₦airaland Forum

A friend read Romans 9, especially the verses below:

Romans 9:11-13 KJV [AMPC]
[11] (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth [12] it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
[13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated (held in relative disregard in comparison with My feeling for Jacob).

When he was done reading he concluded that every outcome in life and of one's life is preordained and that there isn't any judgement from God for any shortcomings of man that can be justified since he made us and everything is preset.

The implication of this line of thought is that there is no reward and no punishment for deeds. That anything there is, is just how it ought to be. Both those who believe and those who don't are ordained so by God...

To counter this, I delved into showing patterns from the choosing of Abel over Cain, the selection of Abraham over his older brothers Nahor and Haran, Joseph inheriting the "honour" of his father, David the most inconsequential being made king among his brethren, even Jesus coming from Galilee the most unlikely place.

Usually, to attain to these positions these individuals cited above attained to was usually based on being the first born child or possessing some other qualities setting one apart and giving an advantage over others but these people didn't get there through this means. Their attainment to their places in history and time was entirely based on God's whim (aka, will).

So protocols were broken in their instances. But why do that exactly?

I believe God was teaching us a single less through the lives of these individuals combined: his divine selection mechanism called Grace.

This isn't based on your accomplishments, biological advantages, or anything you do in and of your own.

It's a way to tell mortal man that he'll never be sufficient by and of himself except helped by God.

Back to "Esau have I hated and Jacob I love"

By his right as the first born, Isaac's "blessing" (which he got from his father Abraham), belonged to Esau. Meanwhile, God had already told Rebecca that the elder would "serve" the younger before ever they were born.

The mistake is thinking that the blessing in question was something of material substance. It isn't.

1 Chronicles 5:1-2 AMPC
[1] NOW [we come to] the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel. For [Reuben] was the eldest, but because he polluted his father's couch [with Bilhah his father's concubine] his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph [favorite] son of Israel; so the genealogy is not to be reckoned according to the birthright. [2] Judah prevailed above his brethren, and from him came the prince and leader [and eventually the Messiah]; yet the birthright was Joseph's.

From the above, the house of Joseph had the "blessing" yet the kingship was Judah's. That is to say, despite having the blessing, the house of Joseph still "served" the house of Judah. Also, the blessing is the right of the first born and is the priesthood of the God of Abraham, Isaac...and of Jacob. Meaning that Judah received the leadership mandate while spiritual oversight was Joseph's and his house after him.

So when God said that the elder would serve the younger, it didn't automatically imply that his right to the priesthood of his fathers as the first born was forfeit. It had to be something in his attitude which I'll show in a bit. Note also that God never said he hated Esau, he only stated that the elder would serve the younger. It was Malachi that added that latter part (Malachi 1:1-3) and Paul alluded to it in Romans ch,apter 9. You won't find any mention of "hate" or it implied directly or indirectly in the original place in Genesis 25:21-23.

More so, it was a thousand years (give or take) after we're told Rebecca first became privy to the futures of her children before prophet Malachi would tell them God said he hated Esau. The events had already taken place long before and a certain outcome reached before Malachi spoke.

I believe Malachi was only drawing a lesson from the event already past. Studying the context of his statement in Malachi chapter 1 would reveal he was trying to correct an attitude in those latter Israelites.

So hate as used in that context meant something different as the scripture below puts it:

1 Samuel 2:30 KJV
[30] Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

Below is the same text as Good News (GNT) Translation puts it:

1 Samuel 2:30 GNT
[30] I, the Lord God of Israel, promised in the past that your family and your clan would serve me as priests for all time. But now I say that I won't have it any longer! Instead, I will honor those who honor me, and I will treat with contempt those who despise me.

This was exactly what prophet Malachi was saying

Easu had an attitude of perpetual dishonor towards the priesthood (and God) of his fathers.

