How "free" are we after all? - Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church

How "free" are we after all?

Posted By: Ikan

How "free" are we after all? - 07/06/05 02:21 AM

A question has been repeatedly raised as to whether God manipulates all beings in the Universe for His own aims, or whether He allows His created beings free reign and reponsibilty to make eternal choices.
Some heavily Calvinist-leaning views, mixed with fatalism have been stated as well as the exact opposite.

What is the moral limits of our free-will?

How much "leash" has God given Satan, angels of both loyalties, and fallen and saved man?

Is what we do "pre-ordained"?

[ August 03, 2005, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Phil N. D'blanc ]

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/06/05 06:45 AM

Q. What is the moral limits of our free-will?

A. What's this asking?

Q. How much "leash" has God given Satan, angels of both loyalties, and fallen and saved man?

A. God has given beings of both loyalties the maximum possible amount of leash. God counts nothing as more important than freedom, which the death of His Son shows. He would rather die than have a universe where His children would worship Him from fear, which is what would have resulted had God not made clear the principles of His government and the inevitable results of sin.

Q. Is what we do "pre-ordained"?

A. Not even was what Christ did pre-ordained.

quote:
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}

God led Christ moment by moment, but Christ had free will to do whatever He wanted or chose. Christ chose to do His Father's will, but God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, showing that not even in the case of Christ was what He would do pre-ordained.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/06/05 09:50 AM

Q. What (are) the moral limits of our free-will?

Perhaps I mean noble borders,the ideal boundaries of a man's free will.

To be on probation, one has limits to what he can and cannnot do. Even Christ was on probation while on earth.

Posted By: Cheri Fritz

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/06/05 01:01 PM

Greetings,

There are two verses that come to mind.

quote:
Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk [therein].
Matthew 5:48 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk [therein].

Sin is full of things which are not of God.

quote:
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

When the reigns of our hearts are controlled by God we will hate sin, we will literally desire never to touch what is unclean before the Lord. We will ever desire to lay down our garments of rags and ask for the robe of righteousness.

quote:
The record declares, "Neither was there any among them that lacked," and it tells how the need was filled. Those among the believers who had money and possessions cheerfully sacrificed them to meet the emergency. Selling their houses or their lands, they brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet, "and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."
This liberality on the part of the believers was the result of the outpouring of the Spirit. The converts to the gospel were "of one heart and of one soul." One common interest controlled them--the success of the mission entrusted to them; and covetousness had no place in their lives. Their love for their brethren and the cause they had espoused, was greater than their love of money and possessions. Their works testified that they accounted the souls of men of higher value them earthly wealth.
Thus it will ever be when the Spirit of God takes possession of the life. Those whose hearts are filled with the love of Christ, will follow the example of Him who for our sake became poor, that through His poverty we might be made rich. Money, time, influence--all the gifts they have received from God's hand, they will value only as a means of advancing the work of the gospel. Thus it was in the early church; and when in the church of today it is seen that by the power of the Spirit the members have taken their affections from the things of the world, and that they are willing to make sacrifices in order that their fellow men may hear the gospel, the truths proclaimed will have a powerful influence upon the hearers. Acts of the Apostles, pp. 70:1-71:1.

When we love the Lord we learn of Him. We give up our yoke of sin and bondage for His yoke. The boundries of God's truth is love and therefore it is lined out in the following manner:

quote:
1 Corinthians
13:4 Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.

God does not change(ref. Malachi 3:6). When we are controlled by His Holy Spirit we will image the character of Christ with thought and act and every manner of speech. We will be His vessel pouring out His light. We will delight in His way always and hate sin, therefore we will not touch the unclean things.

Finally,

quote:
To be on probation, one has limits to what he can and cannnot do. Even Christ was on probation while on earth.

The limits of the faithful in Christ Jesus is love as described in 1 Cor. 13 and their thoughts are only of those which Christ has. Which is to do the will of the Heavenly Father.

Your Sister in Christ Jesus,
Cheri Fritz

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/06/05 05:08 PM

Yes, Cheri you are within the arena of what I'm speaking of; however, MM seems IMHO to be implying that all mankind, saint and sinner, are controlled by God, ultimately. That He is reponsibile for the evil and the good actions of everyone and everything. If I understand him correctly, and this is eelish hobby, then I must strongly disagree with that sort of determinism, as it leads to highly superstitious conclusions ina personal way for christians.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/07/05 06:41 AM

If God is not in control of the outcome of our choices - then how is it that He can confidently say, through prophecy, what will be before it is? I have never said, or didn't mean to imply, that God forces us to choose one way or another. True, He exerts an overpowering influence, at times, so that we make choices according to His predestined plan. However, and for reasons I do not clearly understand, this doesn't apply to choosing to be saved. If God was able to influence Cyrus to fulfill his prophetic destiny, without violating his freedom to choose, why can't God also exercise the power of influence, in such a way, that we eagerly and willing choose to be saved?

BTW, did John the Baptist have a choice? God filled him with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb, right? Why doesn't God do that for all of us? Wouldn't it make things a lot easier?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/06/05 09:14 PM

MM:True, He exerts an overpowering influence, at times, so that we make choices according to His predestined plan.

Tom: What's this mean?

quote:
...Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. (DA 22)

Your use of "overwhelming influence" sounds an awful lot like force to me, which is contrary to the principles of God's government.

Posted By: Cheri Fritz

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/06/05 09:27 PM

Regarding John the Baptist:

quote:
Let mothers come to Jesus with their perplexities. They will find grace sufficient to aid them in the management of their children. The gates are open for every mother who would lay her burdens at the Saviour's feet. . . . He . . . still invites the mothers to lead up their little ones to be blessed by Him. Even the babe in its mother's arms may dwell under the shadow of the Almighty through the faith of the praying mother. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth. If we live in communion with God, we too may expect the divine Spirit to mould our little ones, even from their earliest moments.Adventist Home, . 274.3.

It was the parent of young John that made the difference from the womb. Just think if all the mothers would attend to God like this mom of John the Baptist...oh what a lovely generation we would have!

Your Sister in Christ Jesus,
Cheri Fritz

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/06/05 11:08 PM

Thank you, Cheri, but somehow I suspect John's case was unusual. But I'm happy to know that even parents today can hope and pray for the leading of the Holy Spirit in the lives of their children.

Tom, how do you explain the overpowering influence Jesus exerted in the case of Cyrus? and Balaam?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/07/05 01:52 AM

I don't see that God used an overwhelming influence in either of those cases. I understand that force is not a principle of God's government. Do you see things that way? I don't think God would do something not in accordance with the principles of His government. That would be out of character for God, wouldn't it? And God never acts of character, correct?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/07/05 02:18 AM

Well, I do not believe God bypasses our ability to think and choose as we please, but I do believe He exerts a powerful influence to ensure we do not jeopardize His plan. How do you define the unusual amount of effort Jesus expended to persuade Balaam and Cyrus not to do something against the will of God?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/07/05 02:47 AM

MM: Well, I do not believe God bypasses our ability to think and choose as we please, but I do believe He exerts a powerful influence to ensure we do not jeopardize His plan.

Tom: His plan is that all be saved, isn't it? There's a statement from the Spirit of Prophesy where she wrote to someone saying that if that person received a hundred-fold deeper portion of the Holy Spirit, it wouldn't do any good (because the person's mind was made up). It's against God's nature to act contrary to the principles of freedom. Freedom is so important to God, He would rather die than act contrary to it. It's incredible how anxious God is not to stomp on our will. Simply amazing, really. We're not at all like God in this respect.

MM: How do you define the unusual amount of effort Jesus expended to persuade Balaam and Cyrus not to do something against the will of God?

Tom: God will take emergency measures at times. Also it is according to the principles of God to do things He would not otherwise have done because of prayer (this thought is from the SOP somewhere), so perhaps someone was praying in resptect to Balaam and Cyrus, and God was answering that prayer.

Posted By: vastergotland

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/07/05 01:09 PM

Balaam was a prophet of God, though at times a reluctant one. God had to remind him whose words balaam was speaking.
I dont think it would take all that much convincing to get cyrus to try and overthrow babylon inserting himself as king. Gods part there might just be providing the right circumbstances.

/Thomas

Posted By: Davros

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/07/05 10:47 PM

How free was Hazen Foss?

As I've talked about in another topic, I think we are pretty free. God did not create robots to follow His commands. There were two men selected before EGW, and both of them turned God down. God then had to go with plan C.

I do think that God has planned our lives, but we have the choice to go against His planning. He also knows what will happen, but in the line of fairness, he must let it happen (we must make the choices).

It is a fairly fatalist view to say that we are not free and our choices do not make a difference. One of the keys to success in college and work is to understand that the person ultimately responsible for everything that happens to one’s self is self. It is those who fail who say that circumstances or others are to blame.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 05:13 AM

quote:
I do think that God has planned our lives, but we have the choice to go against His planning. He also knows what will happen, but in the line of fairness, he must let it happen (we must make the choices).

It is rather odd that God would plan as 1st choice that which “he knows” will not happen. And then plan 2nd choice likewise, and finally plan as 3rd choice that which he knows will happen.

Posted By: Davros

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 05:32 AM

Perhaps God is methodical, but that is what happend. God has a plan, but when humans don't follow it, God has another plan.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 05:57 AM

Does God have "hope"?

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 06:15 AM

Luk 20:11 And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty.
Luk 20:12 And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out.
Luk 20:13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.
Luk 20:14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

Is everything so "cut and dry" with the Lord?
Is the issue of sin and salvation more involved than we think?

He said: "It may be"

What does that tell us of the Lord's considerations?

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 07:02 AM

Tom Is this the reference you were thinking of?:

"Your will must blend with the divine will, and you must submit to the divine working. Your energies are required to co-operate with God. Without this, if it were possible to force upon you with a hundred-fold greater intensity the influences of the Spirit of God, it would not make you a Christian, a fit subject for heaven. The stronghold of Satan would not be broken. There must be the willing and the doing on the part of the receiver." {ST, December 28, 1891

The key words are "blend", "submit", "co-operate" and "willing". There is nothing overwhelming, or over-powering here.

MM You stated some things that can only be attributable to a man that sees God as a god of force:

"However, and for reasons I do not clearly understand, this {your concept of God's 'pre-destined' and 'overwhelming forcing' of conscience} doesn't apply to choosing to be saved."

You do not understand because you have major misconceptions of God's character and man's destiny, from what I can salvage from reading years of your posts. You appear to assert that God prophecies and then by process manipulates people and events to make thing happen to vindicate, prove, justify, validate Himself. That is force.

Thomas Exactly! Notice that Balaam was not forced by the angel, nor was Cyrus forced either. If God was a Forcer, ther would be no contest at all, no competition.

The validity of God's ways was displayed eternally at the Cross; He needs no other proof of His Heart's desires for mankind or His methods. Miss that lesson and you miss the entire Plan.

Many Adventist do not see God as a puppet-master in even the smallest sense, rather we see that He foretells what will happen due to our motions and the consequences of them, not what must happen because of His decrees.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 07:33 AM

Yes, but if God hadn't gone the extra mile with Balaam and Cyrus things would have turned much different than God had planned. The prophecy of Cyrus would have failed, which would have made Isaiah a false prophet. Just exactly how free was the prophet Ezekiel? When the only other option is death do we really have a choice?

Ezekiel
3:17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
3:20 Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
3:21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous [man], that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

Posted By: vastergotland

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 09:52 AM

This is the same as is written in the NT that "not all should become pastors or teachers for the leaders will be judged harder than the lead"...

/Thomas

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 01:22 PM

There are two distinct camps about prophecy:

1. God manipulates history to fulfill prophecy.

2. Prophecy is the foretelling of future history.

Either He foretells because He knows what we will do, or He "fiddles with men's souls" to fit His predictions.

Sunday-keepers and all varities of dominionists, from Hal Lindsey to Timothy LeHaye are palming off entire nations that God is the puppet-master. See the results in the Middle East, the horrors of misapplication of prophecy gone wild.

Posted By: Cheri Fritz

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 03:44 PM

Greetings Brother John,

Your question:

quote:
Does God have "hope"?

Answer:

quote:
I Corinthians 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Your Sister in Christ Jesus,
Cheri Fritz

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 06:35 AM

Just because God knows the end from the beginning, like watching a rerun, doesn't mean we don't have the freedom to choose, or that God cannot take an active part to ensure a favorable outcome of the great controversy. In fact, prophecy takes into account God's active participation, that is, everything God will do to make sure things turn out to His favor.

So, again, did Ezekiel have a choice? If death is the only other option do we really have a choice?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 06:44 AM

Those were good questions, John B. What he was getting at, Dave, is that your assertions are logically untenable.

Phill, isn't it possible for God to both have knowledge of the future and the ability to influence events to coincide with prophesy? These don't seem mutually exclusive to me.

God does influence people and events. He just doesn't use force.

Posted By: Davros

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 08:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Those were good questions, John B. What he was getting at, Dave, is that your assertions are logically untenable.

So it is your contention that God either does not know what will happen or that God controls people like a robot? I find it very possible that God does know what will happen, but he must be fair and let us live our lives.

What we are saying, in essence say is that God created some of us to be sinners. How bad is that? If we do not have a choice, then God must have intended us to be sinners. In the end, it comes down to humans not wanting to take responsibility for what they do.

If God does not have more than one plan, why did he invite 2 men before Ellen White?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 09:08 PM

God invited the first man to be a prophet, because that's what He intended to happen. People do not always do what God wants them to do.

Pardon my answering your questions with another question, but I think it could be helpful.

quote:
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}

How do you understand this? I'm specifically interested in your understanding of how the word "risk" is being used.

Posted By: Davros

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 09:19 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
God invited the first man to be a prophet, because that's what He intended to happen. People do not always do what God wants them to do.

Yep, that's what I said too. So does that men he did not plan for the second man or Ellen White?

The risk that is spoken of is the fact that Jesus too was of his own mind. He could have chosen to not follow His Father's plan.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 10:45 PM

quote:
Does God have "hope"?

Cheri answered with,

I Corinthians 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

God is Love, Love has genuine hope,

How does "hope" relate to our view of foreknowledge?

Is God able to "hope"?

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 10:49 PM

Luk 20:11 And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty.
Luk 20:12 And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out.
Luk 20:13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.
Luk 20:14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

Is everything so "cut and dry" with the Lord?
Is the issue of sin and salvation more involved than we think?

He said: "It may be"

What does that tell us of the Lord's considerations?

Posted By: Davros

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 11:33 PM

It sounds like God has hope, but He still knows what is to come.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 11:40 PM

Dave: Yep, that's what I said too. So does that men he did not plan for the second man or Ellen White?

Tom: I assume "men" should be "mean" so the question would read "So does that mean he did not plan for the second man or Ellen White?" and the "mean" I take it means "imply", so what you're intending to ask is does the fact that the first fellow did not do God's will imply that God did not plan for the second person or for Ellen White?

I hope I have understood your question correctly. My answer is no, it doesn't imply either that God not plan for the second fellow or for Ellen White. I'm not saying God didn't plan ahead, I'm saying there's no logical implication one way or the other given the premise that the first fellow could refuse to do what God had intended.

Dave: The risk that is spoken of is the fact that Jesus too was of his own mind. He could have chosen to not follow His Father's plan.

Tom: So it was possible for Jesus to not have followed God the Father's plan, correct? There was an actual risk involved that Christ could have failed and been eternally lost; God could have lost His Son.

Posted By: Davros

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/08/05 11:51 PM

Yep, sure could have. I wonder if earthly fathers would have as much confodence in their sons.

Jesus was a human, and humas can fail. Lucifer was an angel, so apparently angels can fail.

BTW, os Jim Hoen still president out there? My dad was a pastor in Kansas.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 05:30 AM

quote:
It sounds like God has hope, but He still knows what is to come.

He said: "It may be"

What does that tell us of the Lord's considerations?

Posted By: Davros

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 05:48 AM

If they had accepted him, wouldn't that mean that there would be no sacrifice for us? Wouldn't that make salvation impossible? I think maybe we are taking a parable a little too literal.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 06:37 AM

How free are we? Not any more than God allows. God has a plan and He will not let anyone derail it. That's why He can tell us exactly what will happen ahead of time, even saying who will do what before they are born. There is absolutely nothing random or spontaneous about the unfolding of history.

Romans
4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Amos
3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Posted By: Davros

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 06:45 AM

Does that mean that God intends for some to be sinners?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 06:57 AM

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Posted By: Davros

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 06:59 AM

And would that indicate that God intends some to not repent?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 07:25 PM

God would love it if none of this ever happened, if Lucifer never rebelled, if Adam and Eve never ate the forbidden fruit. But it did happen, and what's more, God knew in advance that it would happen. And yet He chose to create them anyhow. And God has been managing the affairs of men and angels ever since in such a way that the great controversy will turn out to His honor and glory. Yes, we are free to choose salvation or not, but we are not free to derail God's plan to win the great controversy. God will use rocks to preach the gospel if we refuse, and whatever else it takes to win. Do you think the lamblike beast is free not to make an image to the beast? free not to enforce the mark of the beast? Of course not!

