Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/23/05 09:25 PM
1. Is the exact day and hour of the second coming of Christ fixed? or flexible? Is there an appointed day or not?
2. When God told us that "it is in our power to hasten our Lord's return" (DA 633) was He implying that the day is not fixed?
3. If the day and hour of the second coming is not fixed, or has not been appointed, can we continue to delay the second coming indefinitely?
4. What did God mean when He said, I "will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth"? (Rom 9:28)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/23/05 09:27 PM
Here are some helpful quotes on the topic:
GC 548
Here the apostle plainly stated that a specified time, then future, had been fixed upon for the judgment of the world. {GC 548.2}
5BC 1126
As a man He will come again with power and glory, to receive His children. And that which should cause us joy and thanksgiving is, that God "hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained." {5BC 1126.2}
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}
DA 633, 634
By giving the gospel to the world it is in our power to hasten our Lord's return. We are not only to look for but to HASTEN the coming of the day of God. 2 Peter 3:12, margin. Had the church of Christ done her appointed work as the Lord ordained, the whole world would before this have been warned, and the Lord Jesus would have come to our earth in power and great glory. {DA 633.3}
FE 335
Notwithstanding the fact that there are false prophets, there are also those who are preaching the truth as pointed out in the Scriptures. With deep earnestness, with honest faith, prompted by the Holy Spirit, they are stirring minds and hearts by showing them that we are living near the second coming of Christ, but the day and hour of His appearing are beyond the ken of man; for "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only." {FE 335.1}
But there is a day that God hath appointed for the close of this world's history. “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Prophecy is fast fulfilling. More, much more, should be said about these tremendously important subjects. The day is at hand when the destiny of every soul will be fixed forever. This day of the Lord HASTENS on apace. {FE 335.2}
EV 579
There will be many converted from among the Jews, and these converts will aid in preparing the way of the Lord, and making straight in the desert a highway for our God. Converted Jews are to have an important part to act in the great preparations to be made in the future to receive Christ, our Prince. A nation shall be born in a day. How? By men whom God has appointed being converted to the truth. There will be seen "first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." The predictions of prophecy will be fulfilled.--Manuscript 75, 1905. {Ev 579.1}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/25/05 09:25 PM
MM: 1. Is the exact day and hour of the second coming of Christ fixed? or flexible? Is there an appointed day or not?
Tom: When His character is perfectly reproduced in His people, then Christ will come and claim them as His own (COL 69). This isn't something which can be "appointed" by God. This is a work in which we can choose to cooperate with Him or not. This is up to us, not God. He can't force it.
God sent a message the purpose of which was to prepare a people for Christ's coming, but that message was to a great degree resited. God's intention was that Christ would come shortly after 1888, but the Spirit of Prophesy tells us that intention was (temporarily) thwrarted, and that "we may have to remain here many more years because of insubordination."
MM: 2. When God told us that "it is in our power to hasten our Lord's return" (DA 633) was He implying that the day is not fixed?
Tom: The future is not fixed.
MM: 3. If the day and hour of the second coming is not fixed, or has not been appointed, can we continue to delay the second coming indefinitely?
Tom: God knows that Christ will come, so Christ's coming is certain. *When* He will come is something we can impact. *That* He will come is not.
MM: 4. What did God mean when He said, I "will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth"? (Rom 9:28)
Tom: I think this has been applied to the 1260 prophesy.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/27/05 04:19 AM
quote:
... but the day and hour of His appearing are beyond the ken of man; for "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only." But there is a day that God hath appointed for the close of this world's history.
Tom, what is it about the language of this quote that implies to you God has no idea when Jesus will return?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/27/05 06:56 AM
... but the day and hour of His appearing are beyond the ken of man; for "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only." But there is a day that God hath appointed for the close of this world's history.
Tom, what is it about the language of this quote that implies to you God has no idea when Jesus will return?
MM, What is it in our above posts that leads you to believe that Mars is purple?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/28/05 08:11 AM
You mean Orion? Jesus is passing through Orion when He returns. I haven't heard anything about the Red Planet and the Second Advent. Do you know something about it?
The quote I posted very clearly says the day and hour of Jesus' return has been appointed by God. Why do you disagree?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/29/05 06:46 AM
I made the Mars reference because you asked me a question which has no relation to anything I've written, so I asked you a similar one. That is, I've never written that God has no idea when Jesus will return, and you have never written, AFAIK, that Mars is purple.
IOW, your question was poorly framed. It's like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The question itself implies something, making the question unanswerable without impicitly accepting the premise.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/28/05 08:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MM:
The quote I posted very clearly says the day and hour of Jesus' return has been appointed by God. Why do you disagree?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/29/05 02:17 AM
MM: The quote I posted very clearly says the day and hour of Jesus' return has been appointed by God. Why do you disagree?
Tom: As a response to that question, I wrote the following:
Old Tom: When His character is perfectly reproduced in His people, then Christ will come and claim them as His own (COL 69). This isn't something which can be "appointed" by God. This is a work in which we can choose to cooperate with Him or not. This is up to us, not God. He can't force it.
God sent a message the purpose of which was to prepare a people for Christ's coming, but that message was to a great degree resited. God's intention was that Christ would come shortly after 1888, but the Spirit of Prophesy tells us that intention was (temporarily) thwrarted, and that "we may have to remain here many more years because of insubordination."
Tom: You are using the word "appointed" in a deterministic way, but EGW was not deterministic in her phiolosophy, which is clarified by the points which I made. She was an incompatibilist. If she were deterministic, like you are, she never would have written that God sent Christ as the risk of failure or eternal loss, or to stay on the topic of Christ's coming, she never would have written that we can hasten Christ's coming. These are not deterministic ideas.
Therefore her use of the word "appointed" must have been incompatibilistic, not deterministic. Or to say the same thing in simple language, it must be in harmony with her view that we can hasten Christ's coming, which implies the future is not fixed.
Now starting from the assumption that the future is not fixed, how should we understand that God has appointed a day for Christ's return? What I would mean if I said that there is a day appointed for Christ's return (which I would feel very comfortable in saying) is that there is a day when that will happen. I wouldn't mean there is a specific day in which it must happen because the future is fixed, but simply that it will happen. When it will happen is conditional upon us, which EGW made clear in many statements, such as the ones I alluded to.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/29/05 05:32 AM
quote:
... the day and hour of His appearing are beyond the ken of man; for "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only." But there is a day that God hath appointed for the close of this world's history.