Hebrew makes it clearer still:

Hebrews 12:16-17 AMPC
[16] That no one may become guilty of sexual vice, or become a profane (godless and sacrilegious) person as Esau did, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. [17] For you understand that later on, when he wanted [to regain title to] his inheritance of the blessing, he was rejected (disqualified and set aside), for he could find no opportunity to repair by repentance [what he had done, no chance to recall the choice he had made], although he sought for it carefully with [bitter] tears.

A quick prompt of what does it mean to be profane? into ChatGPT yielded the answer we have below:

To be profane means to treat something sacred with irreverence or disrespect, or to act in a way that is unholy, secular, or common when something should be treated with spiritual or moral seriousness.

So Esau was this kind of person prone to desecrate hallowed things and that was why he lost his birthright and not because God had preordained hatred towards him. Look how easily he traded away that honour for a meal of porridge, and as if that wasn't bad enough he went on to marry from all the places God said not to marry from (this is to preserve the purity of worship).

My conclusion was that God didn't preordain hatred against Esau. His place and right as the first born was his until, he, through one attitude of dishonor (and irreverence) after another, cut himself off from his inheritance.

That was exactly what I told this friend yet he chose to stay with his original position making me want to have others see maybe I drove off course entirely. Though I believe I'm in order having scriptural proof.

Nlfpmod, Afam4eva, Lalasticlala happy sunday.

I believe this is a good subject to grace the frontpage today

I think he was been unfair to people like Esau and Judas, why? Because they came for a purpose and they fulfilled their purpose. Just imagine if there was no Judas, will Jesus be crucified at all, talk more of been called Son Of God!.

DMCY:
I think he was been unfair to people like Esau and Judas, why? Because they came for a purpose and they fulfilled their purpose. Just imagine if there was no Judas, will Jesus be crucified at all, talk more of been called Son Of God!.

That's a good way to look at it.

Though I believe someone else would've betrayed Christ if Judas didn't. Didn't necessarily have to be him.

The way Samson ended his career was not anywhere stated in his destined manifesto yet it was what it was. He ended outside divine plan.

What I'm saying is that destiny isn't something fixed. Even God had to carry Jesus and japa to Egypt when he was a baby less Herod killed him. What this shows is that there was the possibility of Jesus being killed and his assignment (aka destiny) aborted.

HeadBoy9:
That's a good way to look at it.

Though I believe someone else would've betrayed Christ if Judas didn't. Didn't necessarily have to be him.

The way Samson ended his career was not anywhere stated in his destined manifesto yet it was what it was. He ended outside divine plan.

What I'm saying is that destiny isn't something fixed. Even God had to carry Jesus and japa to Egypt when he was a baby less Herod kills him. What this shows is that their is the possibility of Jesus being killed and his assignment (aka destiny) aborted.

Yes but still why the hatred and shame towards Esau and Judas ?

He is the Almighty...our tiny brains cannot comprehend His wisdom. Jesus is Lord!

DMCY:
Yes but still why the hatred and shame towards Esau and Judas ?

I know my original post is long but Please read it to see my explanation. It wasn't hatred in the sense we think it.

Same thing that happened to Esau happened to Samson. Both lacked reverence for holy things and through a series of choices they made over time ended as they did.

EmperorIsaac:
He is the Almighty...our tiny brains cannot comprehend His wisdom. Jesus is Lord!

Could you please explain what you mean by this?

What does Almighty mean and is he averse to being understood?

This is my own little understanding
God is a Spirit in fact the Head of Spirits so sees ahead of time. He knows what will happen and plans ahead of it.
Esau, Reuben, Judas will be bad options to handle those important roles. Also they contributed to whatever happened to them.
It's a deep discussion if we're to go further.
God values obedience to him than positions so will allocate roles to whomever will play by His books. He can elevate a nobody that values Him over anyone that's so called fit. Example David and his brothers.

gammarays:
This is my own little understanding
God is a Spirit in fact the Head of Spirits so sees ahead of time. He knows what will happen and plans ahead of it.
Esau, Reuben, Judas will be bad options to handle those important roles. Also they contributed to whatever happened to them.
It's a deep discussion if we're to go further.
God values obedience to him than positions so will allocate roles to whomever will play by His books. He can elevate a nobody that values Him over anyone that's so called fit. Example David and his brothers.