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 08:24 PM

quote:
If they had accepted him, wouldn't that mean that there would be no sacrifice for us? Wouldn't that make salvation impossible? I think maybe we are taking a parable a little too literal.

That is another misconception.

Luk 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
Luk 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/09/05 08:56 PM

If God hadn't already said that Jesus would be crucified perhaps the Father would have sacrificed Jesus on an altar. The story of Abraham and Isaac seems to imply this. Of course, it didn't turn out that way, and the Father knew in advance exactly how it would play out - in minute detail, as evidenced by the prophecies. Jesus played His role perfectly. He followed the prophetic blueprint to the "T". He didn't have a choice. He had to fulfill the prophecies to save us.

Mark
8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

John
12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

John
13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he].

John
15:25 But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

John
17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

John
18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
18:32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

John
19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/10/05 02:38 AM

My mother-in-law tells me that “God knows” if she will be saved or not. Beyond that she has not given him ability to speak, and I think rightly so.

Why should she?

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/10/05 08:02 AM

" perhaps the Father would have sacrificed Jesus on an altar.

Whoa...This is not consistant with your pre-programmed concepts, MM Plus it's still a talisman of your visions of a very bloody pagan Father image. Sigh...but if you insist that the Father murdered Christ, that's your choice. Murder is pre-planned, correct?

You still have not expplain EGW's meaning of "risk."

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/11/05 06:56 AM

Lay off the lashings, please. I asked about Ezekiel earlier in this thread, so, what about it - did he have a choice or not? And Jesus, did He have a choice? Was ditching man and the plan really an option? In what way did He risk all? You tell me. The idea that Jesus could have failed, or could have refused to save man, doesn't make sense to me. That would mean God lied to the prophets, who foretold nearly every major move Jesus made. And, how do you explain the following prophecy?

John
12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/10/05 08:40 PM

Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Who is the "He" and who is the "I"?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/11/05 03:18 AM

Who? God, on both counts.

Isaiah
6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here [am] I; send me.
6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
6:11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,
6:12 And the LORD have removed men far away, and [there be] a great forsaking in the midst of the land.
6:13 But yet in it [shall be] a tenth, and [it] shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance [is] in them, when they cast [their leaves: so] the holy seed [shall be] the substance thereof.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/11/05 03:20 AM

quote:
I asked about Ezekiel earlier in this thread, so, what about it - did he have a choice or not? And Jesus, did He have a choice? Was ditching man and the plan really an option? In what way did He risk all? You tell me.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/11/05 06:20 AM

quote:
Ezekiel
3:17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
3:20 Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
3:21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous [man], that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

Ezekiel’s message tells us how important it is to God that the wicked be warned of his wickedness so that such may turn and be saved and not perish. This underscores the un-predetermined outcome, and responsibility. So much is hinged on “IF”. God uses “if” all the time; and you want to say there is no “if “ with God.

Ezekiel’s choices were no different than anybody else’s.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/11/05 07:21 AM

MM No one is lashing you! I am presenting positions you have stated yourself. You still stand by them, and are responsible for them, correct? I cannot pretend you don't as everything you write is based on your own stated beliefs.

You hold me responsible for my thoughts and therefore I will not complain when called to answer for them.

How about answering my question, please:

"Murder is pre-planned, correct?"

Even my muslim friends see this clear distinction.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/11/05 07:50 AM

quote:
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}

quote:
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. {DA 131.2}

quote:
Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul. {AG 175.2}

Risk is defined by Webster's as " possibility of loss or injury : PERIL" which EGW also uses in describing what Christ and God the Father did. There's nothing difficult to understand in the language.

All heaven was put into peril. That is, God risked everything. There was the real possibility of Christ being lost.

The reason I brought this up was in the context of God's planing and knowledge of the future. Because of Greek philosophy, it is often taken for granted that God sees the future as if it were a TV rerun. However, that's not the picture that inspiration presents.

There are many difficulties with the idea that the future is fixed. To name two, if this were the case, how could we be free? That is, our freedom would be imagined, not real. Secondly, this view would make it impossible for Christ to have failed. Risk implies that the future is not fixed, and not exhaustively knowable.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/11/05 08:49 AM

Excellent points, Tom

Part of the resistance to this understanding of God is the fear of "The Unpredictable"!

If we in anyway see that He is unpredictable by taking a real risk on us, then we fight it. It is a "comfort-zone" irritant, and violence is often incurred when anyone suggests that God lets go of His control in any circumstance.
That is resting our faith on our understanding of Him, a very dangerous and sandy spot to build any house on.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 06:34 AM

John, when death is the only other option, as in the case of Ezekiel, do we really have a choice?

Phil, please feel free to restate my position, but try to do it without the derogatory adjectives. Is murder always pre-planned? I suppose in many cases it is, but I’m sure you would agree it can be spontaneous and unpremeditated, which, at least in human courts, carries a lesser punishment.

Tom, the prophecies do not indicate that Jesus might save us. They simply say that He will save us. But, even if Jesus had gone back home, instead of dying on the cross, He would not have been lost. True, God would have been forced to destroy all free moral agents throughout the universe, but Jesus would not have been lost Himself. Since saving us was voluntary in the first place, refusing to drink the cup would not have, technically speaking, constituted a failure.

Phil, if God doesn’t know the end from the beginning, like a rerun, how come He can tell us everything that will happen before it happens?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 06:35 AM

quote:
Do you think the lamblike beast is free not to make an image to the beast? free not to enforce the mark of the beast?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/11/05 10:25 PM

MM: Tom, the prophecies do not indicate that Jesus might save us. They simply say that He will save us. But, even if Jesus had gone back home, instead of dying on the cross, He would not have been lost. True, God would have been forced to destroy all free moral agents throughout the universe, but Jesus would not have been lost Himself. Since saving us was voluntary in the first place, refusing to drink the cup would not have, technically speaking, constituted a failure.

Tom: MM, it would have indeed constituted a failure because Christ would have been putting His own will above the will of His Father's. That God is not like this is the point of the whole Great Controversy. Plus remember that to Abraham God swore by Himself that Christ would succeed, since He could sware by nothing greater. So He put His throne on the line. Also note what the Spirit of Prophesy actually says:

quote:

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul. {AG 175.2}

"All heaven" was imperiled. How do you understand this MM? According to your way of seeing things, I don't see how any of heaven could possibly have been imperiled, let alone all of it.

Regarding the question of how God can say what will happen, there are a number of points to consider. First of all, one does not need to have exhaustive definate foreknowledge to predict what will happen, as we all know by experience. Secondly, God is able to influence things to happen, so even if He knew nothing of the future He could still predict it because He has the power to make anything happen that He chooses to make happen. So the fact that God can predict the future does not prove that He must see it in an exhaustive definate way in order to do so. In fact, if you look in Scripture to see the basis on which God exhalts His ability to predict the future you will see that He never mentions His ability to foresee it, but instead mentions His ability to bring it to pass. Thirdly God can and does see everything that will happen, but this vision of the future is not a simplistic T.V. rerun type of vision. It is a far more comprehensive vision which encompasses not only what will actually happen (which is in many cases yet to be determined) but what may happen.

A key question to keep in mind is who is it that determines the future? If God alone determines the future, then of course it is possible for Him to have exhaustive definite foreknowledge of it. However, if His creatures share in determining the future, then the future is not exhaustively definately knowable for the simple reason that it hasn't yet been determined. Not being determined implies not being exhaustably knowable. Conversely exhaustive definate foreknolwedge implies an exhaustively determined future, which implies that freedom is imaginary, not real.

I realise these concepts are a bit challenging to grasp, so am happy to provide explicit examples if requested.

Posted By: vastergotland

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 01:29 AM

Hmm, lets see if ive got it together. Gods prophecies could rather be called promises. This however will make Phil and others uneasy becourse some of these prophesies/promises are for the recievers downfall. Some prophecies tell about death and destruction, if God makes it happen there seems to be two options. God brings destruction on those who refuse Him, or those infested with sin are so simpleminded and predictable that they simply cannot turn away a chance to bring destruction upon others as soon as Gods protection is withdrawn. Like predicting that the cat will come when the canopener is heard? Does this fit?

/Thomas

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 02:29 AM

Thomas, I think a question to ask is whether God's statements are prescriptive or proscriptive. I know what I want to say, but it's not so easy to say.

What I mean is, we may perceive God as doing things, like causing destruction to those who disobey Him, in which case His statements would be proscriptive. If you don't obey Me, then I will do such-and-such to you. Or we may view them as descriptions of what He, as the wise God who created us and knows us, knows will happen if we choose to disobey Him. This latter idea is what George Fifield presents in his links, and the idea that Phil, John B., myself (as well perhaps as some others) have been trying to present.

It's certainly not surprising that God would know precisely what will happen to us if we disobey Him. The chapter "The Destruction of Jerusalem" discusses the principles inovolved in detail.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 05:15 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Phil N. D'blanc:
" perhaps the Father would have sacrificed Jesus on an altar.

Whoa...This is not consistant with your pre-programmed concepts, MM Plus it's still a talisman of your visions of a very bloody pagan Father image. Sigh...but if you insist that the Father murdered Christ, that's your choice. Murder is pre-planned, correct?

You still have not explain EGW's meaning of "risk."

Please point out derogatory adjectives.
I see your opinions as very bloody,(I say your opinions, not you as a man) and hence very similar to pagan belief formulas.

Would you like me to list all of your many statements about blood, killing and the Father, or shall we attempt to study without being overly sensitive?

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 05:56 AM

quote:
John, when death is the only other option, as in the case of Ezekiel, do we really have a choice?

Yes, the Lord bids us “choose life”, and he is fighting for us to choose “life”; and he died so that we may choose “life”. And he has extended to us this “unnatural” life. This life is unnatural because life is unnatural to sin. Death is what sin is at heart. Were it not for the Lord’s longsuffering mercy, we would not be. And what I mean by that is, that his spirit, striving with us is holding back, dulling sinner’s wrath.

So to think of Ezekiel as having been threatened is out of perspective. Ezekiel needed salvation, just as much as everyone else. So, all that will have life must certainly live it. So if Ezekiel chose life, then Life in him will work to save others. Life of God works to save. In order for Ezekiel to decline to speak, he would have to not value or accept the life.

So to say it simply, Death is not an option. All mankind fell under its dominion. Life is an option that God offers us.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 08:33 AM

Tom, God does not “predict” the future. Instead, He portrays it perfectly. The word “predict” implies an element of guesswork. His word will not return unto Him void. His word will accomplish everything it sets out to do.

Isaiah
55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

“Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled.” Yes, if any one of the members of the Godhead had chosen to abandon man and the plan every living being throughout the universe, including heaven, would have been destroyed. Why? Because God would have lost the great controversy, and He couldn't allow His children to serve Him out of fear.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 08:47 AM

Phil, just do your best. Perhaps referring to my views of God as "very bloody" and "pagan" and a "talisman" could be construed by an "overly sensitive" person as slightly condemnatory?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 08:53 AM

John, you're right, death is not an option. Instead, it's automatic. We die by default. Even Christ would have eventually passed away of old age if He hadn't first laid down His life on the cross. But if the wages of sin is death why, then, is it necessary for God to resurrect the unsaved? And, why is it necessary to use fire to punish and destroy them?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 08:54 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:

quote:
Do you think the lamblike beast is free not to make an image to the beast? free not to enforce the mark of the beast?

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 10:26 AM

"You still have not explain EGW's meaning of "risk." MM

Do you expect others to answer you and you not answer them?

Perhaps you are right, MM Anyone can read your views and decide for themselves in which direction they lean and how they sound. No need for me to underline your concepts anymore than you constantly do.

I'm merely attempting to gather the fragments of your theology over all these years together in some comprehensible form.

Why do you object to my doing that?

However to speculate the Father could have "sacrificing Jesus" on an altar like Abraham, makes God Christ's killer, the Cross an option and killing by Him.....bloodless???

It does not jive with my views of God one bit, no matter how sweetly anyone couches it.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 07:12 PM

Phil, if God wasn't implying that He would personally sacrifice Jesus to pay our sin debt, then what did He mean when He told Abraham to sacrifice Issaac? What's that story all about?

BTW, please refer to my response to your question about EGW's risk quote on the other thread. Thanx.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/12/05 09:37 PM

quote:
“Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled.” Yes, if any one of the members of the Godhead had chosen to abandon man and the plan every living being throughout the universe, including heaven, would have been destroyed. Why? Because God would have lost the great controversy, and He couldn't allow His children to serve Him out of fear.

Your argument is:
1. If any member of the Godhead had chosen to abandon man then:
2. a. God would have lost the Great Controversy.
b. He couldn't allow His children to serve Him out of fear.

I'm having two problems with this argument. First of all, how does it address the sentence you quoted? "Remember that *Christ* risked all." The meaning of this is clearly that Christ risked *Himself*. The other quotes from DA point this out as well "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss."

I agree with your logic that if God had chosen to abandon man He would have lost the Great Controversy, but I don't see how this would risk *Christ* in any way. I also don't see how one of the Godhead's abandoning man would lead God allowing man to serve Him out of fear. I don't see what point you were trying to make.

None of this really addressed the point I was making, as far as I can tell, which is that Christ took a risk in coming here, both from His own perspective and the perspective of God the Father. This means that the future is *not* like a T.V. rerun, because if it were, obviously there wouldn't have been any risk involved.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/13/05 01:40 AM

No, MM: apparently all of us would like to understand your take on EGW's "risk" statement here, if you would be so kind as to clarify your opinion. It is very clearly on topic.

Risk and free-will are inseparable.

If everything is controlled by God, there was no risk, no possibility of loss.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/13/05 08:06 AM

The idea that Sister White's insight regarding risk requires us to believe God does not know the end from the beginning, like a rerun, is, I believe, misapplying her intent. The prophecies make it clear that Jesus would not fail, or fail to save us. Therefore, whatever she meant when she wrote about risk, one thing is certain, it cannot contradict the facts. Where else, in the Bible, do you find support for the idea that God was unsure if Jesus would succeed or not when He began drinking the cup? BTW, I'm not evading your question. I need more information. I find it hard to believe that God didn't know if Jesus would sin and die eternally or not.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/13/05 08:17 AM

Tom, I do not believe the "Christ risked all" insight implies Jesus could have sinned and died eternally. God cannot die. It's impossible. The way I read it, she's saying that all of creation stood to lose if Jesus refused to finish drinking the cup. If Christ had quit then God would have been forced to destroy all FMAs. Why? Because God would have lost the great controversy. The security of the universe depends on God refuting Satan's accusations. If Christ had failed to prove that God is holy, just, and good, then the unfallen beings would have had no recourse but to fear God. And fear leads to rebellion.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/13/05 05:04 PM

Is risk actually a risk if you know your going to win?

Would it be a risk for Arnold Schwarzenegger to arm-wrestle you, even if Arnold announced "Jah. I'll reesk it!"

Did God just pretend to risk all, all of earth's creatures and eventually all of Creation's souls, in time, and stack everything in His favor?

Doesn't Rome teach this, that Jesus wasn't really vulnerable, just had a shell of human weakness, so He really was in no danger at all?

Would all the Universe be convinced of the sacrificing love of Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit if they knew it was all rigged, and there was really no chance of Christ failing?

So was Jesus just "renting" a human risky state for show?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/14/05 06:21 AM

MM: Tom, I do not believe the "Christ risked all" insight implies Jesus could have sinned and died eternally. God cannot die. It's impossible.

Tom: You're correct that God cannot die. However, there's a statement in the Spirit of Prophesy that had Christ sinned then He would have remained behind the stone of tomb forever (C'mon Phil! Come up with this one please, O master of the EGW lookup) God would have lost His Son in some meaningful way, because she writes , "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss." "Loss" means to lose, to be without. So while God cannot die, it is nevertheless true that God risked losing Christ.

MM: The way I read it, she's saying that all of creation stood to lose if Jesus refused to finish drinking the cup.

Tom: That's not in the least what she's saying. Here are the quotes:

quote:
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. (DA 131)

quote:
Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. (DA 49)

The thought is that the risk was taken of losing Christ. There's nothing said here regarding Christ's creation being lost, only of Christ being lost.

MM: If Christ had quit then God would have been forced to destroy all FMAs. Why? Because God would have lost the great controversy.

Tom: This makes no sense at all. Why would God have to destroy sinless angels because Christ abandoned the plan to save man? The angels never sinned. It is sin that results in death. Without sin, there's no death.

MM: The security of the universe depends on God refuting Satan's accusations. If Christ had failed to prove that God is holy, just, and good, then the unfallen beings would have had no recourse but to fear God. And fear leads to rebellion.

Tom: Oh, this is your line of thought:
1) God loses GC
2) Unfallen beings would be forced to fear God
3) Which would lead to their rebellion
4) So God would be forced to destroy them

That's an odd way of putting it, but at least I can follow the logic. It misses the point, however, that God swore by Himself to Abraham, so He put His own self on the line as well, so the consequences of failure would have involved even more than what you have suggested.

I think I should add as well that it is sin which leads to death, not God.