The word "but", the one made bold, is used to contrast two statements, 1) We don't know the day and hour of Jesus' coming, 2) But, nevertheless, there is an appointed day and hour. The fact God uses the expression "day and hour" contradicts the idea God doesn't know the exact day and hour of Jesus' return. Why would God go out of His way to say, I have appointed a day and hour when Jesus will return, if He simply meant it will eventually happen some day?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/29/05 08:14 AM
The title of this thread is "Is the date of the Second Coming fixed or flexible?" You seem to be arguing that it is fixed. That's not tradional SDAism, and not in harmony with what the Spirit of Prophesy wrote. If it is your view that the Spirit of Prophesy is saying that there is a fixed date for Christ's return, how do you explain the many statements which imply it isn't fixed? For example:
quote:
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 the threatenings of God are alike conditional.
It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed.(Ev 695)
quote:
"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.
"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!" --Selected Messages, book 1, p. 68.
In connection to the 1888 message, she wrote:
quote:
"Had the purpose of God been carried out by His people in giving to the world the message of mercy, Christ would, ere this, have come to the earth, and the saints would have received their welcome into the city of God."—6 Testimonies, 450; Evangelism, 694 (1900).
"I know that if the people of God had preserved a living connection with Him, if they had obeyed His Word, they would today be in the heavenly Canaan."—General Conference Bulletin, March 30, 1903; Evangelism, 694.
And then there's this famous statement:
quote:
"I was shown the company present at the Conference, Said the angel: "Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." Ellen G. White, 1Testimonies, p. 131-132. May 27,1856
How many of this crowd lived to see the coming of Christ? How does this statement fly in the face of a fixed date for Christ's coming? If it were fixed for some time yet in the future for us here in the third millenium, why would God commission an angel to say those alive in 1856 would live to see it?
God has appointed a day, but it's not a fixed date and time, as you are thinking of it, but a day when His people hear His voice and respond to the message which He has sent. God had intended that this would happen around 1888, but that didn't happen. Those people in the food for worms vision all died, because the message which God sent was not heeded.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/29/05 08:41 AM
The many quotes you posted do not say God doesn't know the day and hour Jesus will return. They merely say what might have happened if the church hadn't failed, but they cannot be construed to mean God has not appointed a fixed date for the return of Christ.
1. Why hasn't Jesus returned yet?
2. When has God used the specific phrase "day and hour" to mean anything other than a precise point in time? Did He ever use it to mean an indefinite, unspecified date, as in the expression - one of these days?
3. Where does it plainly say (not inferred or implied, which is subject to personal opinion) that God doesn't know the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming?
Posted By: Will
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/29/05 12:24 PM
Just out of curiosity we are not trying to set a date and time ourselves right?
Jesus said no man knoweth, but the Father, and Jesus also said that when the Gospel has gone out to the world then will He come.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/30/05 06:46 AM
MM: The many quotes you posted do not say God doesn't know the day and hour Jesus will return.
Tom: The title of the thread, which you started, and which I've pointed out, is "Is the date of the Second Coming fixed or flexible?" I have been arguing that the future is not fixed. If you wish to discuss God's foreknowledge, perhaps you would like to open a thread for that.
I have nowhere stated that God does not know the day and hour Jesus will return. I have not been arguing anything regarding God's foreknowledge, other than it is perfect and He knows the future just as it is, which I've stated many times.
MM: They merely say what might have happened if the church hadn't failed, but they cannot be construed to mean God has not appointed a fixed date for the return of Christ.
Tom: Logically they imply the future is not fixed, which is the point I was making. If the future is fixed, then we cannot hasten Christ's coming, can we? If the future is fixed, then Christ could not have come in the past, right?
MM: 1. Why hasn't Jesus returned yet?
Tom:
quote:
Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. {COL 69.1}
It is the privilege of every Christian not only to look for but to hasten the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, (2 Peter 3:12, margin). Were all who profess His name bearing fruit to His glory, how quickly the whole world would be sown with the seed of the gospel. Quickly the last great harvest would be ripened, and Christ would come to gather the precious grain. {COL 69.2}
MM: 2. When has God used the specific phrase "day and hour" to mean anything other than a precise point in time? Did He ever use it to mean an indefinite, unspecified date, as in the expression - one of these days?
Tom: You're just assuming your conclusion here, aren't you? Here's what God has prophesied:
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)
The fact that we can hasten Christ's coming shows the date is not fixed. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?
quote:
11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God (2 Pet. 3:11, 12)
MM: 3. Where does it plainly say (not inferred or implied, which is subject to personal opinion) that God doesn't know the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming?
Tom: Once again, you may wish to open a thread discussing this topic. My point is that the future is not fixed. We really can hasten or delay Christ's coming. In fact, we already have delayed it. E.g.
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: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/29/05 08:43 PM
quote:
The title of the thread, which you started, and which I've pointed out, is "Is the date of the Second Coming fixed or flexible?" I have been arguing that the future is not fixed. If you wish to discuss God's foreknowledge, perhaps you would like to open a thread for that.
Pardon me for not making it clearer in the title. I assumed people understood the question to mean “fixed” or “appointed” by God based on His knowledge of the future. God wouldn't just arbitrarily pick a day in the future, would He? So, obviously this discussion involves God's foreknowledge.
quote:
Logically they imply the future is not fixed, which is the point I was making.
Only if you assume the date of Christ’s coming is not fixed or appointed. Otherwise, there are other things it can infer.
quote:
The fact that we can hasten Christ's coming shows the date is not fixed. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?
No. You are assuming it cannot mean anything else.
quote:
Originally posted by MM:
3. Where does it plainly say (not inferred or implied, which is subject to personal opinion) that God doesn't know the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming?
This question is relevant to the topic, so please, unless you absolutely object, answer it.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/30/05 01:34 AM
Old Tom: The title of the thread, which you started, and which I've pointed out, is "Is the date of the Second Coming fixed or flexible?" I have been arguing that the future is not fixed. If you wish to discuss God's foreknowledge, perhaps you would like to open a thread for that.
MM: Pardon me for not making it clearer in the title. I assumed people understood the question to mean “fixed” or “appointed” by God based on His knowledge of the future.
Tom: Ok. I understood the question to be if there was a fixed day, period. It doesn't matter why the day is fixed for the arguments I have been making. I have been arguing that the day cannot be fixed (by which I mean, it cannot happen on any other date than the fixed date, which I assume you agree with).
MM: God wouldn't just arbitrarily pick a day in the future, would He? So, obviously this discussion involves God's foreknowledge.
Tom: No, God isn't arbitrary. In fact, God has revealed to us how He chooses the day:
quote:
Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. {COL 69.1}
Note that Christ (who is God) is "waiting with longing desire". It makes no sense for the Diety to be "waiting with longing desire" if the thing can only happen when the Diety has determined it should happen.
Old Tom: Logically they imply the future is not fixed, which is the point I was making.