True. Very deep. And it's a conversation worth getting into. Appreciate your perspective.

Before David got anointed by Samuel, we have no record of him having done anything that showed he was obedient and his brothers weren't. Well, maybe from his faith-filled testimony about killing a lion and bear with his bare hands showing he'd had a close walk with God.

Now your opinion lends itself to my friend's argument about preordination. Since God sees all, knows all, and made all, then why does he yet judge anyone (if at all he does) for coming short?

Also, we know he gave us freewill and the power of choice and as we saw in Deutronomy 30:19 that good and bad, life and death are all laid bare before us and we're implored to make informed choices about them. Do choices not play any part in the outcome of the events of life or is any event and choice divinely preset?

David for instance, even if he was faithful and found obedience to God's will easy, who is to say if the reason he was able to do so wasn't because God put that ability as part of the constituents of his making?

In other words, since God made all, did he give some abilities unavailable to others, why yet judge all equally, and will that be fair? Why not just bestow the same ability to do his will on all and be had with it?

Everyone is given freewill these people chose their own fate!

You will never understand the Bible properly unless you separate the old testament from the new testament.

They are two separate Gods with some similarities

MaxInDHouse:
Everyone is given freewill these people chose their own fate!

💯

danvon:
You will never understand the Bible properly unless you separate the old testament from the new testament.

They are two separate Gods with some similarities

Though it appears so on the surface but it isn't. It's the same God and both the new and old point to the same thing. In fact, there's no such thing as "Old" and "New" testaments. Those designations are solely for the purposes of identification and not that one's content is old and obsolete while the other new and current. Why you're thinking as you do is because of translational and interpretational limitations.

For instance, Moses allowed for conditional divorce and Jesus, the God who is in both the New and Old Testaments (whatever that means), came and interpreted properly, telling us that in the beginning it was not so.

I can assure you that the things we have conflict with in scriptures can be resolved with proper interpretation.

HeadBoy9:
Could you please explain what you mean by this?

What does Almighty mean and is he averse to being understood?

The day we know everything about God, he ceases to be God! Think about this.

EmperorIsaac:
The day we know everything about God, he ceases to be God! Think about this.

I like the fact that your statement recognizes that it is some knowledge not available to us at the moment that makes God the mystery he is. Know however that the plan of God for humanity is that all come into the full and untainted knowledge of him... on his terms. And only his terms.

Consider the two texts below:

1 Timothy 2:3-4 KJV
[3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Genesis 2:16-17 KJV

[16] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: [17] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:22-23 KJV
[22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: [23] therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Examine the texts and you'd see that life comes and also death comes from knowledge and that God actually wants man to come into its possession but guided by him and him alone.

HeadBoy9:
Nlfpmod, Afam4eva, Lalasticlala happy sunday.

I believe this is a good subject to grace the frontpage today

This is where people are mixing prediction with the word preordained.

Preordained refers to what has been preset. And man has been preset to do many things. Eg talk, stay silent, walk, crawl, swim, jump etc

Preordained is not restricted to only a specific action. It also also applies to everything and option that can be done.

But, the bad have conditioned people to see it only in one view whereas it has another view

HeadBoy9:
Easu had an attitude of perpetual dishonor towards the priesthood (and God) of his fathers.

Hebrew makes it clearer still:

[i]Hebrews 12:16-17 AMPC
[16] That no one may become guilty of sexual vice, or become a profane (godless and sacrilegious) person as Esau did, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. ..

A quick prompt of what does it mean to be profane? into ChatGPT yielded the answer we have below:

So Esau was this kind of person prone to desecrate hallowed things and that was why he lost his birthright and not because God had preordained hatred towards him. Look how easily he traded away that honour for a meal of porridge, and as if that wasn't bad enough he went on to marry from all the places God said not to marry from (this is to preserve the purity of worship).