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. (DA 764)

Well, regardless of these thoughts, it doesn't address the issue that God risked Himself, and Christ risked Himself, for our redemption.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/14/05 06:48 AM

MM: The idea that Sister White's insight regarding risk requires us to believe God does not know the end from the beginning, like a rerun, is, I believe, misapplying her intent.

Tom: Why? She says that risk was involved in Christ's coming here. She calls it a "fearful" risk, and a "bitterer" risk than what earthly father's face with their children.

"Risk" implies the possibility of loss. That's what the word means. If the future were like a T.V. rerun, then the possibility of loss would be impossible (that's got a nice ring to it). Hence to suggest that what she wrote implies that the future is not like a T.V. rerun is not misapplying her intent, but simply carrying what she wrote to its logical conclusion.

"Risk" and "T.V. rerun future" are imcompatible ideas.

MM: The prophecies make it clear that Jesus would not fail, or fail to save us.

Tom: They make clear what would happen if Christ were faithful. But you're assuming your conclusion. Certainly God believed in His Son, and the prophesies bear out that God knew what the outcome would be if Christ were faithful. But the fact that God was able to predict an outcome based on the assumption of faithfulness on the part of His Son in no way implies that this predicted future was inevitable.

The Spirit of Prophesy emphasizes dozens of times that Christ really could have sinned. Your theory would make this impossible.

MM: Therefore, whatever she meant when she wrote about risk, one thing is certain, it cannot contradict the facts. Where else, in the Bible, do you find support for the idea that God was unsure if Jesus would succeed or not when He began drinking the cup? BTW, I'm not evading your question. I need more information. I find it hard to believe that God didn't know if Jesus would sin and die eternally or not.

Tom: The clearest statements about the risk taken in Christ's coming are from the Spirit of Prophesy. I don't know of any direct statements from Scripture which bear this out.

This conclusion can be inferred from Scripture from the fact that Christ was a free moral agent, and His coming as a man involved the possibility of sin, which would lead to eternal loss.

Although there is no direct statement regarding the risk of Christ that I am aware of, the Scripture is full of statements which demonstrate that the future is not like a T.V. rerun. John has already pointed out one of these several times, to which, I don't think, you have responded, so I think I'll put off for now listing others, but there are dozens.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/14/05 08:23 AM

Tom, I meant that God would have been forced to destroy unfallen FMAs to prevent them from experiencing the inevitable - fear and rebellion. Not that He would have destroyed them after they rebelled.

You are correct, there are no biblical passages that suggest Jesus could have failed or refused to save man. The prophecies do not say what Jesus will do IF He chooses to be faithful, rather they clearly say He WILL be faithful. You cannot twist Sister White's comments about risk to contradict the plainly worded prophecies.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/14/05 04:24 PM

Is this the one, Tom?
Does this sound like Christ knew of 're-runs'? If He was trully like us, He couldn't have 'seen' the outcome beforehand, or faith would have been a sham on His part, right?
Was He just pretending, play acting His doubts, His inability to see, His hopeless feelings,His fears of abandonment and rejection by His Father? He knew He had no sin of His own, therefore wouldn't it be the vileness of our sins that He absorbed, and since that had never been done before, He was reduced to absolute faith in the Love of God for Him and us?

"Even doubts assailed the dying Son of God. He could not see through the portals of the tomb. Bright hope did not present to him his coming forth from the tomb a conqueror, and his Father's acceptance of his sacrifice. The sin of the world with all its terribleness was felt to the utmost by the Son of God. The displeasure of the Father for sin, and its penalty which was death, were all that he could realize through this amazing darkness. He was tempted to fear that sin was so offensive in the sight of his Father that he could not be reconciled to his Son. The fierce temptation that his own Father had forever left him, caused that piercing cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" "- {ST, August 21, 1879 par. 18}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/14/05 05:42 PM

Phil, please notice that this insight in no way says Jesus doubted the outcome of His ordeal. He was tempted to doubt His Father's approval, but He successfully resisted it. Nor does this quote say the Father did not know the outcome. And, Jesus did not enter the tomb not knowing if He would come forth. Though He was sorely tempted to doubt it, by faith He knew it all along. Not once did Jesus doubt the promises or prophecies of God regarding the outcome.

DA 756
Amid the awful darkness, apparently forsaken of God, Christ had drained the last dregs in the cup of human woe. In those dreadful hours He had relied upon the evidence of His Father's acceptance heretofore given Him. He was acquainted with the character of His Father; He understood His justice, His mercy, and His great love. By faith He rested in Him whom it had ever been His joy to obey. And as in submission He committed Himself to God, the sense of the loss of His Father's favor was withdrawn. By faith, Christ was victor. {DA 756.3}

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/15/05 12:35 AM

MM:Tom, I meant that God would have been forced to destroy unfallen FMAs to prevent them from experiencing the inevitable - fear and rebellion. Not that He would have destroyed them after they rebelled.

You are correct, there are no biblical passages that suggest Jesus could have failed or refused to save man. The prophecies do not say what Jesus will do IF He chooses to be faithful, rather they clearly say He WILL be faithful. You cannot twist Sister White's comments about risk to contradict the plainly worded prophecies.

Tom: My goodness! It sounds like you completely misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote that there were no *direct* statements that I was aware of that were as clear about it as Sister White's statements were. Now as one who rarely quotes Scripture, but often quotes reams of Sister White quotes, I was thinking Sister White quotes would be appropriate. And they were certainly clear quotes. Now you are suggesting that I am "twisting" her quotes to counteract Scripture, which is not in the least what I was saying.

If you want Scripture quotes on the subject, here are a few:

Gen. 2:19 | Gen. 6:5–6 | Gen. 22:12 | Exod. 3:18–4:9 | Exod. 4:10–16 | Exod. 13:17 | Exod. 16:4 | Exod. 32:14 | Exod. 32:33 | Exod. 33:1–3, 14 | Num. 11:1–2 | Num. 14:11 | Num. 14:12–20 | Num. 16:20–35 | Num. 16:41–48 | Deut. 8:2 | Deut. 9:13–14, 18–20, 25 | Deut. 13:1–3 | Deut. 30:19 | Judg. 2:20–3:5 | Judg. 10:13–15 | 1 Sam. 2:27–31 | 1 Sam. 13:13–14 | 1 Sam. 15:10 | 1 Sam. 15:35 | 1 Sam. 23:9–13 | 2 Sam. 24:12–16 | 2 Sam. 24:17–25 | 1 Kings 21:27–29 | 2 Kings 13:3–5 | 2 Kings 20:1–7 | 1 Chron. 21:7–13 | 1 Chron. 21:15 | 2 Chron. 7:12–14 | 2 Chron. 12:5–8 | 2 Chron. 32:31 | Psalm 106:23 | Isa. 5:3–7 | Isa. 38:1–5 | Jer. 3:6–7 | Jer. 3:19–20 | Jer. 7:5–7 | Jer. 18:7–11 | Jer. 19:5 | Jer. 26:2–3 | Jer. 26:19 | Jer. 32:35 | Jer. 38:17–18, 20–21, 23 | Ezek. 12:1–3 | Ezek. 20:5–22 | Ezek. 22:29–31 | Ezek. 33:13–15 | Hosea 8:5 | Hosea 11:8–9 | Joel 2:13–14 | Amos 7:1–6 | Jonah 1:2; 3:2, 4–10; 4:2 | Matt. 25:41 | Matt. 26:39 | Acts 15:7 | Acts 21:10–12 | 2 Pet. 3:9–12 | Rev. 3:5 | Rev. 22:18

What these texts have in common is they all present a view of the future which is open, similar to the one which John quoted. For example, here is the Jer. 18 quote:

quote:
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jer. 18:7-10)

God was not controlling the future in any way. He wanted to bless, and He would bless, if there is a response by the ones to whom the prophesy is presented. OTOH, if those to whom God had prophesied blessings turned away from God, then those prophesies would no longer be valid.

Returning to Sister White a moment we have:

quote:
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}

There are two things to note here:
1) God took a risk.
2) The risk was losing His Son.

These statements are as clear as sunlight, and there are in no way "twisted" but match perfectly the Scriptural record presented above.

The fact that God saw fit to present further light on a subject which can be inferred from Scripture, although directly presented by her, does not mean her witness should not be heard. If you believe this way, then you should never cite anything from Sister White again, but limit yourself to Scripture.

I'm happy to discuss the subject any way you like, but it seems a bit disingenuous of me for you to almost exclusively quote yourself from the Spirit of Prophesy but then complain if someone else does.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/15/05 02:20 AM

Thank you Tom!

MM Does one need faith if one has absolute control over everything and everybody, Satan and rebels included? Did you miss what I ended my last post with?

"He knew He had no sin of His own, therefore wouldn't it be the vileness of our sins that He absorbed, and since that had never been done before, He was reduced to absolute faith in the Love of God for Him and us?"

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/15/05 05:54 PM

Tom, it looks as though we are both misunderstanding each other. I did not mean to imply that you cannot use the SOP to establish a point. More power to you. However, both of us must ensure that our interpretation of the SOP does not contradict the Bible. Whatever she meant by referring to risk and Christ, in the context of the cross, one thing is certain, it cannot be construed to mean Jesus and the Father were not absolutely sure Jesus would succeed in saving us. None of the scriptures you listed imply, even in the slightest way, that Jesus might not succeed in saving mankind or winning the great controversy against sin and Satan. Yes, some prophecies are conditional, and different outcomes are possible, but there is nothing conditional about Jesus and the cross or the outcome of the great controversy.

The expression, “at the risk of failure and eternal loss”, does not unequivocally mean that it was possible for the Son of God to fail and die eternally. First of all, according to the prophecies, Jesus would not fail or lose. There is no hint in the Bible that He might not succeed. Secondly, the word “loss” does not necessarily mean Jesus Himself would die eternally. It could mean something else. If Jesus failed to drink the cup, who or what did He stand to lose eternally? To me, the answer is obvious. The eternal security of fallen and unfallen beings alike depends upon a successful outcome of the great controversy. Jesus risked losing everything if He failed to drink the cup, everything, that is, but His own life. God cannot die. Saying Jesus risked everything is a hyperbole, not a possibility. It’s a figure of speech, not a statement of fact.

quote:
Can the lamblike beast choose not to make an image to the first beast? Can it choose not to enforce the mark of the beast?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/16/05 06:04 AM

Phil, when Jesus became a human being He place self-imposed restrictions upon Himself, namely, He set aside His personal divinity and partook of His Father's divine nature in exactly the same way born again believer may and must do. Yes, there were times when He acted in the capacity of His own divinity, but never in order to resist temptation or to lessen His load as sin-bearer. As such, Jesus exercised faith in His Father and Scripture promises like a born again believer.

He somehow divested Himself of the knowledge He possessed before His incarnation, and lived His life as a man. He was not born with the knowledge of God. He had to learn the truth in the same way we can and must. Therefore, Jesus based His faith and knowledge concerning the future on what He read in the Bible, and on whatever else God shared with Him in prayer.

As God, before and after His incarnation, Jesus does not rely of faith to know the future. He knows the end from the beginning, like watching a rerun. As God, He also knows the exact day and hour He will return to redeem mankind. As man, while here on earth, He did not possess this particular piece of information. If, as you say, God does not know the future, like a rerun, how is it, then, that He knows the exact day and hour of the second coming?

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/17/05 04:54 AM

quote:
“at the risk of failure and eternal loss”

MM, this expression has to do with the issue where the "control factor" is.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/17/05 10:14 AM

MM: Tom, it looks as though we are both misunderstanding each other. I did not mean to imply that you cannot use the SOP to establish a point. More power to you. However, both of us must ensure that our interpretation of the SOP does not contradict the Bible.

Tom: "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss." "Christ risked Himself." "All heaven was placed in peril." These are not difficult statements in need of "interpretation."

MM: Whatever she meant by referring to risk and Christ, in the context of the cross, one thing is certain, it cannot be construed to mean Jesus and the Father were not absolutely sure Jesus would succeed in saving us.

Tom: The statement was made in the context of Christ's birth. It's in the chapter "Unto You A Saviour"

quote:
The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}

MM: None of the scriptures you listed imply, even in the slightest way, that Jesus might not succeed in saving mankind or winning the great controversy against sin and Satan.

Tom: They all do because they demonstrate the future is open and not fixed like a T.V. Rerun. God had faith in His Son, and risked all based on that faith, but it was indeed a risk.

MM: Yes, some prophecies are conditional, and different outcomes are possible, but there is nothing conditional about Jesus and the cross or the outcome of the great controversy.

The expression, “at the risk of failure and eternal loss”, does not unequivocally mean that it was possible for the Son of God to fail and die eternally. First of all, according to the prophecies, Jesus would not fail or lose. There is no hint in the Bible that He might not succeed. Secondly, the word “loss” does not necessarily mean Jesus Himself would die eternally. It could mean something else. If Jesus failed to drink the cup, who or what did He stand to lose eternally? To me, the answer is obvious. The eternal security of fallen and unfallen beings alike depends upon a successful outcome of the great controversy. Jesus risked losing everything if He failed to drink the cup, everything, that is, but His own life. God cannot die. Saying Jesus risked everything is a hyperbole, not a possibility. It’s a figure of speech, not a statement of fact.

Tom: The only sense I can make of this is that you disagree with what the Spirit of Prophesy is saying. That's your perogative.

quote:
The value of a soul, who can estimate? Would you know its worth, go to Gethsemane, and there watch with Christ through those hours of anguish, when He sweat as it were great drops of blood. Look upon the Saviour uplifted on the cross. Hear that despairing cry, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Mark 15:34. Look upon the wounded head, the pierced side, the marred feet. Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul. (COL 196)

She's not using a "figure of speech" but developing a logical argument, whose premise is that to appreciate the value of a soul we must recongnize the risk which was taken for its salvation.

Regarding Christ's own loss, note that in the above DA quote we read that God sent His Son at the risk of "failure and eternal loss." The context makes it clear that she is referring to the risk that God would lose His own Son. That was the whole point. She makes it clear by making an analogy with the fear that a human father feels when his own child enters into the world.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/17/05 07:34 PM

Tom, you are assuming that the words "risk" and "imperiled" and "eternal loss" can only mean one thing, and one thing only, namely, that it was possible for Jesus to sin and die eternally. But nowhere does Sister White use the words sin and death in the context of risk and peril and loss. Rather, you are making that assumption.

To make such an assumption you must first reject everything else the Bible says about the life and death of Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP is it taught that it was possible for Jesus to sin and die eternally. God cannot die. Only created beings are capable of dying. Yes, Jesus could have refused to drink the cup, but it would have required destroying all FMAs, which was something Jesus refused to do.

Again, the idea that Jesus placed all heaven at risk and peril by becoming a human being is a hyperbole, an exaggeration to emphasize a point. Jesus Himself used hyperboles to emphasize certain points. No, it is not a form of lying. Rather, it is a form of speech. There was never any doubt that Jesus would drink the cup, never any fear that He might sin and die eternally. But knowing Jesus would triumph over sin and Satan did not lessen the emotional impact of His ordeal.

When probation closes, the 144,000 know they will not sin and die, they know they will be translated alive when Jesus returns. There is no doubt about it in their minds. The prophecies are clear and consistent. To doubt their forthcoming deliverance would be a sin, a sin that would lead to death. Thus, they will refuse to doubt their salvation. It is their refusal to doubt that vindicates God’s kingdom and character, and causes Satan to admit defeat. But their confidence in the promises of God will in no way lessen the emotional impact of their ordeal.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/18/05 07:35 AM

quote:
Tom, you are assuming that the words "risk" and "imperiled" and "eternal loss" can only mean one thing, and one thing only, namely, that it was possible for Jesus to sin and die eternally. But nowhere does Sister White use the words sin and death in the context of risk and peril and loss. Rather, you are making that assumption.

Your strawman arguments get rather tiresome at times. Pardon me for saying that, but I already refuted this line of argument. The Spirit of Prophesy states that divinity cannot die, and I have never asserted what you are asserting I am saying. You've made up your own definitions about my interpretations, and assert I am saying things which I never said. I do wish you would stop.

The statements from the Spirit of Prophesy are clear that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. The words "risk" and "failure" and "eternal" and "loss" as words which a bright fourth grader should have no trouble understanding. Let me ask you what your definition of these words are. For myself, I would be happy to stick with the standard dictionary definitions.

The main point I was making earlier is that there is not way one can construe "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" with having something to do with the possibility that FMA's which Christ had created might be lost.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/18/05 05:32 PM

Okay, let's agree to disagree. I never meant to imply that you personally believe Jesus was capable of dying eternally. So, moving on. How about the other question I've posted several times? Can the lamblike beast choose not to make an image to the first beast? choose not to enforce the mark of the beast? Or, is it inevitable?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/20/05 02:38 AM

quote:
Okay, let's agree to disagree. I never meant to imply that you personally believe Jesus was capable of dying eternally. So, moving on. How about the other question I've posted several times? Can the lamblike beast choose not to make an image to the first beast? choose not to enforce the mark of the beast? Or, is it inevitable?

