Ok, but now for starters, this is switching your position from predestining some for Hell because it brings Him glory to predestining some for Hell because He cannot compromise His glory, which is a slightly different argument.
No, not at all, really. These are, I guess, two different things. Everything He does He does
for His glory, but ~ the but indicating a contrast ~ He cannot, will not, compromise His glory in any way ~ He shares it with no one, as He says through the prophet Isaiah. If he were to compromise His justice at all, He would be lessening His glory, and He will not do that.
But here would be my response to your argument: He is our Creator, and scripture says that He created us according to His good pleasure. If He created us all in a state of deserving Hell, and most are indeed going there when they die, this implies that it is His good pleasure to see the majority of us spend ages suffering in torment. This again isn't an argument I can embrace.
Hmm, no, the premise is wrong. I'm certainly not making that argument, nor would I. I would agree that that's where that argument
would lead, but, well, He did not "create us in a state deserving Hell." He created us, yes, but we are
born in this state not because He "created us that way," but rather
because we have inherited this state of sinfulness ~ this fallen, sinful nature ~ from our first parents, Adam and Eve, who plunged God's creation (humanity included, of course) into this state when they disobeyed God in Genesis 3. Adam is the federal head of the human race, and because of his act (Eve was deceived), his failure, we are imputed his unrighteousness from birth. This is why we all, from birth, are
in Adam, and thus deserving of Hell; in a very real sense, it is our own doing. We are all, from birth, in need of a savior, in need of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, the second (final, perfect) Adam, the Savior, God Himself ~ to be
in Christ.
But you see, we don't have to accept it if we interpret the passages that deal with predestination as having more to do with our earthly lives than with our eternal salvation.
Well, I don't quite understand what you're saying here, but we
shouldn't accept the argument as you formed it above at all. The premise is wrong, so the entire argument itself is wrong, and thus the conclusion is invalid.
My response whenever someone falls back on Isaiah 55:8-9 as a support for their argument is simply this: Why would He give us a Bible if He did not want us to understand His ways.
Sure, I get that, but understanding His ways is not the issue. The issue is thinking we know better than God, or that our ways ~ though it may, superficially, at least, seem so ~ are better, or more just, or more loving, or more Godly than God's ways. But some things, Hidden In Him, we have to say that about, because we are not given the answer, in which case we have to just accept them for what they are. And even in these cases, it's not really the "what" that we can't understand or grasp, it's the "why."
But I appreciate your polite responses.
And I appreciate (really, really appreciate) the earnestness and politeness from you also!
In order to debate if various passages are talking about the predestination of one's earthly circumstances or the predestination of his eternal state in the next life, we'd have to go through them all individually one by one, and I'm not sure if that would do us much good if we are both predisposed to interpret them a certain way. We can try if you wish, however.
Well I think this particular part of the exchange was a good start, if we want to go that way.
Grace and peace to you, Hidden In Him!