The Moment of The Final Warning

There is a definitive limit to the number, or perhaps volume, of warnings that can be provided regarding an event, in advance. This saturation point is reached at the moment of full comprehension on both sides, warner and warnee.

1 Corinthians 13:12

"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

Once this limit is reached, it can be said that the definition of "warning" is invalid, because of either a knowledge/comprehension lack, or timing, as the event preceded what was meant as the warning.

A second threshold is reached, reminding me right now of the Pauli exclusion principle. One can deny what one has heard, perhaps deeming it a lie, perhaps exerting a force to make black or silent a truth in mind. There is a limit to this, one that is veiled, but becomes quite visceral after a point. One can exert additional force to keep a secret- I'd imagine, in terms of relative force- but even this has a limit.

So, if the warning is that comprehension will be achieved, from the one being warned's perspective, then there would be an experienced limit where one must express this. This expression will be honest, but may not be comprehended as such. The difficulty, of course, with this limit is that it is experienced before the moment. So if one must be fully warned, and fully comprehend, and express that, it feels as if the order of events would need to be fixed. This would certainly be true of the one being warned, but what of the one warning? Assuming omnipotence and omniscience- as I am picturing God/The Avatar of God (a term I recently coined for stack exchange simplicity) doing the warning- how would a direct and simple call and response work? Can certainty only be achieved in the aftermath? Can inspiration be traced in this scenario, such that even an artifact, such as the time we first mutually comprehended that we spoke, be and remain eternal?

Forged to be sure, what of the decision and shared aftermath? The issue is that a choice to heed the warning must remain, and must be valid, meaning that it cannot be immaterial, in the way that additional attempts at warning would be. What I am seeing is the offer to walk together, meaningfully denied, when love is certain. 

This, I believe, is the definition of a random value, with the value of random exceeding the value of love in that moment. While this feels... distasteful, given that God is love, consider that it is written in The Bible.

Genesis 1:31

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."

So if God, from the position of perfect good and love, created something very good, then there is precedent for the present limit of value being exceeded. Why would a man be tasked with doing any less? It reminds me of a quote, which I recall from Fringe, translated from the Greek. 

"Be better than your father."