Does agreeing to disagree mean I answer your questions, but you don't answer mine? I've asked you several times how God sending His Son "at the risk of eternal life" can mean anything other than God risked losing His Son in order to effect our redemption.

In a topic such as "how free our free" it is inevitable that the topic of the nature of the future will come up. If the future is like a T.V. rerun, then we are not free. That would be a logical impossibility. Either we a self-determining creatures, or we aren't. If the future is alread determined, then we cannot determine it. Hence we cannot be free. We can *think* we are free, be we cannot actually be free, because to be free implies that we can act in such a way as to impact the future.

The lamblike beast is not an individual. There's no aspect of freedom involved here, other than the principle that sin leads to bondage. God understands perfectly the principles involved in the Great Controversy, and Satan is a slave to sin (those who commit sin become its slave, and noone is more of a slave than Satan), so God knows what Satan will attempt to do. So to answer your questions, I would say these prophesies are inevitable. I can't think of any circumstances under which they wouldn't come to pass, at any rate.

However, I don't see how this prooves anything. The fact that there is some instance in some circumstance where some event is inevitable does not mean that every event in every circumstance in every instance is inevitable, and goes nowhere towards showing that the future is like a T.V. rerun. OTOH, providing a single counterexample *does* dispell the argument that the future is like a T.V. rerun.

That God took a risk in sending Christ to redeem us does that very thing. That is, it disproves the future is like a T.V. rerun idea because risk means the possibility of loss, which is mutually exclusive to the idea that the future is like a T.V. rerun.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/20/05 07:26 PM

Tom, just because God sees the great controversy from beginning to end does not mean we are not free. Just because I know how a movie is going to end, because I've seen it before, does not mean the actors are not free. Foreknowledge does not undermine freedom, it merely reflects what will be as if it already is.

I thought I answered your question about risk and eternal loss. It's a hyperbole. Jesus did not sin or lose. Theoretically He could have sinned and lost, but the prophecies do not allow for it. The word of God plainly says Jesus will succeed, and God’s word cannot return unto Him void. It cannot fail. Why? Because God sees the beginning and the end of the great controversy, and has known it from the eternal ages.

God knows every single detail, every minute thing about the great controversy. He knows everything everyone will think, say, and do, and the motives behind it, and He has known all this about everyone forever. Nothing is hid from God. The past and the future, in God, are present tense. He is all knowing and all powerful. He “inhabits eternity” (Isa 57:15). He “calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Rom 4:17).

The lamblike beast symbolizes a host of American politicians and lawmakers, and God can foretell their future actions because He knows everything about everyone who will be involved in the decision making process. He knows exactly what each person will think, say, and do, and the motives behind it, and He has known this about them forever and ever. Otherwise, it would be impossible for God to foretell the future of the lamblike beast.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/20/05 09:45 PM

MM: Tom, just because God sees the great controversy from beginning to end does not mean we are not free.

Tom: This is scratching where it doesn't itch. Most people apply this same false reasoning, so you're not alone.

The problem with the future being determined is not one of God's foreknowlge causing our lack of freedom. It is not God's foreknowledge which is the problem. The problem has to do with the nature of the future. If the future is determined, then we cannot be self-determining creatures. It's really a very simple concept, but one which many have trouble grasping, for some reason which eludes me.

EGW has hit upon this in her writings a couple of times in ways which are easy to understand. She states that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. A little thought will suffice to see that this implies the future cannot be determined. She also emphasizes many times that Christ really could have sinned, so the same logic applies here. If Christ could have sinned, then the Plan of Salvation could have failed, and the prephesies could have failed, which shows the future is not determined, or fixed. This is simple stuff.

Another place where one can easily see from her writings that the future is not fixed is from where she speaks of the existence of sin. God is innocent of any wrongdoing. This is only possible if the future is not fixed. If there is only one possible outcome, and God sets into motion a process which can only result in that one possible outcome, it's as clear as sunlight that in this situation God would not be innocent of wrongdoing as He *would* be to blame for sin coming into existence.

MM: Just because I know how a movie is going to end, because I've seen it before, does not mean the actors are not free. Foreknowledge does not undermine freedom, it merely reflects what will be as if it already is.

Tom: Again, this is scratching where it doesn't itch. It is not understanding the nature of the difficulty, which is not one of causation due to foreknowledge, but one of not being able to be a self-determining creature because of the nature of the future.

MM: I thought I answered your question about risk and eternal loss. It's a hyperbole.

Tom: You have no basis whatsoever on the basis of the text to assert that it is a hyperbole. The context bears out that she is being deadly serious in what she wrote. "Remember" that Christ risked all. In this way can you understand the value of a soul. God faces a more fateful risk as Christ face a bitterer conflict. Wonder and be astonished O earth and Heavens! Not until we see the courts of heaven and recognize that Christ not only left all of this but took the risk of failure and eternal loss will we fully appreicate what He did for us. These are the types of things she writes. These are not hyperboles! They are well reasoned arguments based on clearly stated premises.

MM: Jesus did not sin or lose. Theoretically He could have sinned and lost, but the prophecies do not allow for it.

Tom: Then you flat out disagree with her, as she states many times that Christ really and truly could have sinned (not merely "theoretically," whatever that means).

MM: The word of God plainly says Jesus will succeed, and God’s word cannot return unto Him void. It cannot fail. Why? Because God sees the beginning and the end of the great controversy, and has known it from the eternal ages.

Tom: Once again, you are disagreeing with the Spirit of Prophesy (also Scripture, but that would be another thread). Here's one well known quote which brings out this point,

quote:
He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {13MR 18.1}

Note: "He could ahve sinned; He could have fallen." Your premises are:
1)The Word of God plainly says Jesus will succeed.
2)The Word of God cannot fail.

The conclusion must be:
3)Jesus must succeed.

Do you see how "Jesus must succeed" does not agree with "He could have sinned; He could have fallen"?

MM: God knows every single detail, every minute thing about the great controversy. He knows everything everyone will think, say, and do, and the motives behind it, and He has known all this about everyone forever. Nothing is hid from God. The past and the future, in God, are present tense. He is all knowing and all powerful. He “inhabits eternity” (Isa 57:15). He “calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Rom 4:17).

Tom: I've pointed this out many times, but the point hasn't been grasped, so I'll try again. What we're dealing with is not God's foreknowledge, but the nature of the future. You are correct that God knows the future perfectly, but God knows the future as it actually is, which isn't necessarily how you think it is. That is, it is not necessary for the future to be of the simplistic T.V. rerun variety in order for God to perfectly know it.

If the future is like a T.V. rerun, then
1)How can it be said that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss?
2)How can it be said that God is not to blame for sin?
3)How can it be said that we are to no only look for but to hasten the coming of Christ?
4)How can it be said that Christ could have come before now, in the 1888 era for example?

MM: The lamblike beast symbolizes a host of American politicians and lawmakers, and God can foretell their future actions because He knows everything about everyone who will be involved in the decision making process. He knows exactly what each person will think, say, and do, and the motives behind it, and He has known this about them forever and ever. Otherwise, it would be impossible for God to foretell the future of the lamblike beast.

Tom: You conclusion in no way follows from you premise. This is completely flawed logic. Your argument is:
1)God has known from all eternity what every person will think, say, and do.
2)Otherwise it would be impossible for God to foretell the future of the lamblike beast.

This argument is equivalent to the following:
1)God is able to foretell the future of the lamblike beast.
2)Therefore God must have known from all eternity what every person will think, say and do.

It should be obvious that this logic is flawed, but just in case this isn't obvious, I will illustrate it. I am able to predict what my wife will do in a certain circumstance. This is because I know her. So if I say to her, "do me a favor" she will say "E` muito" (which means, "that's a lot", kind of like "that's too much"). So I can foretell what she will do. Therefore I must have known from all eternity what every person will think, say and do.

The principles were in place for these prophesies to be fulfilled in the 1890's. They could have happened then; indeed, should have. That they could have happened then, but didn't, yet will happen in the future should make it plain that the fulfillment of these prophesies is not dependent upon any *specific* group of politicians.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/20/05 10:48 PM

Tom, the “future being determined” and God knowing the end from the beginning, like watching a rerun, are not one and the same thing. Knowing the choices people will make, before they make them, is not fixing the future or restricting their freedom. The idea that Jesus was free to sin is academic only, it in no way implies God does not know the end from the beginning in minute detail.

Just because God foresaw the fall of men and angels, and chose to create them anyhow, does not mean God is to blame for the entrance of sin. It was inevitable, because God chose to create them, but He did not make them to sin or cause them to sin. He made them perfectly holy and happy.

There is nothing disingenuous about employing a hyperbole to emphasize the magnitude and beauty of the plan of salvation. Whether or not you and I agree on this is a matter of interpretation. You believe she was clearly saying that Jesus could have failed to save mankind, and I insist she was only employing a hyperbole. You are absolutely sure I’m wrong and that you’re right. I feel the opposite about it. The word of God cannot lie, nor can it return unto God void. Period. No question or doubt about it. If you disagree, then you at odds with the word of God, not me.

The Bible very plainly says Jesus will, and did, succeed on the cross. It never, in any way, implies that Jesus might not succeed. Yes, the Bible talks about certain conditional prophecies, but there is absolutely nothing conditional about the prophecies that talk about Jesus and the cross. He “could have sinned” simply means He was free to sin, that He wasn’t incapable of sinning. It doesn’t imply He might, or that God wasn’t sure if He would or not.

The fact Christ could have returned “ere this” does not in any way suggest God does not know the exact day and hour of Christ’s second coming. The religio-political situation in 1888 did not meet the criteria outlined in the Bible. Yes, in some ways it came close, but obviously it stopped short of fulfilling the prophecies. Therefore, Jesus did not return in 1888.

Jesus will not, and cannot, return until all the specifics recorded in the Bible are fulfilled. It didn't happen in 1888. The world, or the church, wasn't ready in 1888 for the return of Jesus. They could have been, and should have been ready, but they weren't. And God knew they wouldn't be ready in 1888. But this doesn't change the fact they could have been ready or should have been ready.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/20/05 11:50 PM

MM: Tom, the “future being determined” and God knowing the end from the beginning, like watching a rerun, are not one and the same thing. Knowing the choices people will make, before they make them, is not fixing the future or restricting their freedom.

Tom: This is again scratching where it doesn't itch. The issue is not with God's foreknowledge, but with the nature of the future. God cannot know the future in some way that it isn't. God knows things as they are. If the future is not fixed, than God cannot know it as fixed.

Take God out of the question for a moment. That might simplify things. Think about the future. Is it fixed, or isn't it? If it is fixed, then it can only have one path. If it is open, then there are many paths it can take. This question is independent of God's foreknowledge.

MM: The idea that Jesus was free to sin is academic only, it in no way implies God does not know the end from the beginning in minute detail.

Tom: This sentence has a false beginning, and an irrelevant conclusion. No one is asserting that God doesn't know the end from the beginning in minute deatil. What is being asserted is that the future is not fixed.

You may have the idea that Jesus' being free to sin is academic only, but EGW often faught against this idea. She emphasized the reverse many times. I quoted one of the more famous of these times. Your idea is not hers.

MM: Just because God foresaw the fall of men and angels, and chose to create them anyhow, does not mean God is to blame for the entrance of sin.

Tom: If God set into motion a chain of events which could only result in one possible outcome, it DOES mean He is to blame for the entrance of sin. There's no way around this.

MM: It was inevitable, because God chose to create them, but He did not make them to sin or cause them to sin. He made them perfectly holy and happy.

Tom: If sin was inevitable, then God was to blame. How can that not be the case? He could have chosen to not create, or to have created things differently, a first angel whom He foreknew wouldn't sin, or a first human couple that He foreknew wouldn't sin. As you have frequently pointed out, according to your view, God foresaw that these creatures would sin (not could, but would) and chose to create them "anyhow". The "anyhow" is significant. It is what places the blame on God. If God could have done things in some other way in which sin would have not arisen, and deliberately chose not to do this, prefering to do things the way that He did, resulting in sin being inevitable when that need not have been the case, then God IS to blame for sin. How could He not be, given this set of assumptions?

MM: There is nothing disingenuous about employing a hyperbole to emphasize the magnitude and beauty of the plan of salvation.

Tom: The only reason you are assuming this is a hyperbole is because you don't agree with it. What she is writing is plain speech. Here it is again:

quote:
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}

Where is there any "hyperbole" here? Hyperbole is "deliberate exaggeration used to achieve an effect." For example, in William Shakespeare's Macbeth, Lady Macbeth hyperbolizes when she says, "All the perfumes of Arabia could not sweeten this little hand." This is hyperbole! What EGW wrote is NOT. There is nothing to indicate either here or in DA 131, or in COL that she is intentionally exagerating anything.

MM: Whether or not you and I agree on this is a matter of interpretation. You believe she was clearly saying that Jesus could have failed to save mankind, and I insist she was only employing a hyperbole.

Tom: But you have no basis to insist this. You only do this because you prefer this to admitting your view is incorrect, or that EGW doesn't support it. It makes it kind of pointless to try to prove something to you from her writings if when you are proven incorrect you can wipe your hand and call things a "hyperbole."

If there were something in the text which indicated the possibility of hyperbole, I would be open to accept your suggestion. Can you point to anything in the text which suggests hyperbole?

MM: You are absolutely sure I’m wrong and that you’re right. I feel the opposite about it.

Tom: I have confidence in what she has written, not in myself. I've often been wrong about things, regardless of my confidence in them. At one point I was confident that SDA's were a cult. By the grace of God, I have the openness of mind to change my views when I am presented with evidence which disagrees with what I have believed. I have often changed or adjusted my views. If you presented some evidence to support your view, I would be willing to adjust my thoughts. You haven't presented any evidence. I have. That's the difference.

MM: The word of God cannot lie, nor can it return unto God void. Period. No question or doubt about it. If you disagree, then you at odds with the word of God, not me.

Tom: I'm at odds with your very limited view of things. You are saying things are the way I think they are, or you are disagreeing with God. That seems to me to be very closed-minded. It seems to me to be entirely possible that you are wrong.

MM: The Bible very plainly says Jesus will, and did, succeed on the cross. It never, in any way, implies that Jesus might not succeed.

Tom: Your tenses are messed up here. You mean "would" and "might not have" in the place of "will" and "might not".

The Spirit of Prophesy is clear about these things. You often cite her, so I assume you believe she is inspired. So inspiration DOES imply that Christ might not have succeeded. Actually, more than implying it, it out and out states it directly.

MM: Yes, the Bible talks about certain conditional prophecies, but there is absolutely nothing conditional about the prophecies that talk about Jesus and the cross.

Tom: This is just a gratuitous assumption on your part. You have adduced no proof.

MM: He “could have sinned” simply means He was free to sin, that He wasn’t incapable of sinning. It doesn’t imply He might, or that God wasn’t sure if He would or not.

Tom: This doesn't agree with the statement that God sent His Son at the "risk of failure and eternal loss." "Risk" means more than a physical possibility; it means the possibility of loss, to be imperiled.

MM: The fact Christ could have returned “ere this” does not in any way suggest God does not know the exact day and hour of Christ’s second coming.

Tom: You keep bringing up things which are not the issue. The issue is the nature of the future, not God's foreknowledge. If the future is fixed, then Christ could not have returned "ere this." Do you understand this?

MM: The religio-political situation in 1888 did not meet the criteria outlined in the Bible.

Tom: What?!? Of course it did. All the pioneers believed it did, including Ellen G. White.

MM: Yes, in some ways it came close, but obviously it stopped short of fulfilling the prophecies. Therefore, Jesus did not return in 1888.

Tom: This is never the reason given for why Jesus didn't come. She wrote that because of insubordination we might have to remain for many years. This was in 1901 I think. Here's a statement from 1SM:

quote:
An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren {E.J.} Waggoner and {A.T.} Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded
235
in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world.

God gave a message, the purpose of which was to prepare a people for Christ's coming. That message was not heeded. THAT'S the reason Christ didn't come.

(snipped rest; I didn't see anything to add)

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/21/05 01:22 AM

MM: Ellen White exaggerating through hyberbole? As Tom points out to you, that's a bold way to force her into your non-mainstream SDA opinion box.

1888 a pre-mature attempt by God? God was in error??? This blows away any credibility concerning "set-fate", on your part [my term, please don't get upset that you never used it, directly].

This is the same problem the church had then and later: they refused to admit that they, personally, were at fault concerning 1888. They blamed others, and comforted themselves that all was "as planned".

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/22/05 06:20 AM

Okay, then the future is fixed. Like a rerun, things will play out exactly as God has known from the beginning. It cannot be any other way than God has seen it. He has seen the end from the beginning, and, therefore, things will unfold accordingly, like a rerun.

I believe Jesus was capable of sinning, but it is clear that He did not. For Ellen White to say, 2,000 years after the fact, that Jesus could have sinned is merely academic, another hyperbole. Her statement cannot be forced to mean God wasn’t sure from the beginning if Jesus would sin or not. The most convincing evidence that the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed is the fact He didn’t fail. Again, you are absolutely certain I am dead wrong, and you are entitled to your opinion.