MM: Only if you assume the date of Christ’s coming is not fixed or appointed. Otherwise, there are other things it can infer.
Tom: "Infer" means "deduce: reason by deduction; establish by deduction." "Imply" is what you meant.
You didn't support your assertion with any logic. This communication will be clearer if I repost a little bit:
Old MM: They merely say what might have happened if the church hadn't failed, but they cannot be construed to mean God has not appointed a fixed date for the return of Christ.
Old Tom: Logically they imply the future is not fixed, which is the point I was making. If the future is fixed, then we cannot hasten Christ's coming, can we? If the future is fixed, then Christ could not have come in the past, right?
Tom: To this last comment you wrote, "Only if you assume the date of Christ’s coming is not fixed or appointed. Otherwise, there are other things it can infer."
Here's my point. The SOP wrote that we can hasten Christ's coming, that Christ is waiting for longing desire to come again. I stated that these statements logically imply that the future is not fixed, because clearly we cannot hasten a date (which means to cause a given event to occur sooner than it otherwise would have occured had we not acted) if it is fixed. Similarly it's silly to assert that Christ is "waiting with longing desire" for something He knows won't happen, and has known as such for all eternity. In another location EGW wrote that Christ was "disappointed" that He could not return, which also doesn't make sense if there's a fixed date.
Now you wrote that my inferences were only valid if I assumed that Christ's coming is not fixed, which is not something you can legitamately respond, because this is the very thing I was logically showing cannot be the case.
In other words, I argued:
1)A is true.
2)Therefore it follows that B is not true.
To which you responded, "Only if you assume B is not true." which is a rediculous thing to write in response to such an argument. I'm not assuming anything about B; I'm proving it!
You should respond that 1), not 2), is a groundless assumption, if that's what you think, but not 2), because 2) is a conclusion, not an assumption.
Old Tom:The fact that we can hasten Christ's coming shows the date is not fixed. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?
MM: No. You are assuming it cannot mean anything else.
Tom: "Hasten" means: "induce: cause to occur rapidly." If Christ's coming can be hastened, that means it can be induced to occur rapidly. I'm not assuming anything here; just stating the phrase according to the ordinary usage of English.
What do you think the phrase "hasten the coming of Christ" means?
Old MM:
3. Where does it plainly say (not inferred or implied, which is subject to personal opinion) that God doesn't know the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming?
This question is relevant to the topic, so please, unless you absolutely object, answer it.
Tom: I haven't been arguing this, so I have no need to respond, other than to say I haven't been arguing this, so there's no reason for me to produce such a statement.
I've been arguing that the future is not fixed, and I have been presenting evidence for that view.
Posted By: Restin
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 07/30/05 05:03 AM
God's fore-knowing is not His fore-ordaining.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/04/05 06:46 AM
The Bible and the SOP plainly say that God knows the day and hour Jesus will return, and that He has known it from eternity. The words "specified", "fixed", "appointed" as they apply to the day and hour of Jesus' coming are biblical and inspired. They are not my words. How do you explain it?
GC 548
Here the apostle plainly stated that a specified time, then future, had been fixed upon for the judgment of the world. {GC 548.2}
Question: if it is not plainly stated that there is a specified time and fixed date, why, then, does it say so?
5BC 1126
As a man He will come again with power and glory, to receive His children. And that which should cause us joy and thanksgiving is, that God "hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained." {5BC 1126.2}
Question: if the day hasn't been appointed, why does it say so?
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}
Question: if God doesn't know the "exact time" of Christ's coming then the option to "reveal" it wasn't even available to Jesus, which means the above insight is "silly" and "ridiculous".
FE 335
... but the day and hour of His appearing are beyond the ken of man; for "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only." But there is a day that God hath appointed for the close of this world's history. ... The day is at hand when the destiny of every soul will be fixed forever. This day of the Lord hastens on apace. {FE 335.2}
Observation: if God doesn't know the exact day and hour Jesus will return then this insight is also silly and ridiculous. Notice how she uses the word "hasten" in this paragraph.
EV 579
The predictions of prophecy will be fulfilled.--Manuscript 75, 1905. {Ev 579.1}
Question: why does she use the word "predictions" if, as you (Tom) have suggested elsewhere, is not the right word?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/03/05 07:27 PM
quote:
The Bible and the SOP plainly say that God knows the day and hour Jesus will return, and that He has known it from eternity. The words "specified", "fixed", "appointed" as they apply to the day and hour of Jesus' coming are biblical and inspired. They are not my words. How do you explain it?
Tom: The Bible and the SOP plainly say that the future is not fixed. The words "hasten", "delay", and "risk" as they apply to the day and hour of Jesus' coming are biblical and inspired. They are not my words. How do you explain it?
quote:
11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
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)
I could quote many more, but I don't see the point.
What needs to be done is to think through the implications of whatever point of view is taken. Obviously there are quotes which appear to support the alternative point of view. Simply citing the quotes which support your point of view, while ignoring the others, really isn't helpful, MM. We've been following a pattern for quite a long time where I have answered your questions, but you have (usually, not always) avoided mine. I have spent a great deal of time laying out arguments, which you still haven't responded to, while I have not avoided any of your questions or arguments.
My arguments revolve around the concept that if the future is fixed, then we do not have actual freedom, but only the appearance of freedom. There is no question this is true. You should acknowledge this point, and then we could go on from there. Instead of acknowledging this, you sidetrack to the question of whether God's foreknowledge causes us to do whatever He sees, which I have never asserted. So please acknowledge the following point, but I would like to continue my argument, but I would like to see that you have acknowledged this self-evident truth:
If the future is fixed, then we do no have freedom of choice.
We have instead a perception that our choices are free, but not the reality, because if the future is fixed, we can only always do but one thing at any point of time, and the definition of "freedom of choice" involves the ability to choose to do, and actually do, more than one thing at a given time.
Please note that my assertion does not involve God's foreknowledge. It is not a question of perspective, but of reality (that is, it is not discussing that the future appears fixed to God, but not to us).
Returning to your quotes from the Spirit of Prophesy, she tells us:
quote:
The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture (1SM 42).
Now given that the Spirit of Prophesy has written statements such as the one quoted above in DA 49, one can see she did not hold to a deterministic view of the future. Clearly if God took a risk in sending Christ, the future is not fixed, because God sees the future perfectly, and in this case He would have seen that without doubt Christ would be successful. Hence there couldn't have been any risk.