My conclusion was that God didn't preordain hatred against Esau. His place and right as the first born was his until, he, through one attitude of dishonor (and irreverence) after another, cut himself off from his inheritance.

That was exactly what I told this friend yet he chose to stay with his original position making me want to have others see maybe I drove off course entirely. Though I believe I'm in order having scriptural proof.

Maths: You got the answer correct but your workings are wrong.

Also, you made the mistake of placing emphasis on the porridge affairs just like people think whereas, it is an aggregate of all the things Esau did and especially as people forget that God Sees the Truth (heart)

So, clearly, Esau did not want to be in God's Hands and Plan which means that he rejected God.

Then he went further to annoy God even more that he took him wife from the very same Canaanites that God hated

Now he did not even just take any Canaanite girl, but he went to take a Canaanite priests daughter.

Is that not clear proof of over hatred of God?

Then on top of all these he then took 2 of them (polygamy)

Thank God, that God made us to be like Him, so definitely everyone of us would not have only casted him out but we all know how we shall deal with him.

And funny, he now wanted to repent later and correct, God did not answer him.

Dtruthspeaker:
Maths: You got the answer correct but your workings are wrong.

Also, you made the mistake of placing emphasis on the porridge affairs just like people think whereas, it is an aggregate of all the things Esau did and especially as people forget that God Sees the Truth (heart)

So, clearly, Esau did not want to be in God's Hands and Plan which means that he rejected God.

Then he went further to annoy God even more that he took him wife from the very same Canaanites that God hated

Now he did not even just take any Canaanite girl, but he went to take a Canaanite priests daughter.

Is that not clear proof of over hatred of God?

Then on top of all these he then took 2 of them (polygamy)

Thank God, that God made us to be like Him, so definitely everyone of us would not have only casted him out but we all know how we shall deal with him.

And funny, he now wanted to repent later and correct, God did not answer him.

Truth is good to have you here. Your input is appreciated.

I think you didn't read my first write up well. I tell people that Esau losing his birthright had nothing to do with the porridge he ate but rather with his attitude of lack of honor and value for sacred things. God never made a law against eating of porrideg but that Esau would trade his inheritance so easily with such careless words as he did is clear proof of the kind of person he was. His character was on full display bolstered by him taking foreign women to wife.

I like the way you put it though. Thanks for showing that his actions were clear aspersions on the God of Israel.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is where people are mixing prediction with the word preordained.

Preordained refers to what has been preset. And man has been preset to do many things. Eg talk, stay silent, walk, crawl, swim, jump etc

Preordained is not restricted to only a specific action. It also also applies to everything and option that can be done.

But, the bad have conditioned people to see it only in one view whereas it has another view

The issue shouldn't be about the correctness of terms. Presetting, preordination, or predeterminism isn't anything but the idea being conveyed.
The major (and only) question is whether the outcome of Esau's life was divinely pre-programmed since God "hated" him before ever he was born. If that is the case, is God fair to him and why yet does he judge him since he made him so and predetermined his life?

HeadBoy9:
True. Very deep. And it's a conversation worth getting into. Appreciate your perspective.

Before David got anointed by Samuel, we have no record of him having done anything that showed he was obedient and his brothers weren't. Well, maybe from his faith-filled testimony about killing a lion and bear with his bare hands showing he'd had a close walk with God.

Now your opinion lends itself to my friend's argument about preordination. Since God sees all, knows all, and made all, then why does he yet judge anyone (if at all he does) for coming short?

Also, we know he gave us freewill and the power of choice and as we saw in Deutronomy 30:19 that good and bad, life and death are all laid bare before us and we're implored to make informed choices about them. Do choices not play any part in the outcome of the events of life or is any event and choice divinely preset?

David for instance, even if he was faithful and found obedience to God's will easy, who is to say if the reason he was able to do so wasn't because God put that ability as part of the constituents of his making?