The problem with assuming God could have created men and angels, without infringing upon their freedoms, in such a way that sin and rebellion would not have happened, is that no such option was available to God. His options were two: to create and deal with the sin problem, or not to create and not deal with the sin problem. That’s it. You cannot base an argument on a false assumption.

Again, I agree that God introduced a situation where sin and death were inevitable, and, as such, He assumes responsibility. But to say God is at fault or to blame because men and angels chose to sin and rebel is treasonous. Yes, He foresaw it, but He did not force them to sin or rebel. That men and angels sinned is a mystery, therefore, you cannot base an argument on it. It is important to bear in mind the following insight:

GC 492, 493
Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. {GC 492.2}

Jesus will not, and cannot, return until all the specifics recorded in the Bible are fulfilled. It didn't happen in 1888. Neither the world, nor the church, was ready in 1888 for the return of Jesus. They could have been, and should have been ready, but they weren't. And God knew from the beginning that they wouldn't be ready in 1888. But this doesn't change the fact they could have been ready or should have been ready.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/21/05 09:25 PM

MM: Okay, then the future is fixed. Like a rerun, things will play out exactly as God has known from the beginning. It cannot be any other way than God has seen it. He has seen the end from the beginning, and, therefore, things will unfold accordingly, like a rerun.

Tom: You write "Okay, then" and present a conclusion which has no basis in fact. Let me reproduce an argument from another thread we have going "Who is in control?"):

It's simple logic that if God set into motion a course of evens which could have only one outcome, then God is responsible for that outcome. You've used this same logic yourself. The problem is that the conclusion is false. Now in logic there is an argument where you can argue by using the contrapositive. The argument works like this: if P -> Q then ~Q -> ~P. What this means is that if P implies Q, then not Q implies not P, or in English, if this implies that, then the reverse of that implies the reverse of this. So in the above argument we have:

1)God set into motion a chain of events which could have only one possible outcome, which is sin and death.
2)Therefore God is responsible for that outcome (or "God is to blame").

This argument is logically sound, meaning that the conclusion does indeed follow from the premise. However, the conclusion is false, as shown from the GC statement you have quoted yourself:

quote:
Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin. (GC 492, 493)

Therefore the premise is false. This is simple logic. The idea that God set into a motion a course of events which can only have one possible outcome has been disproved. Q.E.D. (end of argument from the other thread).

This disproves the idea that there is one fixed future, that the future is like a T.V. rerun, because the argument shows that God could not have set into motion a course of events which can only have one possible outcome (as assumption upon which a T.V. rerun type future depends).

MM: I believe Jesus was capable of sinning, but it is clear that He did not. For Ellen White to say, 2,000 years after the fact, that Jesus could have sinned is merely academic, another hyperbole.

Tom: It's clear from her statements that this is NOT the case. Please take a close look at what she actually wrote. Here's the DA 131 version:

quote:
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. (DA 131)

"Hyperbole" means a literary devise in which one is intentionally exerating. The intent of such a device is that the reader would understand that what was being written was not to be taken literally. However, the phrase "Remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss." is obviously meant to be taken literally. That's clear to you, isn't it?

MM: Her statement cannot be forced to mean God wasn’t sure from the beginning if Jesus would sin or not. The most convincing evidence that the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed is the fact He didn’t fail.

Tom: It appers to me that you have no grasp whatsoever of logic. You write that "the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed is the fact He didn’t fail." This translates to:

1)Christ did not fall.
2)Therefore the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed.

You are basing your conclusion on something which happened *after* your conclusion. Premises are supposed to *preceed* conclusions. That's why "conclusions" are called "conclusions." The conclude that which came previously.

What happened after the Bible was written has not impact whatsoever on the thing which was written, which has become a part of the past.

That's not the only reason your argument is absurd. Here's an analagous argument:

1)The Yankees did not win the World Series last year.
2)Therefore the Bible nowhere intimated that the Yankees could have won.

The point is there is no relationship between the two parts, just like your argument. A reasonable argument would be something like this:
1)If Christ could have fallen, the Bible would have said so somewhere.
2)The Bible nowhere says Christ could have fallen.
3)Therefore Christ could not have fallen.

One could argue whether the premises are true, but at least the conclusion follows from the premises. You construct argruments which not only have untrue statements, but the arguments themselves are not valid, and not even close to valid.

MM: Again, you are absolutely certain I am dead wrong, and you are entitled to your opinion.

Tom: I'm convinced you have no clear understanding of how to reason from cause to effect. You have certain very strongly held beliefs, but they have no basis in fact, at least none which have been adduced. It's not simply a matter that you believe one thing and I believe another, but I have presented valid arguments as to why I think the things I do. By the grace of God, I'm open to change my mind, if one presents evidence.

MM: The problem with assuming God could have created men and angels, without infringing upon their freedoms, in such a way that sin and rebellion would not have happened, is that no such option was available to God. His options were two: to create and deal with the sin problem, or not to create and not deal with the sin problem. That’s it. You cannot base an argument on a false assumption.

Tom: Why do you assume it was not possible for God to create without sin existing? You seem to be of the opinion that God could not create beings with free will who would not sin. But this is obviously untrue. The vast majority, by a huge margin, of the free will creatures God has created have never sinned. Why could God not have simply not created those creatures who would not sin? Why is this a "false assumption" on my part? Why is this not a viable option for God? Why limit God to two options?

MM: Again, I agree that God introduced a situation where sin and death were inevitable, and, as such, He assumes responsibility. But to say God is at fault or to blame because men and angels chose to sin and rebel is treasonous.

Tom: Why? If God did something which could only lead to one possible result, then He is to blame. To blame means "to attribute responsibility to."

MM: Yes, He foresaw it, but He did not force them to sin or rebel.

Tom: That God foresaw it is absolutely NOT the issue. I've pointed this out many times.

The issue is that if God set into motion a course of events which could only have one outcome, then He did force that thing to happen. To force is to "cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means." If God created creatures that could only do one thing, and they did that one thing which is the only thing they could do, then they were forced. The only way they could not have been forced would be to have more than one option available.

MM: That men and angels sinned is a mystery, therefore, you cannot base an argument on it.

Tom: This logic is flawed to. Here's your argument:

1) That men and angels sinned is a mystery.
2) Therefore, you cannot base an argument on it.

The reason this argument is flawed is that it relies upon an unstated premise, which is that under no circumstances can a reason be given for why men or angels sinned, because the fact that they sinned is a mystery. It's true that no legitamate reason can be given. But a false reason could be postulated, and such a false reason could be disproved by arguing that there's no mystery involved in one holds to the postulated reason.

Allow me to clarify. Say God had created men as robots, with no ability to reason. Suppose these robots broke some rule of God. There would be no mystery involved as to why the rule was broken. Therefore the hypothesis that God created men like robots is false, because it leads to a false conclusion.

So if you postulate a hypothesis which leads to the false conclusion that men sinned for a non-mysterious reason, then your hypothesis is false. This is precisely what you have done. The argument I presented was both valid and true. Your assertion that my argument is invalid is false.

MM: It is important to bear in mind the following insight:

GC 492, 493
Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. {GC 492.2}

Tom: That's exactly my point! It's only a mystery as to why sin came about if no reason can be given for its existence. In your way of looking at things, a reason CAN be given, and very simply. The reason sin came about is because God set into motion a course of events with only possible outcome. Given that no reason can legitimately be given, your way of looking at things cannot logically be correct.

This argument is actually just a restatement of the first one I gave.

MM: Jesus will not, and cannot, return until all the specifics recorded in the Bible are fulfilled. It didn't happen in 1888. Neither the world, nor the church, was ready in 1888 for the return of Jesus. They could have been, and should have been ready, but they weren't. And God knew from the beginning that they wouldn't be ready in 1888. But this doesn't change the fact they could have been ready or should have been ready.

Tom: What your writing is not based on any facts. It's just conjecture. You don't even try to provide any basis for it. Here's what Sister White wrote:

quote:
An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren {E.J.} Waggoner and {A.T.} Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded
235
in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world (1SM 234, 235).

God gave a message, the purpose of which was to prepare the world for the coming of Christ. That message was resisted, and the enemy succeeded in delaying Christ's coming. It had nothing to do with something not being ready, other than the hearts of those to whom God was sending the message, which was not something foreordained, but a free will choice made be those to whom God was sending the message.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/21/05 09:43 PM

quote:
It appers to me that you have no grasp whatsoever of logic.

quote:
That's not the only reason your argument is absurd.

quote:
I'm convinced you have no clear understanding of how to reason from cause to effect.

Tom, I cannot continue to study with you until you apologize for these statements and promise to refrain from them from now on.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/21/05 11:36 PM

I meant no ill will by the statements, MM. I do think your arguments were absurd and illogical. Most people do not know how to use logic. The vast majority fall into the category. You can see this by looking at commercials or political campaigns.

I'll take the statements one by one:

1) It appers to me that you have no grasp whatsoever of logic.

I am convinced of this. I have taken a great deal of effort to write out well reasoned arguments, and usually you make no response to the arguments. When you do, your arguments are not valid. It's not simply that you write things that I disagree with, but the arguments themselves are not valid.

2) That's not the only reason your argument is absurd.

Here I was addressing your argument, not you. I thought the argument was absurd, and gave explicit reasons why.

3) I'm convinced you have no clear understanding of how to reason from cause to effect.

MM, to be honest, I am convinced of this. You construct arguments that are, I'll just say obviously invalid to anyone who has even a cursory understanding of logic.

However, it was not my intention to hurt your feelings, and I do apologize for that. I will ask you how you think I should have expressed the above thoughts. Instead of "absurd" would "obvsiouly invalid" be better? I can use that expression instead.

Regarding my conviction of your inability to reason from cause to effect, I invite you to:
a)Not present arguments that are obviously invalid.
b)Disprove my arguments of the invalidity of your arguments by clearly presented arguments.

Should I not have expressed my conviction? It's been an exasperating thing for me. I put in a lot of effort in the arguments I present, and you usually don't deal with them at all, or you present counterargments that are obviously invalid. If you can suggest a better way for me to have presented my conviction, I'll be happy to use your suggestion.

Please understand that my intent is not in any way to belittle you, but rather to express my angst in dealing with your obviously invalid arguments and to encourage you to use valid arguments. If you will do this, my conviction will change.

Allow me to give Rosangela as an example. She and I have disagreed on a number of things, but her posts are always logical and always on point. She doesn't misquote me, and she doesn't present spurious arguments or repeat platitudes.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these things with you (and Rosangela, and others). Although I don't really expect you to change your mind, it does provide an opportunity to think though things and learn to better express myself. I've had a number of insights from our discussions, so I think you for your participation.

I also wish to compliment you on your tone. I complained about it quite some time ago, and you responded. It's only reasonable that I respond in kind, so I do apologize for any remarks which were untoward, and ask you for alternatives as to how I should have phrased the remarks you found offensive.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/22/05 04:06 AM

Tom, what do you hope to profit by expressing your opinion about my opinion? If you are truly convinced I cannot reason logically or follow logic reasonably, then we need to stop studying together. Your failure to apologize for the unlovely and unnecessary things you wrote about me suggests that we are not compatible study partners.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/22/05 04:30 AM

I thought I did apologize. I'll try again.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I didn't expect that to happen, and I wouldn't have written what I did had I known that would happen. I feel bad about having hurt you, and have been praying about it, and for you, throughout the day.

I try to keep comments from being personal, and failed to do so here, and am sorry for that. As I pointed out, you responded nicely when I asked you to refrain from personal comments, and you are well entitled to expect the same behavior from me.

When you apologized for your comments, I allowed you to continue to converse with me, and hope to receive the same courtesy from you.

I would be happy to continue our discussions.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/22/05 07:23 AM

Thank you. I, too, am sorry you are convinced I cannot reason logically, but I cannot expect you to change your opinion about me. It sounds like you are willing to refrain from posting them, so, I don't see why we cannot continue studying together. I will try to be more careful how I respond to your posts, and hopefully it will be less frustrating for you.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/22/05 09:23 AM

quote:
Thank you. I, too, am sorry you are convinced I cannot reason logically, but I cannot expect you to change your opinion about me.

Sure you can! I've often been wrong, and I admit it. Present logical arguments, and I'll be the first to admit you can reason logically.

Thank you for accepting my apology. Even though we haven't met personally, I feel like I have gotten to know you, and I felt very bad that I had hurt your feelings.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/22/05 10:58 AM

Ah...feelings...such fickle masters of many hearts, even among Christians. I have seen souls leave the Truth over perceived injuries (oh, and real ones, too), seen saints become reprobates because of some "insult", seen hearts hardened to Light due to fear of others harming their "reputation".

Feelings are a dangerous thing; the Testimonies are filled with references to incorrect love of feelings and emotions.

But, back on topic....

Bro. Tom Since we all agree that God knows all, and is all-powerful, do you see this as requiring that He manufactors every incident in every saved man's life? (I say "saved" man, so as to narrow down the field a bit. We may agree, I hope, that the unsaved cannot claim the same protection and direction as the redeemed.)

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/22/05 05:47 PM

quote:
Bro. Tom Since we all agree that God knows all, and is all-powerful, do you see this as requiring that He manufactors every incident in every saved man's life? (I say "saved" man, so as to narrow down the field a bit. We may agree, I hope, that the unsaved cannot claim the same protection and direction as the redeemed.)

This is a great question! When I was younger (much younger, with good knees) I had a much restrictive view of this (in fact, I was Calvinistic in my thinking). I head someone preach a sermon where he spoke of how David was a man after God's own heart, and how God blessed the ground that David walked on; the idea being that David could do what he wanted (not including sin, of course) and God would bless it.

A good parent will (generally) seek to instill his/her value system to his/her child, but not to direct the child into a specific occupation (usually). That is, the preocupation of the parent is that the child learn to think for itself and make decisions based on the values which the parent deems to be right and true. The parent is not so much concerned with the specific decisions made, but with the thinking and decision-making process that when behind it.

Similarly God looks at the heart, and desires that the well-spring of our decisions be right and true. The kingdom of God is within us. If the source is pure, the springs flowing from the spring will be pure as well.

I'm rambling a bit, but to answer your question, as I have grown older my perspective has become more and more along the lines that God does not wish to control our actions but His desire is that we be like Him in character. I hope that answers your question.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/23/05 06:10 AM

Are the consequences of our choices without a Master?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/23/05 06:57 AM

MM: I wrote a detailed post which you haven't addressed. I'm reposting it here, with the personal remarks removed. I hope I've succeeded in removing any offensive remarks. If I haven't, please excuse me, and consider the arguments.

I'll await your response.
-----------------------------------------------

MM: Okay, then the future is fixed. Like a rerun, things will play out exactly as God has known from the beginning. It cannot be any other way than God has seen it. He has seen the end from the beginning, and, therefore, things will unfold accordingly, like a rerun.

Tom: You write "Okay, then" and present a conclusion which has no basis in fact. Let me reproduce an argument from another thread we have going "Who is in control?":

It's simple logic that if God set into motion a course of evens which could have only one outcome, then God is responsible for that outcome. You've used this same logic yourself. The problem is that the conclusion is false. Now in logic there is an argument where you can argue by using the contrapositive. The argument works like this: if P -> Q then ~Q -> ~P. What this means is that if P implies Q, then not Q implies not P, or in English, if this implies that, then the reverse of that implies the reverse of this. So in the above argument we have:

1)God set into motion a chain of events which could have only one possible outcome, which is sin and death.
2)Therefore God is responsible for that outcome (or "God is to blame").

This argument is logically sound, meaning that the conclusion does indeed follow from the premise. However, the conclusion is false, as shown from the GC statement you have quoted yourself:

quote:
Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin. (GC 492, 493)

quote:
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. (DA 131)

"Hyperbole" means a literary devise in which one is intentionally exerating. The intent of such a device is that the reader would understand that what was being written was not to be taken literally. However, the phrase "Remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss." is obviously meant to be taken literally. That's clear to you, isn't it?

MM: Her statement cannot be forced to mean God wasn’t sure from the beginning if Jesus would sin or not. The most convincing evidence that the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed is the fact He didn’t fail.

Tom: You write that "the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed is the fact He didn’t fail." This translates to:

1)Christ did not fall.
2)Therefore the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed.

You are basing your conclusion on something which happened *after* your conclusion. Premises are supposed to *preceed* conclusions. That's why "conclusions" are called "conclusions." The conclude that which came previously.

What happened after the Bible was written has no impact whatsoever on the thing which was written, which has become a part of the past.

That's not the only reason your argument is clearly invalid. Here's an analagous argument:

1)The Yankees did not win the World Series last year.
2)Therefore the Bible nowhere intimated that the Yankees could have won.

The point is there is no relationship between the two parts, just like your argument. A reasonable argument would be something like this:
1)If Christ could have fallen, the Bible would have said so somewhere.
2)The Bible nowhere says Christ could have fallen.
3)Therefore Christ could not have fallen.

One could argue whether the premises are true, but at least the conclusion follows from the premises. The argruments you have constructed not only have untrue statements, but the arguments themselves are not valid, and not even close to valid.