She also wrote in 1856 that Christ would come within the lifetime of that generation. Some of those at that campmeeting would be alive when Christ returned. How do you explain this, MM? If the view of things you have were correct, how could she possibly have written anything like this?
quote:
"I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel, 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.' "
So I would say that since the testimonies should interpret the testimonies, that since there is clear evidence she did not view the future as fixed, it was not her intention to suggest that it is fixed in the quotations you cited. Before suggesting what she actually meant in the quotes you provided, I will ask if you agree with this (the part in bold).
BTW, nice to see you are back.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/03/05 09:16 PM
Thank you. It is good to be back.
quote:
If the future is fixed, then we do no have freedom of choice.
Unless knowing what we will choose, before we choose it, does not make us robots. I realize you believe this insight has absolutely no bearing on the topic. But you and I perceive the future differently. I believe it is based on what God knows we are going to choose to do, which means we are free to choose. You believe God is only aware of all the possible choices, but that He has no way of knowing in advance which one we will choose.
But are we any more or less free if our choices are limited to the ones God can foresee? Total freedom would require, according to your view, that God does not know all the possible choices we might make.
Again, you are assuming the “risk” quote absolutely means God did not know Jesus if would fail or succeed on the cross. Based on this assumption, therefore, you are convinced God does not know the future like a rerun. You also seem to be convinced that any and every quote that says Jesus could have returned ere this clearly teaches that God has no idea when Jesus will return.
As I see it, nothing she has written can be forced to mean she did not mean what she said in the quotes I posted, namely, God has known from eternity when Jesus will return.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/04/05 12:35 AM
Old Tom:If the future is fixed, then we do no have freedom of choice.
MM: Unless knowing what we will choose, before we choose it, does not make us robots.
Tom: You're using a difficult construction here, with many negatives. Let me put what you are saying in a positive way.
1) If knowing what we will choose before we choose it does not make us robots,
2) Then it follows that the future can be fixed without impacting our freedom of choice.
I'm going to refrain from responding to the rest of your post for now because I think this is an important point to address. I think your argument is not valid for two reasons.
First of all, the conclusion is false. It is not the case that the future can be fixed without impacting our freedom of choice. This can be easily demonstrated.
1)Assume the future is fixed.
2)By definition, this means there is nothing we can to do impact the future.
3)From which it follows that at any given time in the future, we can only make one choice.
4)Which contradicts the meaning of "freedom of choice" ("Freedom of choice" means more than one option is available).
5)Therefore if the future is fixed, we do not have freedom of choice.
Please note that this is irrespective of God's foreknowledge.
The second reason your argument is invalid is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Given the hypothesis that God's foreknowledge does not make us rebots, it does not follow that the future can be fixed without impacting our freedom of choice.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/04/05 02:27 AM
Tom, I think it is safe to assume we are never going to agree on this point. God sees the future after the fact. Thus, His knowledge of the future does not rob us of our freedom to choose - it merely reflects the results of our freedom to choose. It in no way hinders us.
We are free to choose as we please. Just because God knows in advance the choices we will make does not mean we are choiceless. I realize you cannot accept this premise. God's knowledge of our future choices no more makes us robots than His knowledge of the past.
You believe God only knows the different choices we are capable of choosing, and for some reason you do not believe this limits our freedom to choose. How is your view any more or less restricitng, as you put it, than the one I am advocating?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/04/05 07:23 PM
In all the posts we've had on this issue, you've not once dealt with the issue I have presented. I don't know why you refuse to do this. I don't if it's due to a lack of ability to understand the point I'm making, or a deliberate choice to avoid it.
You didn't respond to the post I wrote immediately before this one. Please take a look at the argument, and respond. Please note that the argument does not depend upon God's foreknowledge.
The simple answer to your question to me is that if the future is fixed, then that is obviously a more restrictive view than if it is not fixed. This is self-evident.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/04/05 07:43 PM
Tom, I simply disagree with your view of a fixed future and our freedom of choice. I am not avoiding it. You want to divorce God's knowledge of the future from the equation, but were it not for His knowledge of the future we wouldn't even be discussing this topic. The future is fixed based solely on divine hindsight.
Again, I believe God sees the future after the fact, like watching a rerun. You disagree. I believe His knowing our choices, before we make them, in no way robs us of our freedom to make them. You disagree. I believe His knowledge of the future merely reflects the choices we are free to make. You disagree. I believe my logic is sound. You disagree.
Our disagreements are not due to my inability to understand your line of logic. I understand what you are saying. It's just that I don't agree with you. I do not agree that just because the future is "fixed", which is based solely on divine hindsight, that it means we are incapable of exercising our freedom to make choices, or that it means we are not truly free to make choices.
Again, I believe it is safe to assume that we are never going to agree on this point. It is obvious to me that God has known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming from eternity. You disagree. You believe God has never known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming. And I disagree.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/04/05 09:17 PM
Well it may be that we won't agree, but I would appreciate it if you would consider my argument. For your convenience, I will reproduce it here:
First of all, the conclusion is false. It is not the case that the future can be fixed without impacting our freedom of choice. This can be easily demonstrated.
1)Assume the future is fixed.
2)By definition, this means there is nothing we can to do impact the future.
3)From which it follows that at any given time in the future, we can only make one choice.
4)Which contradicts the meaning of "freedom of choice" ("Freedom of choice" means more than one option is available).
5)Therefore if the future is fixed, we do not have freedom of choice.
Please note that this is irrespective of God's foreknowledge.
The second reason your argument is invalid is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Given the hypothesis that God's foreknowledge does not make us rebots, it does not follow that the future can be fixed without impacting our freedom of choice.
The first argument shows why it is the case that if we assume the future is fixed, we do not have freedom of choice. Please point out which of the steps of the argument you disagree with and why.
The second point I addressed is that your argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from your premise. You didn't even make an attempt to demonstrate that it did. You just made as assertion, and keep repeating it. That's not an argument. An argument reasons from cause to effect. You are asserting that because God's foreknowledge does not make us rebots it follows that the future can be fixed without denying us the ability to have freedom of choice. I'm asking you to explain how that follows.
Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/04/05 09:58 PM
1) Assume the future is fixed.
It is not “fixed” in the sense you are assuming. It is based solely of God’s hindsight. Divine hindsight is like watching a rerun.
2) By definition, this means there is nothing we can to do impact the future.
Not if it is based on divine hindsight. Knowing the facts, after the fact, doesn’t change the facts. It’s like reading a history book. Do you understand this insight? I’m not asking if you agree with it.
3) From which it follows that at any given time in the future, we can only make one choice.
We will decide on one choice, a decision God knows in advance, like watching a rerun, which does not mean our choices are limited to one.
4) Which contradicts the meaning of "freedom of choice" ("Freedom of choice" means more than one option is available).
We are free to choose as we please. We will choose one choice. God knows our choice before we choose it.
5) Therefore if the future is fixed, we do not have freedom of choice.
