines destinies, either. Rather, I would say he presets the situation before all the participants come to the stage, like he set up stuff like gravity and the ecosystems before he fashioned man and placed him on earth. So, there are some things that, maybe, if Serbia does in a particular way (they may be non-skill related), they would win. But maybe they don't do those things, so Brazil still gets to win.

I tend to think in pictures so analogies flash across my mind as I talk. LOL. Consider this "time and chance" thing like a conditioning. It's like a thermostat that has been set to regulate the temperature in a room. When the occupants enter the room, the conditioning is there already but it does not force them to take off their clothes for the heat, or to keep wearing their clothes and sweat like crazy. That is still their choice. Like a thermostat, there are conditions that are pre-imposed upon existence and inexistence in all realms, but the choice of line of action is still in the hands of the sentient entities involved. And there is still the third part of the mix: God can decide to switch off the thermostat at any point in time for his own good purposes.

That verse in Proverbs is the same one I quoted, howbeit a different translation!

I don't believe that God foreordained some as sons forcefully; rather I believe that God has seen the end from the beginning, so he knows which people would be sons. Please permit another of my analogies

If I, as a human being, am watching an ant walking along my floor, I can see what all its options are. It could move to the right and climb the wall, or stop to pick a grain of sugar on its path, or it could just keep on in a straight line. As a limited mortal, I can see these options for a short distance of the ant's travel, and I know all the possibilities. I know, for instance, that whichever way, the ant will be alive and moving in the next 5 minutes. On an infinite scale, God sees all of man's choices and decisions, and he foreknows the end from the beginning. That's my understanding of predestination. E.g. God knew Jacob would be superior to Esau, whichever way it played out. It wasn't just because of the birthright, because if in spite of it, one of the brothers had to be more prosperous anyway, and God looked into the future (which is the same time for us) and saw Jacob more prosperous, and that's what he said when Jacob and Esau were in the womb!

^^^ I like your Jacob/Esau analogy. But it brings something to mind - Which came first, God's Word on who would be the greater or the "manifestation/answer"? Thats what I call pre-destined.

Another way you could answer this is - at creation, Inesqor, which came first [1] "Let there be Light" OR [2] Light?

God SPEAKS things into existence, Brother, not looks ahead to see which will win.

LoL you are correct, nuclearboy. That's the risk of an anthropocentric discussion of God. . . I was starting to make it sound like it's a human I am speaking of. Yes, he speaks it into existence, but where it is all different is that, I believe, the exact moment he speaks it, it IS. But it may take some time to be physically manifest to us who are time-bound. . .

So, when he speaks forth the ones who would be sons (or rather, are, sons), in the physical some of them may be far away from it but will be of the number. And some will look like they are of them, but they are not. My 2 cents.

time bound - priceless qualification and the misunderstanding of which is a source of a lot of confusion. And we all are confused

Being outside of time, I sincerely believe there's a lot of God's ways we can't know (for now)

Guys, sorry I had a call and had to log out initially. The point is that this word "luck" is huge - and the ancillary "chance" is another world entirely. Think about this on very involved situations - at what level does God involve "luck" or "chance" at salvation issues of our lives?

Or, to put it more light-heartedly: there are people who bet in one way or another on the outcomes of the the ongoing world cup tournament. Living in the UK, I saw guys "betting" their luck by chance the goals between the UK and the USA. I wondered (sort of cheekily, forgive me): at what level is God involved at the bets or "luck" or "chances" or casting a lot or even the cards and toss of coins or the throwing of the dice.

I know that we sometimes read some verses and take them at face value. I'm just wondering if such verses as Prov. 16:33 and Eccl. 9:11 are applicable across board.

^^ I wonder the same and so used [1] confusing [2] our present part knowledge to acknowledge same.

The issue of salvation though is something I think I'd like to believe is off such paramount concern that I doubt God would leave it to "chance". Football results are another matter, I hope

The sovereignity of God is established over all things being the default/manufacturer.This brings all occurences under the umbrella of the 'will' of God. NB Gods will could be active or passive, meaning God gives free will&allows things to dictate it self while he may be involved or not.In jobs case, he allowed satan,with God not participating at all,while in other cases he participates actively.lamentations 3vs37. Now my point is that in mans destiny God is passive&man is active. Man determines the outcome&not God

IMHO, God leaves nothing to chance. There's no luck but grace with Him. Pls compare Ecc. 9:11 with Rom. 9:16, 1Sam.3-9, Lk 1:52-53,Jer9:23,10:23.