MM: Again, you are absolutely certain I am dead wrong, and you are entitled to your opinion.

Tom: I'm convinced you have are not reasoning in this case from cause to effect. It's not simply a matter that you believe one thing and I believe another, but I have presented valid arguments as to why I think the things I do. By the grace of God, I'm open to change my mind, if one presents evidence.

MM: The problem with assuming God could have created men and angels, without infringing upon their freedoms, in such a way that sin and rebellion would not have happened, is that no such option was available to God. His options were two: to create and deal with the sin problem, or not to create and not deal with the sin problem. That’s it. You cannot base an argument on a false assumption.

Tom: Why do you assume it was not possible for God to create without sin existing? You seem to be of the opinion that God could not create beings with free will who would not sin. But this is obviously untrue. The vast majority, by a huge margin, of the free will creatures God has created have never sinned. Why could God not have simply not created those creatures who would not sin? Why is this a "false assumption" on my part? Why is this not a viable option for God? Why limit God to two options?

MM: Again, I agree that God introduced a situation where sin and death were inevitable, and, as such, He assumes responsibility. But to say God is at fault or to blame because men and angels chose to sin and rebel is treasonous.

Tom: Why? If God did something which could only lead to one possible result, then He is to blame. To blame means "to attribute responsibility to."

MM: Yes, He foresaw it, but He did not force them to sin or rebel.

Tom: That God foresaw it is absolutely NOT the issue. I've pointed this out many times.

The issue is that if God set into motion a course of events which could only have one outcome, then He did force that thing to happen. To force is to "cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means." If God created creatures that could only do one thing, and they did that one thing which is the only thing they could do, then they were forced. The only way they could not have been forced would be to have more than one option available.

MM: That men and angels sinned is a mystery, therefore, you cannot base an argument on it.

Tom: This logic is flawed to. Here's your argument:

1) That men and angels sinned is a mystery.
2) Therefore, you cannot base an argument on it.

The reason this argument is flawed is that it relies upon an unstated premise, which is that under no circumstances can a reason be given for why men or angels sinned, because the fact that they sinned is a mystery. It's true that no legitamate reason can be given. But a false reason could be postulated, and such a false reason could be disproved by arguing that there's no mystery involved in one holds to the postulated reason.

Allow me to clarify. Say God had created men as robots, with no ability to reason. Suppose these robots broke some rule of God. There would be no mystery involved as to why the rule was broken. Therefore the hypothesis that God created men like robots is false, because it leads to a false conclusion.

So if you postulate a hypothesis which leads to the false conclusion that men sinned for a non-mysterious reason, then your hypothesis is false. This is precisely what you have done. The argument I presented was both valid and true. Your assertion that my argument is invalid is false.

MM: It is important to bear in mind the following insight:

GC 492, 493
Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. {GC 492.2}

Tom: That's exactly my point! It's only a mystery as to why sin came about if no reason can be given for its existence. In your way of looking at things, a reason CAN be given, and very simply. The reason sin came about is because God set into motion a course of events with only possible outcome. Given that no reason can legitimately be given, your way of looking at things cannot logically be correct.

This argument is actually just a restatement of the first one I gave.

MM: Jesus will not, and cannot, return until all the specifics recorded in the Bible are fulfilled. It didn't happen in 1888. Neither the world, nor the church, was ready in 1888 for the return of Jesus. They could have been, and should have been ready, but they weren't. And God knew from the beginning that they wouldn't be ready in 1888. But this doesn't change the fact they could have been ready or should have been ready.

Tom: What your writing is not based on any facts. It's just conjecture. Here's what Sister White wrote:

quote:
An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren {E.J.} Waggoner and {A.T.} Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded
235
in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world (1SM 234, 235).

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/22/05 10:39 PM

quote:
1)God set into motion a chain of events which could have only one possible outcome, which is sin and death.
2)Therefore God is responsible for that outcome (or "God is to blame").

“But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning.” What do the words in bold type mean to you?

The words “could” and “would” do not mean the same thing. God knew, before He created them, that they could and would sin. He knew in advance about the chain of events that would lead to sin and death, and, in spite of it, He chose to create the beings responsible for it.

Regarding risk and eternal loss. No, I am not convinced Sister White implied Jesus would lose or die eternally. The Bible, which was in print before Jesus’ first advent, nowhere insinuates it. His success on the cross confirmed the prophecies, and vice versa. The word of God is not limited by time and space.

quote:
Why do you assume it was not possible for God to create without sin existing?

Because, if that were an option, God would have done it that way. God knows the end from the beginning. So, in light of this fact, God knew exactly which men and angels would choose to sin and rebel, and yet He chose to create them anyhow. This tells me that the option not to create them was not available to God

Regarding the mystery of sin. The reason why Lucifer and one third of the angels, and Adam and Eve, chose to sin is unaccountable and mysterious. There is no excuse. Yes, God knew in advance that they could and would sin, but He is not blame for it. Why not? Because to blame God is to explain why they chose to sin. But it cannot be explained. Sin and death were inevitable because God created them, but He is not to blame for why they chose to sin. God hasn’t explained that to us, yet.

Regarding the return of Christ in 1888. In one sense it’s too bad Jesus didn’t return back then, but on the other hand, I’m glad He didn’t – I wasn’t born yet. Besides, if Jesus was supposed to return in 1888 He would have caused the rocks to proclaim the message that the Church rejected. “And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”

Do you believe God was forced to reset the day and hour of Jesus’ second advent?

If Adventists delayed the return of Christ in 1888, contrary to God's set date, how many more times can we do it?

God will eventually have to cut short the work, otherwise, as it was in the days of Noah, no one would survive to be translated alive. So, why didn't He do it back in 1888? "For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth."

EV 694
The long night of gloom is trying, but the morning is deferred in mercy, because if the Master should come, so many would be found unready. God's unwillingness to have His people perish, has been the reason of so long delay. {Ev 694.2}

EV 697
It [the coming of the Lord] will not tarry past the time that the message is borne to all nations, tongues, and peoples. {Ev 697.1}

[ July 22, 2005, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/23/05 02:28 AM

"Regarding the return of Christ in 1888. In one sense it’s too bad Jesus didn’t return back then, but on the other hand, I’m glad He didn’t – I wasn’t born yet. Besides, if Jesus was supposed to return in 1888 He would have caused the rocks to proclaim the message that the Church rejected."

I will ignore the obvious egocentric nature off this sort of logic, and instead ask you:

Are talking rocks a hyperbole to you, MM?

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/23/05 02:56 AM

"If Adventists delayed the return of Christ in 1888, contrary to God's set date, how many more times can we do it?"

Once more is too many!

Somehow you comments smack of God goofing in even starting the 1888 message; if no one was ready, why would He set all the agencies in motion? Why would He awaken a church that He knew would reject the Message? Was He just toying with our hearts, putting a carrot in front of His faithful ones and then withdrawing it, like a cruel bully boy?

Or was the Church actually able to accept the Truth, but refused it from pride and self-wisdom?

You blame God for teasing His church, it seems to me.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/23/05 03:29 AM

quote:
Are talking rocks a hyperbole to you, MM?

Yes.

quote:
Was He just toying with our hearts, putting a carrot in front of His faithful ones and then withdrawing it, like a cruel bully boy?

No.

quote:
Or was the Church actually able to accept the Truth, but refused it from pride and self-wisdom?

Yes.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/23/05 03:58 AM

Thanks for the new approach of direct answers, MM It cuts down on the misunderstandings.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/23/05 04:00 PM

Now that you seem to be "in the mood" for direct answers, how about answering the most weighty ones I asked in the same manner, please:

Somehow you comments smack of God goofing in even starting the 1888 message; if no one was ready, why would He set all the agencies in motion?

Why would He awaken a church that He knew would reject the Message?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/24/05 06:40 AM

Why? I don't know.

Now, I have a few questions. And, please, feel free to elaborate.

1. Where does it say the day and hour of Jesus' return was originally set for 1888? or for shortly after 1844?

2. Has God had to reset the date of Christ's return? Or, has it been set since the beginning of time?

3. What does the following quote teach us about why Jesus' hasn't returned yet?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/24/05 06:43 AM

Selected Messages, volume One, pages 66-69

"Time Nearly Finished"

A statement published in 1851 in Experience and Views, and found on page 49 [page 58, present edition] of Early Writings is quoted as proving my testimonies false: "I saw that the time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly finished, and that time can last but a very little longer." {1SM 66.6}

As the subject was presented before me, the period of Christ's ministration seemed almost accomplished. Am I accused of falsehood because time has continued longer than my testimony seemed to indicate? How is it with the testimonies of Christ and His disciples? Were they deceived? {1SM 67.1}

Paul writes to the Corinthians: {1SM 67.2}

"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not" (1 Cor. 7:29, 30). {1SM 67.3}

Again, in his epistle to the Romans, he says: {1SM 67.4}

"The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light" (Rom. 13:12). {1SM 67.5}

And from Patmos, Christ speaks to us by the beloved John: {1SM 67.6}

"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand" (Rev. 1:3). "The Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly; blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book" (Rev. 22:6, 7). {1SM 67.7}

The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional. {1SM 67.8}

God had committed to His people a work to be accomplished on earth. The third angel's message was to be given, the minds of believers were to be directed to the heavenly sanctuary, where Christ had entered to make atonement for His people. The Sabbath reform was to be carried forward. The breach in the law of God must be made up. The message must be proclaimed with a loud voice, that all the inhabitants of earth might receive the warning. The people of God must purify their souls through obedience to the truth, and be prepared to stand without fault before Him at His coming. {1SM 67.9}

Had Adventists, after the great disappointment in 1844, held fast their faith, and followed on unitedly in the opening providence of God, receiving the message of the third angel and in the power of the Holy Spirit proclaiming it to the world, they would have seen the salvation of God, the Lord would have wrought mightily with their efforts, the work would have been completed, and Christ would have come ere this to receive His people to their reward. {1SM 68.1}

But in the period of doubt and uncertainty that followed the disappointment, many of the advent believers yielded their faith. Dissensions and divisions came in. The majority opposed with voice and pen the few who, following in the providence of God, received the Sabbath reform and began to proclaim the third angel's message. Many who should have devoted their time and talents to the one purpose of sounding warning to the world, were absorbed in opposing the Sabbath truth, and in turn, the labor of its advocates was necessarily spent in answering these opponents and defending the truth. Thus the work was hindered, and the world was left in darkness. Had the whole Adventist body united upon the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, how widely different would have been our history! {1SM 68.2}

It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed. God did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years in the wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and establish them there a holy, healthy, happy people. But those to whom it was first preached, went not in "because of unbelief" (Heb. 3:19). Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He COULD NOT fulfill His covenant with them. {1SM 68.3}

For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among the Lord's professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and sorrow so many years. {1SM 69.1}

There are two other passages said to be found in my first book, but not given in my later writings. Concerning these I shall only say, when I can obtain a book containing them, so that I can be assured of the correctness of the quotations and can see for myself their connection, I shall be prepared to speak understandingly in regard to them. {1SM 69.2}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/23/05 07:34 PM

quote:
It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed.

God’s will and divine hindsight are contrasting and conflicting realities. God was willing to create men and angels, in spite of knowing ahead of time that they could and would sin and rebel, but it was not His will that they sin and rebel. Do you see the difference between the words “willing” and “will” in the context of this insight?

This same principle applies to the date set for Christ’s return. It was not God’s “will” that the second advent of Jesus be delayed so many times since 1844, but He is not “willing” that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

It was not God’s “will” that Jesus should have to come the first time, not to mention a second time. It was not His will that men fall. But God was “willing” to implement the plan of salvation to redeem man and to restore peace and paradise.

Since before the beginning of time God has known the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return. He hasn’t been forced to reset the date because He didn’t foresee the church rejecting the message or being distracted by debates and discussions.

Again, it wasn’t God’s “will” to set the date so late, but He is “willing” to wait until the timing is right. Indeed, He will not, cannot, return until the timing is right. That's why Jesus hasn't returned yet.

2T 193
God's unwillingness to have His people perish has been the reason for so long delay. But the coming of the morning to the faithful, and of the night to the unfaithful, is right upon us. {2T 193.3}

We are free to refuse to be saved, but we are not free to force God to reset the date of Christ's second coming. It is fixed, and we cannot do anything to make God change it. "God's purposes know no haste and no delay." (DA 32)

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/23/05 08:01 PM

DA 32
So in heaven's council the hour for the coming of Christ had been determined. When the great clock of time pointed to that hour, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. {DA 32.1}

DA 632, 633
But the day and the hour of His coming Christ has not revealed. He stated plainly to His disciples that He Himself could not make known the day or the hour of His second appearing. Had He been at liberty to reveal this, why need He have exhorted them to maintain an attitude of constant expectancy? There are those who claim to know the very day and hour of our Lord's appearing. Very earnest are they in mapping out the future. But the Lord has warned them off the ground they occupy. The exact time of the second coming of the Son of man is God's mystery. {DA 632.4}

1SM 75, 76
In my first book you will find the only statement in regard to the day and hour of Christ's coming that I have made since the passing of the time in 1844. It is found in Early Writings, pages 11, 27, and 145, 146 [pages 15, 34, and 285, present edition]. All refer to the announcement that will be made just before the second coming of Christ. {1SM 75.2}

. . . . {1SM 75.3}

. . . . They contain all that I have ever been shown in regard to the definite time of the Lord's coming. I have not the slightest knowledge as to the time spoken by the voice of God. I heard the hour proclaimed, but had no remembrance of that hour after I came out of vision. {1SM 75.4}

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/25/05 07:01 PM

Old Tom: 1)God set into motion a chain of events which could have only one possible outcome, which is sin and death.
2)Therefore God is responsible for that outcome (or "God is to blame")

MM: “But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning.” What do the words in bold type mean to you?

Tom:I don't see the bold, but I can say that I understand this quote to be dealing with the possibility of sin, not its certainty. That is, God knew of the possibility that Adam and Eve would sin, and He was prepared for that contingency. But it was not God's will, plan, or desire that they should sin, and it was not necessary or inevitable. God was also prepared for the possibility of their not sinning as well.

MM: The words “could” and “would” do not mean the same thing. God knew, before He created them, that they could and would sin.

Tom: Right, the words are not the same. If God knew that they *would* sin, then they could not not sin. That is, their sinning was inevitable, which you have many times asserted (you agree with this, correct?) Now "inevitable" means "incapable of being avoided or prevented". This means there's no way that Adam and Eve could have avoiding sinning, if it was inevitable, as you have asserted. In this case it should be clear that God would be to blame for their sinning since clearly that can not be held responsible for something they could not have avoided or prevented.

MM: He knew in advance about the chain of events that would lead to sin and death, and, in spite of it, He chose to create the beings responsible for it.

Tom: If your view were correct, God would be to blame for their sin, because it was He Himself it put into motion the chain of events which would "inevitably" lead to their sin and death. In this case you would be correct in your assertions that God is the author of sin and death.

MM: Regarding risk and eternal loss. No, I am not convinced Sister White implied Jesus would lose or die eternally.

Tom: My question is what you think "failure" and "eternal loss" meant, not what it doesn't mean. You have asserted it doesn't mean that Christ could have sinned and been lost, but it must mean something. What does it mean?

MM: The Bible, which was in print before Jesus’ first advent, nowhere insinuates it.

Tom: So what? The Spirit of Prophesy, which was written after it, no only insinuates it, it out and out states that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

MM: His success on the cross confirmed the prophecies, and vice versa. The word of God is not limited by time and space.

Tom: What does the statement "the word of God is not limited by time and space" mean? The Bible was written on paper at a specific point in time.

quote:
Why do you assume it was not possible for God to create without sin existing?

MM: Because, if that were an option, God would have done it that way.

Tom: Ok. That makes sense. I agree that if the future were fixed and God could either create beings which would sin or beings which would not sin, then God would have chosen to create beings which would sin. However, your statement disagrees with this one:

quote:
It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence.(GC 492)

Given your view on things, it's simple to explain the existence of sin. God created beings which could only sin. Nothing could be easier. There's no mystery whatsoever.

MM: God knows the end from the beginning. So, in light of this fact, God knew exactly which men and angels would choose to sin and rebel, and yet He chose to create them anyhow. This tells me that the option not to create them was not available to God.

Tom: I agree that it makes God to be less monstrous if He created beings which would inevitably sin if the option to create beings that wouldn't inevitably sin existed. However, it leads to other problems. For example, it implies that it was not possible for God to create FMA's that wouldn't sin. That would imply that the mere possibility of sinning makes sin inevitable, which implies something faulty in God's creation.

MM: Regarding the mystery of sin. The reason why Lucifer and one third of the angels, and Adam and Eve, chose to sin is unaccountable and mysterious.

Tom: There's no mystery. God created them with only the possibility of sinning before them. The option to not sin did not exist.

MM: There is no excuse.

Tom: Not for God. For Adam and Eve, and Lucifer, there is. They were created only being able to do one thing, and they did it.

They can only be to blame if there was some other path they could have taken, but that implies that the future is not fixed.