I disagree. Divine hindsight merely reflects what happened. God knows the end, and He knows it from the beginning. You understand this inspired insight to mean that God doesn’t know our future choices, that He only knows our future options. I disagree.
quote:
Again, I believe it is safe to assume that we are never going to agree on this point. It is obvious to me that God has known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming from eternity. You disagree. You believe God has never known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming. And I disagree.
Do you agree with these two statements?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/04/05 10:55 PM
The statements you asked if I agreed with were unclear to me because they themselves included questions relating to agreement and disagreement. So I wasn't sure if I was agreeing we were disagreeing, or what.
Regarding Christ's coming, I do not believe the future is fixed. I do believe we can hasten or delay His coming, and indeed, we have already delayed it.
Regarding my argument, I appreciate your attempt to address it, but you still have not addressed MY argument. You keep redefining it into something YOU believe. I'm interested in your addressing the argument I have set forth. I am making the argument; I get to specify what it is.
Old Tom: 1) Assume the future is fixed.
MM: It is not “fixed” in the sense you are assuming. It is based solely of God’s hindsight. Divine hindsight is like watching a rerun.
Tom: This is not addressing my argument! It start s out "ASSUME" the future is fixed. The whole point of the argument is to make the case that if the future is fixed, then it follows that we are not free. AFTER that point has been established, it was my intention to go into more detail regarding the premace. But before doing that, I wanted to establish that you agree with the validity of the argument. But so far I have been unable in my attempts to induce you to consider my actual argument.
Old Tom: 2) By definition, this means there is nothing we can to do impact the future.
MM: Not if it is based on divine hindsight.
Tom: HOW the future were fixed would have not bearing on IF it were fixed. My argument is stemming from the premise that it is fixed.
Allow me to define exactly what I mean in saying that the future is fixed. I mean that it cannot be in any other way then what it will actually be. For any given future circumstance at any future point in time, there is only one possible outcome.
MM: Knowing the facts, after the fact, doesn’t change the facts. It’s like reading a history book. Do you understand this insight? I’m not asking if you agree with it.
Tom: You're asking me if I understand the principle that knowing the facts, after the fact, doesn't change the facts is like reading a history book? Yes, I think I can follow that.
Old Tom: 3) From which it follows that at any given time in the future, we can only make one choice.
MM: We will decide on one choice, a decision God knows in advance, like watching a rerun, which does not mean our choices are limited to one.
Tom: This is irrelevant to the point being made. There's nothing in step 3) which addresses foreknowledge.
Old Tom:4) Which contradicts the meaning of "freedom of choice" ("Freedom of choice" means more than one option is available).
MM: We are free to choose as we please. We will choose one choice. God knows our choice before we choose it.
Tom: This again does not address the argument. The argument is reasoning from cause to effect. What I am arguing here is that if we can only make one choice, then we are not free. Do you agree with this statement?
Old Tom: 5) Therefore if the future is fixed, we do not have freedom of choice.
MM: I disagree. Divine hindsight merely reflects what happened. God knows the end, and He knows it from the beginning. You understand this inspired insight to mean that God doesn’t know our future choices, that He only knows our future options. I disagree.
Tom: My argument never mentioned "divine hindsight" or addressed it in any way. You keep introducing your own ideas into what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to do that, but rather to consider MY ideas.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/05/05 08:45 AM
quote:
This is not addressing my argument! It start s out "ASSUME" the future is fixed. The whole point of the argument is to make the case that if the future is fixed, then it follows that we are not free.
So, let me get this straight. You want me to agree with an assumption I disagree with so you can base an argument against it? Did I miss something, or what?
quote:
Allow me to define exactly what I mean in saying that the future is fixed. I mean that it cannot be in any other way then what it will actually be. For any given future circumstance at any future point in time, there is only one possible outcome.
In light of this definition, how is the future fixed? Is it something God arbitrarily decides irrespective of our freedom to choose? Or, is it based on divine hindsight, like watching a rerun? I realize you don’t think it matters either way, but to me it does. So please, humor me.
quote:
You're asking me if I understand the principle that knowing the facts, after the fact, doesn't change the facts is like reading a history book? Yes, I think I can follow that.
Good. Does it help you understand why I believe God’s knowledge of the future does not rob us of our freedom to choose? Since He knows about it after the fact, how can it mean we are not free to choose?
quote:
This again does not address the argument. The argument is reasoning from cause to effect. What I am arguing here is that if we can only make one choice, then we are not free. Do you agree with this statement?
You keep using the word “can”, whereas, I prefer the word “will”. You also insist divine hindsight has nothing to do with the equation, but I believe it has everything to do with it. We will make the choice that agrees with what God saw after the fact, like watching a rerun. Since God saw it after the fact it cannot mean we are not free to choose as we please.
A fixed future that is based on divine hindsight merely reflects the results of our freedom to choose, like reading a history book. Do you understand why I believe a fixed future based on divine hindsight does not mean we are not free to choose as we please? I am not familiar with the fixed future that you are talking about, one that means we are not free to choose, or one that means our choices are limited to one, or one that means our choice is fore-ordained.
quote:
My argument never mentioned "divine hindsight" or addressed it in any way. You keep introducing your own ideas into what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to do that, but rather to consider MY ideas.
But you want me to assume something I totally disagree with. And why? So you can prove that my view of the future means we are not truly free to choose as we please. Is that what you’re trying to do? If so, how can you ask me to consider such a thing? I do not believe divine hindsight and freedom of choice are incompatible.
quote:
Again, I believe it is safe to assume that we are never going to agree on this point. It is obvious to me that God has known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming from eternity. You disagree. You believe God has never known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming. And I disagree.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/05/05 09:24 PM
Old Tom: This is not addressing my argument! It start s out "ASSUME" the future is fixed. The whole point of the argument is to make the case that if the future is fixed, then it follows that we are not free.
MM: So, let me get this straight. You want me to agree with an assumption I disagree with so you can base an argument against it? Did I miss something, or what?
Tom: Yes, you missed something. The validity of an argument and its truth are two different things. An argument can be valid without being true. An argument is true if it is valid and the premises are true. If a premise is false, then the conslusion can still be false, even though the argument is valid. I wanted you to address the validity of the argument. If you agree the argument is valid, then we can work on addressing the premise. If you don't agree the argument is valid, then establishing the truth of the premise will not be sufficient to establish the truth of the conclusion.
Old Tom: Allow me to define exactly what I mean in saying that the future is fixed. I mean that it cannot be in any other way then what it will actually be. For any given future circumstance at any future point in time, there is only one possible outcome.