In other words, since God made all, did he give some abilities unavailable to others, why yet judge all equally, and will that be fair? Why not just bestow the same ability to do his will on all and be had with it?

1. David had a good background as a shepherd that prepared him for the kingship role

2. God is Merciful and Just. The freewill given to Man doesn't mean he should live his life anyhow. Any Man who breaks even societal laws will face the consequences even though Man is free in quote. There's freedom and there's law and order.

3. If you know what is to happen in future and can make choices, you'll take decisions that'll favour you. God knows the future of every human ahead of time and takes His decisions accordingly. He's not unfair just as you're not unfair by taking a good decision that'll affect your future.

4. When God created Man and other creatures, He gave them different abilities. David had leadership qualities which he lived his life for. His brothers had theirs but didn't utilise them per say. The issue we have is we're bothered about what is not ours or doing what is not ours. Man can only fulfill his maximum potential if he follows his divine path. A bird will do a better flying job than an elephant 🐘.
If we focus and pay the sacrifice for our own personal callings, we'll be champions in them. God is wise!

HeadBoy9:
The issue shouldn't be about the correctness of terms. Presetting, preordination, or predeterminism isn't anything but the idea being conveyed.
The major (and only) question is whether the outcome of Esau's life was divinely pre-programmed since God "hated" him before ever he was born. If that is the case, is God fair to him and why yet does he judge him since he made him so and predetermined his life?

Esau's case is not easily understandable especially as it calls for deep discernment, so it already generates an issue. Then we now have those words in play which you yourself are are acting on aka divinely preprogrammed, directing how people should think instead of thinking openly and balancely

HeadBoy9:
Truth is good to have you here. Your input is appreciated.

I think you didn't read my first write up well. I tell people that Esau losing his birthright had nothing to do with the porridge he ate but rather with his attitude of lack of honor and value for sacred things. God never made a law against eating of porrideg but that Esau would trade his inheritance so easily with such careless words as he did is clear proof of the kind of person he was. His character was on full display bolstered by him taking foreign women to wife.

I like the way you put it though. Thanks for showing that his actions were clear aspersions on the God of Israel.

The way you were first going it did not appear that you would land here oo. My heart cut and I said another one?

Dtruthspeaker:
The way you were first going it did not appear that you would land here oo. My heart cut and I said another one?

Lol, just imagine.

Needed to be procedural in my approach.

If this was a case it would be termed God vs Esau. And will God be able to win when it's properly examined?

God is the Creator and bestower of gifts and abilities on the sons of men. So who's not to say that Esau turned out as he did because the ALMIGHTY in his making of the poor fellow definitely made him to lack the qualities of discipline and honour hence him doing things he did and ending as he did?

Dtruthspeaker:
Esau's case is not easily understandable especially as it calls for deep discernment, so it already generates an issue. Then we now have those words in play which you yourself are are acting on aka divinely preprogrammed, directing how people should think instead of thinking openly and balancely

Another phrase for it is divinely fixed outcomes

HeadBoy9:
A friend read Romans 9, especially the verses below:

Romans 9:11-13 KJV [AMPC]
[11] (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth [12] it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
[13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated (held in relative disregard in comparison with My feeling for Jacob).

When he was done reading he concluded that every outcome in life and of one's life is preordained and that there isn't any judgement from God for any shortcomings of man that can be justified since he made us and everything is preset.

The implication of this line of thought is that there is no reward and no punishment for deeds. That anything there is, is just how it ought to be. Both those who believe and those who don't are ordained so by God...

To counter this, I delved into showing patterns from the choosing of Abel over Cain, the selection of Abraham over his older brothers Nahor and Haran, Joseph inheriting the "honour" of his father, David the most inconsequential being made king among his brethren, even Jesus coming from Galilee the most unlikely place.

Usually, to attain to these positions these individuals cited above attained to was usually based on being the first born child or possessing some other qualities setting one apart and giving an advantage over others but these people didn't get there through this means. Their attainment to their places in history and time was entirely based on God's whim (aka, will).