MM: Yes, God knew in advance that they could and would sin, but He is not blame for it. Why not? Because to blame God is to explain why they chose to sin. But it cannot be explained. Sin and death were inevitable because God created them, but He is not to blame for why they chose to sin. God hasn’t explained that to us, yet.

Tom: If sin was inevitable, then it can be explained, and God would be to blame. Hence it was not inevitable. That's pretty easy to understand.

MM: Regarding the return of Christ in 1888. In one sense it’s too bad Jesus didn’t return back then, but on the other hand, I’m glad He didn’t – I wasn’t born yet.

Tom: But you would prefer that the Great Controversy would have been won and Christ would have received the honor and glory to which He is due, not to mention the avoidance of two world ward and untold suffering among billions of human beings, to being born, wouldn't you?

MM: Besides, if Jesus was supposed to return in 1888 He would have caused the rocks to proclaim the message that the Church rejected. “And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”

Do you believe God was forced to reset the day and hour of Jesus’ second advent?

If Adventists delayed the return of Christ in 1888, contrary to God's set date, how many more times can we do it?

Tom: You're making the assumption that God arbitrarily sets a date. But God doesn't work that way. Christ will come when His character is perfectly reproduced in His people. This is not something which God can determine. He can do things (like send the 1888 message, the beginning of the latter rain, a message sent to prepare for the coming of Christ, to fill the earth with glory), but if the things He does are resisted, then He just has to wait. Which is what He is doing.

When light is rejected, the only recourse God has is to bring people back to the point of the rejected light. There can only be progress when there is repentance. This is not something which God can force.

God will eventually have to cut short the work, otherwise, as it was in the days of Noah, no one would survive to be translated alive. So, why didn't He do it back in 1888? "For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth."

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/26/05 05:56 AM

quote:
In this case it should be clear that God would be to blame for their sinning since clearly that can not be held responsible for something they could not have avoided or prevented.

I disagree. Just because God knew they would choose to sin doesn’t mean they were not capable of not choosing to sin. They were free to obey or disobey.

quote:
You have asserted it doesn't mean that Christ could have sinned and been lost, but it must mean something. What does it mean?

I have answered this question already. It means whatever a hyperbole is supposed to mean. I realize you hate that answer, but it’s my answer. It cannot mean that Jesus could have sinned and died. Nowhere does the SOP use the words sin and die in the context of risk and eternal loss. “When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.” (5BC 1113)

quote:
Given your view on things, it's simple to explain the existence of sin. God created beings which could only sin. Nothing could be easier. There's no mystery whatsoever.

I have never said God created them to sin. He created them free. The fact they chose to sin is evidence they were free to sin.

quote:
For example, it implies that it was not possible for God to create FMA's that wouldn't sin.

Obviously not. You have yet to produce a quote that agrees with your premise that God did not know in advance men and angels would choose to sin and rebel.

quote:
They can only be to blame if there was some other path they could have taken, but that implies that the future is not fixed.

I disagree. The future is fixed in the sense it’s based on divine hindsight, like reading a history book. The reason sin and death were inevitable is because God foresaw it, not because men and angels were designed wrong. The perspective of divine hindsight does not mean we are not free moral agents.

quote:
Originally posted by MM:

God will eventually have to cut short the work, otherwise, as it was in the days of Noah, no one would survive to be translated alive. So, why didn't He do it back in 1888? "For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth."

If the day and hour of Christ’s second coming is not fixed – then why does it so say in the Bible and the SOP (see past two posts)?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/26/05 08:24 PM

Old Tom: In this case it should be clear that God would be to blame for their sinning since clearly that can not be held responsible for something they could not have avoided or prevented.

MM: I disagree. Just because God knew they would choose to sin doesn’t mean they were not capable of not choosing to sin. They were free to obey or disobey.

Tom: The issue has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge. I keep pointing this out, but you keep referring back to it. I have never made the point that God's knowing something is causual. My point has always and ever will be that if the future is fixed, THAT implies a lack of option. And this is obvious. If the future is fixed, there is only one option possible. That's what the word "fixed" means. Hence Adam and Eve would be blameless, because they had no other options, because of the future being fixed (Note: This has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge).

Old Tom: You have asserted it doesn't mean that Christ could have sinned and been lost, but it must mean something. What does it mean?

MM: I have answered this question already. It means whatever a hyperbole is supposed to mean. I realize you hate that answer, but it’s my answer. It cannot mean that Jesus could have sinned and died.

Tom: OK, let's deal with just the Jesus could have sinned part. Do you disagree that Jesus could have sinned? There are many statements from the SOP which state that He could have sinned. For example, He's a very famous one from the Baker letter:

quote:
He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.

MM: Nowhere does the SOP use the words sin and die in the context of risk and eternal loss. “When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.” (5BC 1113)

Tom: Right, divinity would not have died. But Christ would have remained in the tomb for all eternity, something like the stone would never had been rolled away. She writes that somewhere (maybe Phil can find it). God would have lost Christ, because Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

Old Tom: Given your view on things, it's simple to explain the existence of sin. God created beings which could only sin. Nothing could be easier. There's no mystery whatsoever.

MM: I have never said God created them to sin.

Tom: I didn't write that. I wrote that in your view of things God created beings which could only sin. This is because if the future is fixed, they could not act in a different way than that fixed future.

MM:He created them free. The fact they chose to sin is evidence they were free to sin.

Tom: If the future is fixed, then there is no freedom because freedom implies the ability to act in different ways. If the future is fixed, you can only act in one way, hence any "freedom" is only perceived but not real. You cannot have real freedom and a fixed future. The two don't go together.

Old Tom: For example, it implies that it was not possible for God to create FMA's that wouldn't sin.

MM: Obviously not.

Tom: There's nothing obvious here, accept that you are assuming your own conclusion. The "obvious" thing is that God *can* create FMA's that don't sin because the overwhelming majority of them have never sinned. God has created "millions of worlds" whose inhabitants have never sinned. That's trillions or quadrillions of beings who have never sinned, whereas only the inhabitants of one world, and of heaven, have sinned. So "obviously" God *can* create FMA's that don't sin.

MM:You have yet to produce a quote that agrees with your premise that God did not know in advance men and angels would choose to sin and rebel.

Tom: Hmm. You think maybe, just maybe, that this is because what your are suggesting is NOT my premise? Hmm. Yes, I think that's it!

My premise is that the future is not fixed. I have produced a number of arguments that this is the case. If Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss, then the future cannot be fixed. If we can hasten Christ's coming, the future cannot be fixed. If sin is a mystery, and God is not to blame, the future cannot be fixed. If we are truly free, the future cannot be fixed (as our "freedom" would only be a perception, not reality). These are the main arguments.

Old Tom: They can only be to blame if there was some other path they could have taken, but that implies that the future is not fixed.

MM: I disagree. The future is fixed in the sense it’s based on divine hindsight, like reading a history book.

Tom: The future being fixed is independent of God's knowledge of it. It is what it is. Can you describe its being fixed without relating God's foreknowlege to it? Putting God's foreknowledge into an explanation of the future being fixed is not helpful.

MM: The reason sin and death were inevitable is because God foresaw it, not because men and angels were designed wrong.

Tom: Foreseeing something does not make it inevitable.

MM: The perspective of divine hindsight does not mean we are not free moral agents.

Tom: Divine hindsight means the Diety looking into the past, so of course that doesn't mean we are not free moral agents. However, if the future is fixed, *that* does mean we are not free moral agents.

Originally posted by MM:

God will eventually have to cut short the work, otherwise, as it was in the days of Noah, no one would survive to be translated alive. So, why didn't He do it back in 1888? "For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth."

If the day and hour of Christ’s second coming is not fixed – then why does it so say in the Bible and the SOP (see past two posts)?

Tom: It means that are right and true; we really can hasten Christ's coming, just as we have been told. It means our actions really do make a difference, and we, not God, is responsible for Christ's delay. It means we really should repent, just as Christ is calling us to.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/27/05 02:17 AM

Thanks so much Tom...very refreshingly and clearly explained.

It puts the true onus right where it is hated the most by Laodiceans....on our own heads!

"The solemn testimony upon which the destiny of the church hangs has been lightly esteemed, if not entirely disregarded." EW, 270.3

A "hanging destiny" cannot be a fixed destiny at the same time, unless it is a mystically symbolical hyperbole, lightly discarded if not entirely disregarded.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/27/05 07:18 PM

quote:
Hence Adam and Eve would be blameless, because they had no other options, because of the future being fixed … If the future is fixed, then there is no freedom because freedom implies the ability to act in different ways.

Why do you say they had no options? Do you mean they were robots, that they were programmed to sin and rebel? Were they created with the ability to choose other options? I’m sure your answer is yes, and I agree. Just because God knew they could and would sin, it does not mean He did not create them with the “ability” and the “freedom” to choose. Do you agree?

quote:
Can you describe its being fixed without relating God's foreknowlege to it? … Divine hindsight means the Diety looking into the past, so of course that doesn't mean we are not free moral agents. However, if the future is fixed, *that* does mean we are not free moral agents.

The future was fixed after the fact. It is based on hindsight, thus it cannot interfere with the unfolding of history. It’s like reading a history book. Knowing the facts after the fact doesn’t change the facts. That’s why foreknowledge and hindsight are key parts of this discussion. I believe they are based on the same information, and you do not. That’s why we do not agree on the nature of the future, and also why we need to study it further.

quote:
Do you disagree that Jesus could have sinned?

Yes, of course. But not until after He became a human being. He could have sinned does not mean He would have sinned. Do you agree? Could have sinned simply means He was capable of sinning, not that God had no idea if He would or not.

quote:
Right, divinity would not have died. But Christ would have remained in the tomb for all eternity, something like the stone would never had been rolled away.

I’m glad we agree risk and eternal loss does not imply God did not know if Jesus would sin and die. There are two crucial quotes you have yet to post, 1) God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed, and 2) Jesus would have remained forever in the tomb if He had failed. We cannot base a belief on missing texts, right?

quote:
So "obviously" God *can* create FMA's that don't sin.

To my way of thinking, it would be more accurate to express it this way – God created FMAs equal, with the ability to obey or disobey. While some chose to disobey, most chose to obey. It is a mystery that some chose to sin and rebel. It is also a mystery that God, who knew in advance that they could and would sin and rebel, chose to create them anyhow. Do you agree?

quote:
… These are the main arguments.

Until proven, though, they are only assumptions. But you are treating them as undeniable facts.

quote:
It means our actions really do make a difference, and we, not God, is responsible for Christ's delay.

How does your conclusion agree with this quote: “God's unwillingness to have His people perish has been the reason for so long delay.” Please refer to my post (posted July 23, 2005 01:34 PM) concerning the words “will” and “unwilling”. Do you agree?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/27/05 08:32 PM

Thank you for quoting from me. I think that's helpful.

Old Tom: Hence Adam and Eve would be blameless, because they had no other options, because of the future being fixed … If the future is fixed, then there is no freedom because freedom implies the ability to act in different ways.

MM: Why do you say they had no options?

Tom: I said why. If the future is fixed, they had not options. This has to do with the meaning of the word "fixed" which is synonomous to "determined." The future being "fixed" or "determined" would imply that it could not be altered, hence Adam and Eve would not have been able to act any differently than they did.

MM: Do you mean they were robots, that they were programmed to sin and rebel?

Tom: Actually, it's irrelevant to my argument. If the future were fixed, then Adam and Eve would have no had real options, and would not have been truly free, whether robots or not.

MM: Were they created with the ability to choose other options? I’m sure your answer is yes, and I agree. Just because God knew they could and would sin, it does not mean He did not create them with the “ability” and the “freedom” to choose. Do you agree?

Tom: "There you go again." You have a fixation on foreknowledge, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, and will no doubt many more times point out, I'm not dealing with God's foreknowledge but with the future being fixed.

If the future is fixed, then Adam and Eve could not have had the actual ability to make choices, only the apparent ability to do so.

Old Tom: Can you describe its being fixed without relating God's foreknowlege to it? … Divine hindsight means the Diety looking into the past, so of course that doesn't mean we are not free moral agents. However, if the future is fixed, *that* does mean we are not free moral agents.

MM: The future was fixed after the fact.

Tom: "After the fact" would mean, after it happened, in which case it is no longer the future, but the past. The past *is* fixed, but not the future, which isn't fixed until it happens.

MM: It is based on hindsight, thus it cannot interfere with the unfolding of history.

Tom: This cannot be. Hindsight has to do with that which has happened in the past. So the future could only be fixed, or based on hindsight at some point *after* the future had occured. And this is irrespective of divine foreknowledge.

MM: It’s like reading a history book. Knowing the facts after the fact doesn’t change the facts.

Tom: That's because the past is prologue; it's already happened; it's fixed. The future, on the other, is yet to happen, being the future. It is not fixed. It cannot be seen with hindsight, but is rather seen with foresight.

MM: That’s why foreknowledge and hindsight are key parts of this discussion.

Tom: No, they're irrelvant. They just cloud the issue, which has to do with the future being fixed.

MM: I believe they are based on the same information, and you do not. That’s why we do not agree on the nature of the future, and also why we need to study it further.

Tom: In order for you to hold your view in a logically consistent way, you have to believe there is no fundamental difference between the past and the future; the only difference is in our perceptions of such. Thus the future is just as fixed as the past. We simply perceive them differently.

This has been my point all along. In such a universe, freedom is not real; it is merely perceived.

There are many who hold this point of view, including among them physicists. However, you are not being consistent, because you are both holding to the idea that the future is fixed, yet our freedom is real, not perceived (you haven't actually stated this, but it is implied by what you have written; i.e. that you believe our freedom is real and not merely perceived).

Your point of view is logically inconsistent. If the future is fixed, then our freedom is a perception.

Old Tom: Do you disagree that Jesus could have sinned?

MM: Yes, of course. But not until after He became a human being. He could have sinned does not mean He would have sinned. Do you agree? Could have sinned simply means He was capable of sinning, not that God had no idea if He would or not.

Tom: I'm not following you here. You're asking me non-sensical questions which have nothing to do with any statements I have made. I, on the other hand, asked you a question which specifically had to do with a statement you made, which was:

quote:
I have answered this question already. It means whatever a hyperbole is supposed to mean. I realize you hate that answer, but it’s my answer. It cannot mean that Jesus could have sinned...

You state that the DA quote "cannot mean that Jesus could have sinned..." This implies you do not believe Jesus could have sinned. Now you say "of course" He could have sinned. You're not being consistent here. If Jesus could have sinned, then the statement I quoted *can* mean that Jesus could have sinned.

Old Tom: Right, divinity would not have died. But Christ would have remained in the tomb for all eternity, something like the stone would never had been rolled away.

MM: I’m glad we agree risk and eternal loss does not imply God did not know if Jesus would sin and die.

Tom: Divinity could not die, but Jesus could be eternally lost, as the statement points out "God sent His Son as the risk of failure and eternal loss." You seem to have gotten the idea in your head that "eternal loss" mean "divinity dies" and when I agree that divinity could not die then that must mean I agree with your line of thinking. I don't. You have no reason to think that "eternal loss" means divinity dying. That's a groundless assumption.

The statement is clear that Christ could have "failed" and was subject to "eternal loss" -- that's what it says.

MM: There are two crucial quotes you have yet to post, 1) God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed, and 2) Jesus would have remained forever in the tomb if He had failed. We cannot base a belief on missing texts, right?

Tom: I never said there was a quote like 1). I said there were quotes which stated that God took a risk in sending His Son, and risk implies a future which is not fixed. I provided these quotes.

Regarding 2), I didn't bother to provide this quote because I thought you were familiar with it. Also I don't think it would make any difference. If I found the quote, would you change your mind in any way?

Old Tom: So "obviously" God *can* create FMA's that don't sin.

MM: To my way of thinking, it would be more accurate to express it this way – God created FMAs equal, with the ability to obey or disobey. While some chose to disobey, most chose to obey. It is a mystery that some chose to sin and rebel. It is also a mystery that God, who knew in advance that they could and would sin and rebel, chose to create them anyhow. Do you agree?

Tom: Except for the "would" part. I don't believe God intended or planned that anyone should sin, and I believe it was possible, probable in fact, that sin would never occur.

Old Tom: … These are the main arguments.

MM: Until proven, though, they are only assumptions. But you are treating them as undeniable facts.

Tom: What are you doing here! I object! I provided well reasoned arguments, with premises leading to a conclusion. I did not make groundless assertions. You're taking my statement "these are the main arguments" completely out of context.

Here's the entire paragraph:

quote:
My premise is that the future is not fixed. I have produced a number of arguments that this is the case. If Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss, then the future cannot be fixed. If we can hasten Christ's coming, the future cannot be fixed. If sin is a mystery, and God is not to blame, the future cannot be fixed. If we are truly free, the future cannot be fixed (as our "freedom" would only be a perception, not reality). These are the main arguments.

The first argument is:
1)a) If Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss THEN
b) The future cannot be fixed.

If you do not think this argument is valid, then state where the invalidity lies. That is, explain why the conclusion does not follow from the premise. I proved the premise is true, so if the argument is valid, then the conclusion follows. This *has* been proved, and is NOT an assumption. It's gratuitous of you to claim that it has.