MM: In light of this definition, how is the future fixed? Is it something God arbitrarily decides irrespective of our freedom to choose? Or, is it based on divine hindsight, like watching a rerun? I realize you don’t think it matters either way, but to me it does. So please, humor me.
Tom: The future being fixed is independent on the knowledge of it, just like gravity is independent on one's knowledge of gravity. If the future were fixed, it would be because that were an inherent characteristic of it, a property of it; it's nature, it's essence. It would be something built into the structure or fabric of time.
Old Tom: You're asking me if I understand the principle that knowing the facts, after the fact, doesn't change the facts is like reading a history book? Yes, I think I can follow that.
MM: Good. Does it help you understand why I believe God’s knowledge of the future does not rob us of our freedom to choose? Since He knows about it after the fact, how can it mean we are not free to choose?
Tom: I haven't been addressing this question. I've been addressing the point that if the future is fixed, then we cannot be free. Think of a maze that only has one path. There is no way to fail. Now introduce a second path, one that dead ends. Which maze is the future like? Does it only have one path? If it has one path, then God will see it as having one path. If it has more than one path, then God will see it as having more than one path.
God sees things as they really are. To the best of my knowledge, you have not responded to this point, although I have made it many times. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Do you agree with it? I.e. reality is what it is irrespective of one's perception of it.
Old Tom: This again does not address the argument. The argument is reasoning from cause to effect. What I am arguing here is that if we can only make one choice, then we are not free. Do you agree with this statement?
MM: You keep using the word “can”, whereas, I prefer the word “will”.
Tom: That's not what I'm asking though. I'm asking "can". If we can only make one choice, then we are not free. Do you agree with this?
MM: You also insist divine hindsight has nothing to do with the equation, but I believe it has everything to do with it.
Tom: Nope. God knowledge of the past doesn't affeect the past. It is what it is. His knowledge perfectly reflects the reality of it. Similarly, God's knowledge of the future does not alter it (except that, unlike the past, God can take actions to alter it).
MM: We will make the choice that agrees with what God saw after the fact, like watching a rerun.
Tom: This is only possible if the future is of a nature that it can be viewable as a rerun; IOW, it must be fixed, like the one-pathed maze.
MM: Since God saw it after the fact it cannot mean we are not free to choose as we please.
Tom: This is an invalid argument. You are stating:
1)God saw the future after the fact.
2)Therefore it cannot mean we are not free to choose as we please.
Not only is this invalid, it's convoluted. You write "it cannot mean we are not free" which is to say, it must mean we are free. So let me rephrase your argument so the invalidity is more apparent:
1)God saw the future after the fact.
2)Therefore it must mean we are free.
Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. Your posts are full of assertions like this. You make these invalid arguments one after the other, and I point them out to you, yet you don't acknowledge their invalidity.
Please bear in mind I'm not dealing here with the truth of what you are writing, but the validity. That is, the reasoning concerned. The reasoning you are using in the above statement is unsound. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Just look at the contrapositive:
~2)We are not free.
~1)Therefore God cannot see the future like a re-run.
If your argument were valid, then so would this one be. It's obviously not (our lack of freedom would not cause God to see the future in one way or another), so your argument is not valid.
MM:A fixed future that is based on divine hindsight merely reflects the results of our freedom to choose, like reading a history book. Do you understand why I believe a fixed future based on divine hindsight does not mean we are not free to choose as we please? I am not familiar with the fixed future that you are talking about, one that means we are not free to choose, or one that means our choices are limited to one, or one that means our choice is fore-ordained.
Tom: There's only one kind of fixed future, and that's one which is fixed. I provided a definition. It means for any given time in the future, there's only one thing we can do. That's what the word "fixed" means; it means unmoveable, unchangeable, unalterable.
Old Tom: My argument never mentioned "divine hindsight" or addressed it in any way. You keep introducing your own ideas into what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to do that, but rather to consider MY ideas.
MM: But you want me to assume something I totally disagree with. And why? So you can prove that my view of the future means we are not truly free to choose as we please.
Tom: No, that's not why. My purpose was to establish the validity of an argument. It's just the first step of a journey.
MM: Is that what you’re trying to do? If so, how can you ask me to consider such a thing? I do not believe divine hindsight and freedom of choice are incompatible.
Tom: I can ask you to consider such a thing because this is how one goes about determining the validity of an argument.
MM: Again, I believe it is safe to assume that we are never going to agree on this point. It is obvious to me that God has known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming from eternity. You disagree. You believe God has never known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming. And I disagree.
Tom: "You believe God has never known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming. And I disagree."
Um, where did I write this?
I have asked you repeatedly to quit stating matter of factly what I believe. You may ask if I believe a certain thing, as you have done in the past, and you may write something like "it appears to me you believe" blah, blah, blah, but please don't write "You believe" etc. Please just quote me, or couch your opinions more carefully as such.
The points I have been making are:
1) The future is not fixed.
2) If the future is fixed, we are not free.
Why don't you write that I believe this? *This* is what I've been arguing. The only assertions I have made regarding God's foreknowledge is that it is perfect; that God sees the future as it really is. Why don't you write I believe this?
Please limit your statements of what I believe to statements I have made about what I believe.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/06/05 06:02 AM
quote:
An argument can be valid without being true.
You mean like two wrongs don’t make a right?
quote:
The future being fixed is independent on the knowledge of it, just like gravity is independent on one's knowledge of gravity.
Is it something God arbitrarily decides irrespective of our freedom to choose? Or, is it based on divine hindsight, like watching a rerun?
quote:
God sees things as they really are. To the best of my knowledge, you have not responded to this point, although I have made it many times.
You also believe God does not know our choices before we make them, therefore, in your opinion, what does God see?
quote:
If we can only make one choice, then we are not free. Do you agree with this?
No. If we do not choose Jesus, then we choose death by default, right? We do not have to choose to die. All we have to do is refuse to choose to Jesus. As such, we only have one choice, which we are perfectly free to make.
quote:
God knowledge of the past doesn't affeect the past. It is what it is. His knowledge perfectly reflects the reality of it…. Not only is this invalid, it's convoluted.
What? First you agree with me, and then you call it convoluted. I don’t get it.
A fixed future that is based on divine hindsight merely reflects the results of our freedom to choose, like reading a history book. The past and the future are one and the same thing - from God’s perspective. Consequently, based on your definition of the past, the future, from God’s perspective, merely reflects reality. But apparently you do not believe God sees the future like a rerun.
The future is not “fixed” in the sense you are arguing against. You are desperately striving to build an argument against a type of fixed future that I totally reject. If the future were fixed in the sense you are talking about, then I would agree with your premise regarding the freedom of choice. However, the future is not fixed in the way you are explaining it.