Was David's victory over Goliath of Himself or of God? About that of Gideon over the Midianites? The list is endless.

@All.

Is God's foreknowledge certain or does it depend on what we would do?

^^^ My point exactly. His foreknowledge is certain. However, my question/query arises on the issue of priorities - does everything have the same priority level or are some things left to us with just an overview of say like, a final result without details being set in stone?

nuclearboy:

^^ I wonder the same and so used [1] confusing [2] our present part knowledge to acknowledge same.

The issue of salvation though is something I think I'd like to believe is off such paramount concern that I doubt God would leave it to "chance". Football results are another matter, I hope

opportunity meets preparation is a popular saying.To be saved Gods rule is clear believe in Christ&God.Anyone that decides to reject God knowingly has choosen hs/hr destiny to be in the lake of fire. However vs 2 of the popular song TO GOD BE THE GLORY&an unbeliever who at death bed had an opportunity to reconcile with God through someone elses preaching can be likened to 2nd chance from God

nuclearboy:

^^^ My point exactly. His foreknowledge is certain. However, my question/query arises on the issue of priorities - does everything have the same priority level or are some things left to us with just an overview of say like, a final result without details being set in stone?

^^ I like that - "without details being set in stone", which is why I'm concerned about the idea that 'destiny' is stretched to mean that something which will inevitably happen in the future and as such, regardless what anyone does they are just helpless.

Which means man has no control over destiny save for God? Why then were we told to work out our own salvation? If God knows the outcomes,we should then go with 'Que sera sera' not so viaro?
Im confused here oo

viaro:

^^ I like that - "without details being set in stone", which is why I'm concerned about the idea that 'destiny' is stretched to mean that something which will inevitably happen in the future and as such, regardless what anyone does they are just helpless.

If all events are not foreknown certainly, how could we tell which were certainly forknown and which were not?

toba:

Which means man has no control over destiny save for God? Why then were we told to work out our own salvation? If God knows the outcomes,we should then go with 'Que sera sera' no so viaro?

God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are seemingly irreconcilable, however both are taught by the scriptures.

toba:

Which means man has no control over destiny save for God? Why then were we told to work out our own salvation? If God knows the outcomes,we should then go with 'Que sera sera' not so viaro?
Im confused here oo

5solas:

If all events are not foreknown certainly, how could we tell which were certainly forknown and which were not?

Lol, I tend to see outcomes as applicable in general aspects of our lives - but 'destiny' should be used with caution in very specific cases (examples already highlighted by several posters). If we brush this aside, then what would we say about those Bible versions like the GNB that talk about "unpredictable events" in Eccl. 9:11?? Where's the certainty in what is "unpredictable"? Or, like other versions put it: "bad luck" - how do you reconcile that with certainty?

@Toba:

Have you ever considered that some get 20 opportunities to "meet" God whist some seemingly never get even the one chance? I remember my bro-in-law telling me that Herbert Ogunde gave his life on his death bed and me wondering if that wasn't unfair due to some things I heard he'd done earlier in life especially as some victims went without such a "meet" with God?

Jesus said "those who the Father GAVE to Him". Would that not suggest some were not given and may not have the opportunity just for that reason (that they were not given)?

Everything our muslim and atheist friends here write that I am aware of I return to later and think through even when I quarrel over it - its the beauty of Christianity that we are not meant to find excuse for God but to test EVERY Spirit. Spirits include "understandings" - If then, we rethink such, is it wrong that we consider that maybe we are as the Bible says "a Chosen People" and then examine ALL possible meanings of that phrase?

Like Viaro says above, the issue is "are these things set in stone?" which would mean this is all just a replay and we're as pre-programmed robots. And 5solas brings even more controversy when he rightly points out that BOTH God's Will/Sovereignity and man's Responsibility are taught by scripture.

Which brings me again to priorities - are there varying priorities for issues whereby though we may never be certain of which is ours and which God's, we have a situation where some things are "rigidly" set in stone and others loosely so. the rigid would belong to God 100% and the loose man to an extent we cannot quantify.