To deal with the argument, you must either point out its invalidity, or explain why the premise is not true.

I won't bother to write out the same points for the other arguments, but the same points apply to them. The arguments were well formulated. They are not "assumptions"; that's not even a possibilty. They may be faulty in that they are invalid or have false premises, but they are not assumptions.

Old Tom: It means our actions really do make a difference, and we, not God, is responsible for Christ's delay.

MM: How does your conclusion agree with this quote: “God's unwillingness to have His people perish has been the reason for so long delay.” Please refer to my post (posted July 23, 2005 01:34 PM) concerning the words “will” and “unwilling”. Do you agree?

Tom: The last two times you have quoted times for your posts you have gotten the time wrong. It makes it a bit challenging to find what you're referring to. If it's just a small portion, it would be easier for the reader if you would just repost the portion you're referring to. I think you're referring to this:

quote:
Again, it wasn’t God’s “will” to set the date so late, but He is “willing” to wait until the timing is right. Indeed, He will not, cannot, return until the timing is right. That's why Jesus hasn't returned yet.

I don't know what you mean by the timing being right. If by that you mean until the things which have been prophesied to happen must happen (such as Christ's character being reproduced in His people, and the message which God gave to be given to the earth is actually given) then I agree. But this is not something which is determined by God, but determined by the choices of His loved but obstinate people.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/28/05 03:26 AM

Here's your quote, Bro.Tom:

"Had it been possible, the prince of darkness with his apostate army would have kept forever sealed the tomb that held the Son of God. But a heavenly host surrounded the sepulcher. Angels that excel in strength were guarding the tomb, and waiting to welcome the Prince of life.'--DA 779

The key aspect is the word "But.." and the fact that a special kind of angel was there to prevent Satan's actions...unless as MM seems to theorize, it was all a melodrama, a skit all acted out according to some fixed script that stooge-like Satan dumbly follows and good angels pantomime for effect!

Foreknowledge is not hindsight! It is "ability to see, after the event, what should have been done" according to Webster and the common usages of the Queen's English.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/28/05 06:45 AM

Thank you Phil, but that's not the one I'm thinking of. It says that had Christ sinned, the stone never would have been removed, or He would have remained in the tomb, something like that.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/28/05 07:01 PM

quote:
Your point of view is logically inconsistent. If the future is fixed, then our freedom is a perception.

But we’re talking about God here. From God’s perspective the future is past, and, therefore, fixed. It is based on what has already happened. Therefore, God knows the END from the beginning. How can He know the end if He hasn’t seen it play out already?

Here is where we disagree. I believe God knows the END from the beginning, and you do not. You believe it means God is pretty good at guessing what might happen in the future, but you do not believe He knows the END from the beginning.

You also believe it does not matter. And I do. Since I believe God knows the future, like a rerun or like reading a history book, He knows the END from the beginning. You believe it means we do not have true freedom of choice. I do not.

I do not believe divine hindsight robs us of our power and freedom to choose. You agree. But you do not believe God has the power of divine hindsight, at least, not in the same way I do. Please correct me if I misrepresented the view you are advocating.

I believe God’s understanding of the future is as perfect as His understanding of the past. From His perspective the future is past. We both agree if this were true then it wouldn’t rob us of our freedom to choose. Well, I believe it is true.

quote:
Now you say "of course" He could have sinned. You're not being consistent here.

Sorry for the confusion. The expression He “could have sinned” simply means He was capable of sinning. It doesn’t mean that He was going to sin or that God didn’t know if He would sin or not. Do you believe God didn’t know if Jesus would sin or not?

quote:
You have no reason to think that "eternal loss" means divinity dying. That's a groundless assumption.

And you have no reason to believe it can only mean that Jesus would have remained in the tomb forever.

quote:
If I found the quote, would you change your mind in any way?

Yes.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/28/05 09:59 PM

Old Tom: Your point of view is logically inconsistent. If the future is fixed, then our freedom is a perception.

MM: But we’re talking about God here.

Tom: I wasn't. You will notice I didn't mention God in the quote you are responding to. It simply says if the future is fixed, then our freedom is a perception.

MM: From God’s perspective the future is past, and, therefore, fixed.

Tom: Only if the future really is fixed, and is really past. God's perception is no different from reality.

MM:It is based on what has already happened. Therefore, God knows the END from the beginning. How can He know the end if He hasn’t seen it play out already?

Tom: This seems to be a problem. You have in your mind a limited idea, and assume God is subject to your limited idea. God is not dependent on seeing the future play out in order to know it. I can think of several ways how God can know the future without seeing it play out, and I very strongly suspect that there are other possibilities as to how God could know the future without seeing it play out besides the ones I have thought of. But before I spell them out, I would like to pause, and ask if you see that you have jumped to a conclusion. I'll spell this out carefully:

1)God knows the future.
2)The only way God could know the future is to see it play out, as if it were like the past.
3)Therefore you conclude that God must see the future play out, just like the past, in order for Him to know the future.

Step 2 is where your argument falls apart. It is not the case that God can only know the future by seeing it play out like the past. Therefore your argument is invalid -- the conclusion, step 3, does not hold.

Even without my pointing out a counter example to Step 2 (which I can do, but I'll refrain from doing, because I want you to see the form of the argument first) you should be able to recognize that just because you can only think of one way in which God can see the future (by seeing it play out like the past), that doesn't imply that this is the only possibility. So even without a direct counterexample, Step 2 would already be on shaky ground. Do you see this?

MM: Here is where we disagree. I believe God knows the END from the beginning, and you do not.

Tom: I think it would be good for you not to guess on what you think I believe, because you are not very good at it. I would suggest you stick to directly commenting on what I have written.

What you have asserted here is not true. I do believe God knows the end from the beginning. Where we differ has not to do with God, but with the nature of the future, which I have pointed out to you many times.

MM: You believe it means God is pretty good at guessing what might happen in the future, but you do not believe He knows the END from the beginning.

Tom: Where have I written anything like this? Once again, please stick to what I have written.

MM: You also believe it does not matter.

Tom: You're really on a roll here. I never said anything like this. If I didn't think it mattered, I wouldn't be carrying on such a protracted conversation with you, would I? Once again, please refrain from asserting things like this. If you're not sure what I think (which you obviously aren't here) then please ask (as you have done on previous posts).

What I have said doean't matter is how God views the future in relation to the nature of the future. In other words, what I have been trying to point out to you is that if the future is fixed, then our freedom is not real, but merely perceptional. What is irrelevant is God's foreknowledge in relation to the future insofar as my statement in the sentence immediately preceeding this one is concerned. This is because God knows things as they really are. If God's knowledge of the future is that it is fixed, then it really honestly and truly is fixed. Do you see this?

MM: And I do. Since I believe God knows the future, like a rerun or like reading a history book, He knows the END from the beginning. You believe it means we do not have true freedom of choice. I do not.

Tom: I've just been stating the logical impossibility of the future being fixed and our being free. Do you see that these two things are mutually exclusive? (leaving out the question of God's foreknowledge; just the proposition that if the future is fixed, then we can not do anything to alter it).

MM: I do not believe divine hindsight robs us of our power and freedom to choose. You agree. But you do not believe God has the power of divine hindsight, at least, not in the same way I do. Please correct me if I misrepresented the view you are advocating.

Tom: Oh good! Thank you for your invitation. I have not been addressing God's foreknowledge, but rather the nature of the future. What I believe is that if the future is fixed, then we can do nothing to alter it. If we can do nothing to alter it, then we can destined to do whatever the future holds.

I believe that God is omniscient. I believe God knows all things as they really are. You and I agree on these points. Where we disagree is not regarding God's knowledge (whether foresight, or hindsight, or whatever) but in regards to the nature, or characteristic, or reality, of the future. Your viewpoint suggests the future is fixed, since if God perceives the future as fixed, then it must really be fixed, since God's perception of reality perfectly coincides with what reality actually is (do you agree?).

MM: I believe God’s understanding of the future is as perfect as His understanding of the past.

Tom: Me too.

MM: From His perspective the future is past.

Tom: From His perspective the future is future, and the past is past.

MM: We both agree if this were true then it wouldn’t rob us of our freedom to choose. Well, I believe it is true.

Tom: If God's perspective of the future were that is was fixed, then this would imply that the future is really fixed. It is this point, that the future is fixed, with which I disagree.

Old Tom: Now you say "of course" He could have sinned. You're not being consistent here.

MM: Sorry for the confusion. The expression He “could have sinned” simply means He was capable of sinning. It doesn’t mean that He was going to sin or that God didn’t know if He would sin or not. Do you believe God didn’t know if Jesus would sin or not?

Tom: The Spirit of Prophesy writes that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. "Risk" means the possibility of loss. So God must have known it was possible for Jesus to have failed and been eternally lost, right?

Old Tom: You have no reason to think that "eternal loss" means divinity dying. That's a groundless assumption.

MM: And you have no reason to believe it can only mean that Jesus would have remained in the tomb forever.

Tom: I was just going by the Spirit of Prophesy quote. However, you may propose what you think "eternal loss" means, and that would be fine.

Old Tom: If I found the quote, would you change your mind in any way?

MM: Yes.

Tom: How?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/28/05 11:07 PM

quote:
Step 2 is where your argument falls apart. It is not the case that God can only know the future by seeing it play out like the past. Therefore your argument is invalid -- the conclusion, step 3, does not hold.

If God knows the END from the beginning, then He knows, like a rerun, how everything will play out. Any other way God might know the future, if it is unlike His knowledge of the past, would be inferior, and, therefore, irrelevant. But I’m willing to learn about your other way.

quote:
Where we differ has not to do with God, but with the nature of the future, which I have pointed out to you many times… What I have said doesn't matter is how God views the future in relation to the nature of the future.

Okay, let me see if I understand your position, you believe the nature of the future and God’s knowledge of the future is not the same. Is that right? If so, then in what way is God’s perfect knowledge of the future, if it is like watching a rerun, any different than the nature of the future, as you understand it?

quote:
How?

I’ll be able to answer that question after I read the quote.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/29/05 02:37 AM

Old Tom: Step 2 is where your argument falls apart. It is not the case that God can only know the future by seeing it play out like the past. Therefore your argument is invalid -- the conclusion, step 3, does not hold.

MM: If God knows the END from the beginning, then He knows, like a rerun, how everything will play out.

Tom: You assert this, but have not reason for the assertion. There is no reason why God's knowing the future should imply that He knows, like a rerun, how everything will play out. You are assuming the future is something very simple, like the past. But what if it isn't? What if it is more complicated than the past? Then wouldn't God's knowledge of it be more complicated as well?

MM: Any other way God might know the future, if it is unlike His knowledge of the past, would be inferior, and, therefore, irrelevant.

Tom: Why? Is there any other reason for this assertion other than it's what you think? Why should some other knowledge of the future be inferior?

...

Old Tom: Where we differ has not to do with God, but with the nature of the future, which I have pointed out to you many times… What I have said doesn't matter is how God views the future in relation to the nature of the future.

MM: Okay, let me see if I understand your position, you believe the nature of the future and God’s knowledge of the future is not the same. Is that right?

Tom: My goodness no! I wonder if you are reading what I'm writing. I've written many times, at least a dozen by now, that God's perception of the future cannot be different than it really is. For example:

"If God's perspective of the future were that is was fixed, then this would imply that the future is really fixed."

I've written this so many times it strikes me as very curious that you would ask if I think the reverse.

MM: If so, then in what way is God’s perfect knowledge of the future, if it is like watching a rerun, any different than the nature of the future, as you understand it?

Tom: I'm equally dumbfounded by this question as well. I have never maintained that God sees the future like a rerun. That's your position. I have stated many, many, many times that the future is not fixed. God sees the future as it is (I'm also said this many, many times), which is not fixed.

God could only see the future as fixed if it really were fixed. God sees things the way they really are. It is because God sees things the way they really are that I believe the way things really are is the same way God sees them; hence the nature of the future is exactly how God perceives it.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/29/05 05:59 AM

Whew! Okay, one more time. You believe the future is open and not fixed. It can play out a hundred different ways. God has no idea exactly how it will play out. God's knowledge of the future is perfect. God's knowledge of the past is perfect. Prophecy is conditional. It may or may not play out exactly the way God has predicted. God did not know in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross. God does not know the exact day and hour Jesus will return.

Did I get it right?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/29/05 08:29 AM

MM: Whew! Okay, one more time. You believe the future is open and not fixed. It can play out a hundred different ways.

Tom: Yes, this is true.

MM: God has no idea exactly how it will play out.

Tom: This isn't.

MM: God's knowledge of the future is perfect.

Tom: Yes.

MM: God's knowledge of the past is perfect.

Tom: Yes.

MM: Prophecy is conditional.

Tom: Yes, generally.

MM: It may or may not play out exactly the way God has predicted.

Tom: I wouldn't say predicted. God wasn't predicting, He was prophesying. He was saying what would happen if the conditions for His blessings were heeded or not.

quote:
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.(Jer. 18:7-10)

God is not auditioning to be Jean Dixon. He is speaking out of love to motivate us.

MM: God did not know in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross.

Tom: I didn't say this. I said the future is not fixed and that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

MM: God does not know the exact day and hour Jesus will return.

Did I get it right?

Tom: Some things. You're making statements about a lot of things I haven't addressed. I would like it if you would respond to some of the things I have addressed. For example, if the future is fixed, then we are not really free. I would really like it if you could understand this point, which is very simple I think.

I have given the following argument at least twice, but don't think you have responded to it (I apologize if you have, and I missed it or forgot).

a)If God has known something for all eternity (e.g. I will have pizza tommorow for lunch), then it is not possible for that thing not to happen.
b)Therefore it is not possible for me to choose not to have pizza tomorrow for lunch.

If I chose not to have pizza tomorrow for lunch, then something God has known for all eternity will happen will not have happened, which is impossible. Therefore I cannot choose not to have pizza tomorrow. Therefore I do not have freedom of choice, since I cannot choose not to have pizza tomorrow.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/29/05 07:49 PM

Tom, I'm ready to learn your position better. That's why I have been trying to summarize it. Let's set aside my view for the time being, and let's focus on what you think makes sense. Okay?

What do you think God knows about the future? Does He know exactly what will happen before it happens? How much detail does He know? Did He know Jesus would be successful on the cross? Does He know the exact day and hour Jesus will return?

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 07/30/05 07:57 AM

Thank you for your interest in my view. Pardon me while I apparently ramble a bit in trying to explain it.

We have a very simplistic way of looking at things, but often things are much more complicated than we imagine. Consider subatomic particles. One cannot speak of the position of a subatomic particle in absolute terms, but only in terms of probability. This characteristic of subatomic particles is not believed by physicists to be due to a lack of knowledge, but to the nature of subatomic particles. That is, if you asked God Himself, where will such and such a subatomic particle be in the next moment, God would reply "there is an x% probability it will be here, a y% probability there, a z% probability there" and so forth. That God would respond in such a way does not imply any igonorance on God's part, but merely reflects that this is the way God created subatomic particles.

Chaos theory reveals the same thing. Very small random changes can result in major shifts. Two water droplets right next to each other diverge, ending up miles apart.

It is much easier for us to simplistically view the world in a deterministic way, as Newton described things. Every action has a reaction, every momevent can be described, everything is determined. This is the way Augustine view things as well.

However, what if the world is not simple like this? What if it is really fantastically complicated, as quantum mechanics and chaos theory suggest? Is it possible that God created a Universe so wonderfully that it could charm even its Creator, filling Him with joy?

For example, a computer programmer can create a program which can "learn" and react in ways the programmer cannot envision, even though he created the program; not because of incomplete knowledge, but because of the nature of the program. Programs which model life fall into this pattern.

I believe the future incorporates all things which may happen. There is not a single line. For God to see a single line would be to see a lie, something which does not exist. God sees the future as it is, which is as a fantastically complex interlocked web of possibilities and certainties.

I fear you will think I am not adequately or directly answering your question, but the very form of the question presupposes a deterministic view of the world, and of the future in particular. So I cannot answer it any differently than as I have continually answered it, which is to say that the future is not fixed, and God sees the future perfectly, just as it is. Not a thing will happen which God did not foresee, but God foresees all things, not just a small subset of possible things.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 08/04/05 06:54 AM

Tom, your answer helps me understand our differences. I believe, from God's perspective, the future is like a rerun. You believe the future is known to none.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 08/03/05 09:08 PM

MM, I believe the future is not like a re-run. Period. It is not fixed. I believe 2+2 = 4. Period. God sees that 2+2=4 because it is 4. God sees things the way they are, not is some other way which they are not. If the future were fixed, God would see it that way.

You may have noticed that I have not been dealing primarily with God's foreknowledge, but rather with the nature of the future. Is it fixed? That's the question I have been addressing. It is my conviction that it is not fixed, and that we really do have freedom of choice -- i.e., our choices really do have the capability to impact the future.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 08/03/05 09:22 PM

Period.

Posted By: Tom

Re: How "free" are we after all? - 08/04/05 12:59 AM

Nice post.