So protocols were broken in their instances. But why do that exactly?

I believe God was teaching us a single less through the lives of these individuals combined: his divine selection mechanism called Grace.

This isn't based on your accomplishments, biological advantages, or anything you do in and of your own.

It's a way to tell mortal man that he'll never be sufficient by and of himself except helped by God.

Back to "Esau have I hated and Jacob I love"

By his right as the first born, Isaac's "blessing" (which he got from his father Abraham), belonged to Esau. Meanwhile, God had already told Rebecca that the elder would "serve" the younger before ever they were born.

The mistake is thinking that the blessing in question was something of material substance. It isn't.

1 Chronicles 5:1-2 AMPC
[1] NOW [we come to] the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel. For [Reuben] was the eldest, but because he polluted his father's couch [with Bilhah his father's concubine] his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph [favorite] son of Israel; so the genealogy is not to be reckoned according to the birthright. [2] Judah prevailed above his brethren, and from him came the prince and leader [and eventually the Messiah]; yet the birthright was Joseph's.

From the above, the house of Joseph had the "blessing" yet the kingship was Judah's. That is to say, despite having the blessing, the house of Joseph still "served" the house of Judah. Also, the blessing is the right of the first born and is the priesthood of the God of Abraham, Isaac...and of Jacob. Meaning that Judah received the leadership mandate while spiritual oversight was Joseph's and his house after him.

So when God said that the elder would serve the younger, it didn't automatically imply that his right to the priesthood of his fathers as the first born was forfeit. It had to be something in his attitude which I'll show in a bit. Note also that God never said he hated Esau, he only stated that the elder would serve the younger. It was Malachi that added that latter part (Malachi 1:1-3) and Paul alluded to it in Romans ch,apter 9. You won't find any mention of "hate" or it implied directly or indirectly in the original place in Genesis 25:21-23.

More so, it was a thousand years (give or take) after we're told Rebecca first became privy to the futures of her children before prophet Malachi would tell them God said he hated Esau. The events had already taken place long before and a certain outcome reached before Malachi spoke.

I believe Malachi was only drawing a lesson from the event already past. Studying the context of his statement in Malachi chapter 1 would reveal he was trying to correct an attitude in those latter Israelites.

So hate as used in that context meant something different as the scripture below puts it:

1 Samuel 2:30 KJV
[30] Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

Below is the same text as Good News (GNT) Translation puts it:

1 Samuel 2:30 GNT
[30] I, the Lord God of Israel, promised in the past that your family and your clan would serve me as priests for all time. But now I say that I won't have it any longer! Instead, I will honor those who honor me, and I will treat with contempt those who despise me.

This was exactly what prophet Malachi was saying

Easu had an attitude of perpetual dishonor towards the priesthood (and God) of his fathers.

Hebrew makes it clearer still:

Hebrews 12:16-17 AMPC
[16] That no one may become guilty of sexual vice, or become a profane (godless and sacrilegious) person as Esau did, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. [17] For you understand that later on, when he wanted [to regain title to] his inheritance of the blessing, he was rejected (disqualified and set aside), for he could find no opportunity to repair by repentance [what he had done, no chance to recall the choice he had made], although he sought for it carefully with [bitter] tears.

A quick prompt of what does it mean to be profane? into ChatGPT yielded the answer we have below:



So Esau was this kind of person prone to desecrate hallowed things and that was why he lost his birthright and not because God had preordained hatred towards him. Look how easily he traded away that honour for a meal of porridge, and as if that wasn't bad enough he went on to marry from all the places God said not to marry from (this is to preserve the purity of worship).

My conclusion was that God didn't preordain hatred against Esau. His place and right as the first born was his until, he, through one attitude of dishonor (and irreverence) after another, cut himself off from his inheritance.

That was exactly what I told this friend yet he chose to stay with his original position making me want to have others see maybe I drove off course entirely. Though I believe I'm in order having scriptural proof.