Okay, let me try this again. Do you believe God has known, from eternity, the exact day and hour Jesus will return? I'm not talking about an era, or a general time frame. I mean, has God known from eternity the exact day and hour Jesus will return?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/07/05 11:28 PM
Old Tom:An argument can be valid without being true.
MM: You mean like two wrongs don’t make a right?
Tom: No, that's not at all what it means. A valid argument is one which follows the rules of logic. If one starts with premises which are true, and reasons soundly, then the conclusion will be true. If the conclusion is false, it is because a premise was false.
I was wanting you to address the validity of my argument. I would still like it if you would do that.
Old Tom: The future being fixed is independent on the knowledge of it, just like gravity is independent on one's knowledge of gravity.
MM: Is it something God arbitrarily decides irrespective of our freedom to choose? Or, is it based on divine hindsight, like watching a rerun?
Tom: No. It's what I said above your comment. The future being fixed is independent of God's knowledge of it. Note the word "independent". That means "not dependent on or conditioned by or relative to."
Old Tom: God sees things as they really are. To the best of my knowledge, you have not responded to this point, although I have made it many times.
MM:You also believe God does not know our choices before we make them, therefore, in your opinion, what does God see?
Tom: God sees the future as it is. This is what I've repeatedly said, not what you say I've said. You seem possessed with the desire to do so, not matter how often I ask you not to.
By now we've written many things on this topic. I have been unable to do two things, no matter how much I've tried:
1) Have you consider my arguments.
2) Have you not misrepresent what I've written.
Where have I once written that God does not know our choices? Please quote something.
Old Tom: If we can only make one choice, then we are not free. Do you agree with this?
MM: No.
Tom: So even though we can only make one choice, we are still free.
MM: If we do not choose Jesus, then we choose death by default, right? We do not have to choose to die. All we have to do is refuse to choose to Jesus. As such, we only have one choice, which we are perfectly free to make.
Tom: This response is non-sensical. I'm making a statement which is self-evidently true, that if we can only make one choice we are not free, and you respond that this is not true, for the reason you give above, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
If we can only make one choice at a given point in time, we do not have freedom of choice. This is what freedom of choice means; the ability to make more than one choice.
Old Tom: God knowledge of the past doesn't affeect the past. It is what it is. His knowledge perfectly reflects the reality of it…. Not only is this invalid, it's convoluted.
MM: What? First you agree with me, and then you call it convoluted. I don’t get it.
Tom: This is what I was calling convolted: "Since God saw it after the fact it cannot mean we are not free to choose as we please." This is convoluted. It's difficult to understand what it means, because of the multiple negations.
MM: A fixed future that is based on divine hindsight merely reflects the results of our freedom to choose, like reading a history book.
Tom: This is irresponsive to the argument I was making, which had to do with the fact that if the future is fixed, then we can only make one choice, and thus do not have freedom of choice. This argument is irrespective of God's foreknowledge.
MM: The past and the future are one and the same thing - from God’s perspective.
Tom: This can only be the case if the future and the past really are the same, because God's perspective of things is exactly what they are. Do you agree with this? Or do you think God sees things differently than they are?
MM: Consequently, based on your definition of the past, the future, from God’s perspective, merely reflects reality.
Tom: Here's your argument:
1)The past and the future are one and the same thing - from God’s perspective.
2)Consequently, based on your definition of the past, the future, from God’s perspective, merely reflects reality.
The future and the past are not the same from God's perspective, because they aren't the same. God doesn't perceive things differently than what they are.
MM: But apparently you do not believe God sees the future like a rerun.
Tom: Apparently not. That would imply the future really was like a rereun, wouldn't it?
MM: The future is not “fixed” in the sense you are arguing against. You are desperately striving to build an argument against a type of fixed future that I totally reject. If the future were fixed in the sense you are talking about, then I would agree with your premise regarding the freedom of choice. However, the future is not fixed in the way you are explaining it.
Tom: Ok, good. So you do accept my argument in terms of the validity of the logic. You reject the premise, which is fine and good, but accept that my argument is valid. *IF* my premise were true, then my conclusion would be ture. You agree to this.
MM: Okay, let me try this again. Do you believe God has known, from eternity, the exact day and hour Jesus will return? I'm not talking about an era, or a general time frame. I mean, has God known from eternity the exact day and hour Jesus will return?
Tom: It seems to me that your question presupposes that the future is fixed. Is this correct? I don't believe the future is fixed. God's knowledge of the future, which is perfect, must include all possibilities, not just the one which will actually occur.
Consider that all heaven was placed in peril for our redemption. Or the fact that God took a risk in sending Christ to save us. Given your view of the future, I don't see how these statements could possibly be true. Do you? How could God take a risk in doing something of which He was absolutely certain of the result?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/08/05 01:28 AM
quote:
*IF* my premise were true, then my conclusion would be true. You agree to this.
Yes. But since I believe the future for God is like watching a rerun, which merely reflects, out of all the possible options, the precise option we will decide on, consequently, I cannot accept or assume your theoretical view of a fixed future is valid.
But, for the sake of argument, I will assume your premise is true. Please proceed with the rest of your formula. I’m all ears.
quote:
I don't believe the future is fixed. God's knowledge of the future, which is perfect, must include all possibilities, not just the one which will actually occur.
Okay, let me try this again. Do you believe God has known, from eternity, the exact day and hour Jesus will return? You seem reluctant to answer this question. Why?
quote:
God sees the future as it is. This is what I've repeatedly said, not what you say I've said. You seem possessed with the desire to do so, not matter how often I ask you not to.
Okay, let me try this again. When you say “God sees the future as it is”, do you mean He knows in advance the precise, exact choices we are going to make before we make them? Or, do you mean He only sees all the options available to us? What does God see when He sees the future? You seem reluctant to answer this question, too. Why?
quote:
How could God take a risk in doing something of which He was absolutely certain of the result?
You already know my answer to the assumption that God takes risks in the same way humans take risks. Attempting to prove a point by basing it on an assumption I totally disagree with isn't helpful.
quote:
Originally posted by MM:
If we do not choose Jesus, then we choose death by default, right? We do not have to choose to die. All we have to do is refuse to choose to Jesus. As such, we only have one choice, which we are perfectly free to make.
I realize you think this is a “nonsensical” response, but, please, humor me. Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice? Do you agree that if we refuse to choose Jesus we are choosing, by not choosing, to sin and die in the lake of fire?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/08/05 02:55 AM
Old Tom:*IF* my premise were true, then my conclusion would be true. You agree to this.
MM: Yes. But since I believe the future for God is like watching a rerun, which merely reflects, out of all the possible options, the precise option we will decide on, consequently, I cannot accept or assume your theoretical view of a fixed future is valid.