''All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment;
whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who
should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should
be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be
condemned''.
- Martin Luther (Preface to the epistle to the Romans)

^^ You scared me there, 5solas. When I saw "epistles to the Romans", I wondered how I'd missed those words.

But these were Martin Luther's thoughts, bro and whist we all have respect for him and the role he played in getting the Bible into private hands, he still remains just man like us all.

It does sound nice and valuable and all that but I doubt it can be taken as Scripture. I'd still say lets keep our options open.

nuclearboy:

^^ You scared me there, 5solas. When I saw "epistles to the Romans", I wondered how I'd missed those words.

But these were Martin Luther's thoughts, bro and whist we all have respect for him and the role he played in getting the Bible into private hands, he still remains just man like us all.

It does sound nice and valuable and all that but I doubt it can be taken as Scripture. I'd still say lets keep our options open.

I didn't mean to, very sorry.

But seriously , it might surprise so many of us to see that virtually all the reformers were of this opinion and I will give

necessary references as we go along. Things only started changing with the emergence of Arminianism which only just managed to escape

condemnation as a heresy at the synod of Dordt.

Often, I have observed we are afraid to let scripture speak for itself because of what an admittance of what it says would amount to or we imagine it would amount to.

5solas:

Often, I have observed we are afraid to let scripture speak for itself because of what an admittance of what it says would amount to or we imagine it would amount to.

Happens to everyone - I might as well risk saying "everyone" (that is, believers in general). Perhaps, it is not so much a problem of letting Scripture speak for itself - it might be more about 'human factor' wanting to be the microphone of what we think Scripture is saying (ie., our interpretations often get in the way). But you made very good point: people have to think of what implications underlie what they call 'scripture'.

^^ fair points BUT I wonder - ALL things being predetermined by God would be a licence to whatever we feel like since "its all settled whether I'm for heaven or condemnation".

Seems so "settled" to me

viaro:

Happens to everyone - I might as well risk saying "everyone" (that is, believers in general). Perhaps, it is not so much a problem of letting Scripture speak for itself - it might be more about 'human factor' wanting to be the microphone of what we think Scripture is saying (ie., our interpretations often get in the way). But you made very good point: people have to think of what implications underlie what they call 'scripture'.

I totally agree with you.

nuclearboy:

^^ fair points BUT I wonder - ALL things being predetermined by God would be a licence to whatever we feel like since "its all settled whether I'm for heaven or condemnation".

Ah there! That was the "implication" I was shying away from.

It seemed inevitable that at some point, the issue is going to be raised about the big picture in the minds of some. If 'destiny' renders us helpless so that whetever will happen will 'inevitably happen in the future' (ala toba's 'Que sera sera'), then some indeed might feel a licence to just do as they please - afterall, at what point can any helpless person change the inevitability of what is going to happen . . . especially if we throw in the aforesaid "bad luck" or "unpredictable events"?

viaro:

Ah there! That was the "implication" I was shying away from.

It seemed inevitable that at some point, the issue is going to be raised about the big picture in the minds of some. If 'destiny' renders us helpless so that whetever will happen will 'inevitably happen in the future' (ala toba's 'Que sera sera'), then some indeed might feel a licence to just do as they please - afterall, at what point can any helpless person change the inevitability of what is going to happen . . . especially if we throw in the aforesaid "bad luck" or "unpredictable events"?

^^ that does not mean that I was advocating a licence to do just about anything!

Guys lets go a little bit backwards

When Rod Parsley [/b]spoke about destiny, he said that every thing in life has been put in mans care. It now depends on how man handles it. He wants to be rich, to be successful, to be great in life, to die after living a righteous life and go to heaven etc are all what man desires and can be regarded as destiny(outcome, future) and man is the determiner of how these things turns out and that 'God will not determine ur destiny for u.

I brought it up to u guys if its true or not. Viaro wants to have a good outcome i.e get married, have kids, be successful, have a good later part like that of job and then find himself in the kingdom of God. Who determines this for viaro? viaro himself or God?

This is my definition of definition: fate,[b] circumstances, fortune, lot, luck
                                                   fate, karma, kismet. 2.  future. See fate.

I honestly need ur responses

Same applies to nuclearboy, sola,inesq,myself,kunle,noetic and others

mrmayor:

Take Your Pick

And yours is. . .?