The Lord decares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), there is no such thing as "freewill". He created all things for His purpose and His counsel shall stand (Isaiah 45:7, Proverbs 16:4). Predestination, Election of Grace too - Ephesians 1:4, Exodus 7:3-4, 9:12)

gammarays:
1. David had a good background as a shepherd that prepared him for the kingship role

2. God is Merciful and Just. The freewill given to Man doesn't mean he should live his life anyhow. Any Man who breaks even societal laws will face the consequences even though Man is free in quote. There's freedom and there's law and order.

3. If you know what is to happen in future and can make choices, you'll take decisions that'll favour you. God knows the future of every human ahead of time and takes His decisions accordingly. He's not unfair just as you're not unfair by taking a good decision that'll affect your future.

4. When God created Man and other creatures, He gave them different abilities. David had leadership qualities which he lived his life for. His brothers had theirs but didn't utilise them per say. The issue we have is we're bothered about what is not ours or doing what is not ours. Man can only fulfill his maximum potential if he follows his divine path. A bird will do a better flying job than an elephant 🐘.
If we focus and pay the sacrifice for our own personal callings, we'll be champions in them. God is wise!

Good to have you here Gammarays

I'm responding to items 3 and 4

3. This is the ALMIGHTY that holds times and realities in himself so I would think he knows every future since he designed them. It's not like this is our averege futures forecaster or something. He knows the end from the beginning, ya know? You can't be implying God's decisions are reactionary like him sending Jesus to die for sin was an emergency rescue mission initiated in response to the fall.

4. Talking about abilities, we both agree that God made man and gave man abilities and qualities. What stops one from saying the qualities of being dishonourable and to lack discipline are Esau's gifts, as divinely ordained, and that the events of his life were his divine future as made, known, and ordained by the ALMIGHTY?

MeetDx:
The Lord decares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), there is no such thing as "freewill". He created all things for His purpose and His counsel shall stand (Isaiah 45:7, Proverbs 16:4). Predestination, Election of Grace too - Ephesians 1:4, Exodus 7:3-4, 9:12)

Why does he yet judge shortcomings as if any can resist his will?

HeadBoy9:
God to have you here Gammarays

I'm responding to items 3 and 4

3. This is the ALMIGHTY that holds times and realities in himself so I would think he knows every future since he designed them. It's not like this is our averege futures forecaster or something. He knows the end from the beginning, ya know? You can't be implying God's decisions are reactionary like him sending Jesus to die for sin was an emergency rescue mission initiated in response to the fall.

4. Talking about abilities, we both agree that God made man and gave man abilities and qualities. What stops one from saying the qualities of being dishonourable and to lack discipline are Esau's gifts, as divinely ordained, and that the events of his life were his divine future as made, known, and ordained by the ALMIGHTY?

Christ was chosen even before the world was created, but because of you, he did not come until these last days. (1 Peter 1:20) Proverbs 8:23 also says the same. God foreknew man's fall before creation, Christ was the back up.

HeadBoy9:
Why does he yet judge shortcomings as if any can resist his will?

All would be judged according to their works, you can't work on a rice plantation and expect your rewards in cattles. God doesn't work that way, He will pay you in your own coin.

MeetDx:
Christ was chosen even before the world was created, but because of you, he did not come until these last days. (1 Peter 1:20) Proverbs 8:23 also says the same. God foreknew man's fall before creation, Christ was the back up.

Now looks to me like you're arriving somewhere right now. This is the Almighty we're talking about who made the world, times, futures, and all. Why even create a world where sin was a possiblilty and then have the need to have a back up plan?

It means he allowed for sin and all the abberations in the world

Looking more like he knowingly created a problem and then supplied the solution and we are to take everything with worshipful gratitude.

Is he fair if he yet judges me for what he made that I have no control over?

MeetDx:
All would be judged according to their works, you can't work on a rice plantation and expect your rewards in cattles. God doesn't work that way, He will pay you in your own coin.

You just told us there isn't such a thing as freewill meaning every possible outcome is fixed. So why is there still the need to judge any man or anything?