But, for the sake of argument, I will assume your premise is true. Please proceed with the rest of your formula. I’m all ears.
Tom: Given the argument is valid, then my conclusions would be valid if your premise were equvialent to mine. That is, I have argument that if the future is fixed, then we do not have freedom of choice. You agree with the argument, but reject the premise, according to how I have defined fixed future (and in reality, I also reject the premise, since I don't believe it either).
So the next step would be to see if your view of things, that God sees the future as a re-run, is equivalent to the starting point of the argument -- that the future is fixed. This was the direction I was wanting to head.
To summarize where we are now, we both agree that if the future is fixed, then we do not have freedom of choice. Neither one of us thinks the future is fixed, as I have defined it (there's only one path which is possible, etc.). You believe that from God's perspective it is fixed, but this does not interfere in our ability to make free choices.
I'm going to think about how to make the argument that God's seeing the future as fixed implies the future actually is fixed, but before making such an argument (which I'd like to think about) allow me to ask how, from your perspective, is it possible that God can see the future as if it were a re-run without it actually being like a re-run.
Old Tom: I don't believe the future is fixed. God's knowledge of the future, which is perfect, must include all possibilities, not just the one which will actually occur.
MM: Okay, let me try this again. Do you believe God has known, from eternity, the exact day and hour Jesus will return? You seem reluctant to answer this question. Why?
Tom: I did answer the question. I don't believe He sees things the way you do, like a T.V. rerun; so from your perspective the answer is no. From my perspective, where He sees the future not as a single line but as a vast web, the answer is yes.
Old Tom: God sees the future as it is. This is what I've repeatedly said, not what you say I've said. You seem possessed with the desire to do so, not matter how often I ask you not to.
MM: Okay, let me try this again. When you say “God sees the future as it is”, do you mean He knows in advance the precise, exact choices we are going to make before we make them?
Tom: Yes, as well as the choices we don't make.
MM: Or, do you mean He only sees all the options available to us? What does God see when He sees the future? You seem reluctant to answer this question, too. Why?
Tom: I've answered this many times. God sees the future as it is, which is a vast web of possibilities.
Old Tom: How could God take a risk in doing something of which He was absolutely certain of the result?
MM: You already know my answer to the assumption that God takes risks in the same way humans take risks.
Tom: But God is communicating to us as humans. Communications where words such as "risk" have some special meaning to Him which aren't shared by us aren't meaningful. Especially when these communications are emphasized, such as "Remember Christ risked all."
MM: Attempting to prove a point by basing it on an assumption I totally disagree with isn't helpful.
Tom: I was attempting to answer your question. I was pointing out in answering your question why I don't believe the future is fixed, and giving reasons as to why.
Old MM: Originally posted by MM:
If we do not choose Jesus, then we choose death by default, right? We do not have to choose to die. All we have to do is refuse to choose to Jesus. As such, we only have one choice, which we are perfectly free to make.
MM: I realize you think this is a “nonsensical” response, but, please, humor me.
Tom: It appeared "nonsesical" in the context of answering my statement that the future being fixed implies we cannot have more than one choice available at any given time.
MM: Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice?
Tom: No.
MM: Do you agree that if we refuse to choose Jesus we are choosing, by not choosing, to sin and die in the lake of fire?
Tom: Yes.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/09/05 06:18 AM
quote:
… from your perspective, is it possible that God can see the future as if it were a re-run without it actually being … a re-run.
Yes, that makes sense, if you omit the word “like” in your original post, which I have done. The future is a rerun in the mind of God because God “inhabits eternity” (Isa 57:15), which means He knows the end from the beginning. Been there, done that. The past and the future are alike in the mind of God, which is true in reality; it’s not just make believe. However, from our space and time perspective life is not a rerun.
quote:
From my perspective, where He sees the future not as a single line but as a vast web, the answer is yes.
I’m not sure I understand your answer. Help me out here. Are you saying God has known from eternity the precise, exact day and hour Jesus will return? Or, are you saying God is aware of a million possible dates but that He actually hasn't known or doesn't know the exact day and hour?
quote:
Yes, as well as the choices we don't make… God sees the future as it is, which is a vast web of possibilities.
Again, your answer confuses me. Please bear with me. Are you saying God knows, of all the possible choices available to us, exactly which one we will choose, before we make our choice?
quote:
But God is communicating to us as humans.
Would you agree, then, it is entirely possible that when Sister White used the word “risk” that she did not intend to contradict the Bible? The reason I ask is because nowhere in the Bible is it taught that God wasn’t absolutely sure Jesus would succeed on the cross. In other words, the Bible makes it crystal clear that God knew in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross.
As such, at least in my way of thinking, the word “risk” must necessarily mean something entirely different than the way you are applying it. Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding how you are applying it. Are you saying the word "risk" implies God didn't know in advance if Jesus would succeed on the cross?
quote:
Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice?
Let me rephrase this question: Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice (not one chance)? Do you agree that God gives us multiple chances to make the one choice to be saved?
quote:
Do you agree that if we refuse to choose Jesus we are choosing, by not choosing, to sin and die in the lake of fire?
I’m glad we agree on this point.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/08/05 10:06 PM
Tom: I was in the middle of a response to this, and my browser died. Bummer. I hope I can be as eloquent as the response that died.
Old Tom: … from your perspective, is it possible that God can see the future as if it were a re-run without it actually being … a re-run.
MM: Yes, that makes sense, if you omit the word “like” in your original post, which I have done.
Tom: If the future is not really a re-run, but God sees it as a re-run, then God is in error, since He would be seeing something in a way that it is not. That's not possible.
It's possible that *we* see the future in a way that it is not. So if we have:
1) The future is not really a re-run.
2) We do not perceive the future as a re-run.
3) God perceives the future as a re-run.
then you would have a situation where our perception of reality is correct, but God's is off. That can't be. OTOH if you have:
1) The future really is like a re-run.
2) God perceives the future like a re-run.
3) We perceive the future not like a re-run.
*then* you have a situation which is possible. And this is exactly what I've been arguing. If you're view of things were correct, you would have this last scenario I've just laid out. The first scenario, which you appear to be suggesting, is impossible, because God cannot perceive things to be different than they really are.
MM: The future is a rerun in the mind of God because God “inhabits eternity” (Isa 57:15), which means He knows the end from the beginning. Been there, done that. The past and the future are alike in the mind of God, which is true in reality; it’s not just make believe. However, from our space and time perspective life is not a rerun.
Tom: In your scenarion, things would be make believe. It would be a make believe freedom of choice universe, but not an actual one. There can be no freedom of choice if the future is fixed, and if God perceives the future as fixed, then it is fixed, because things are the way God perceives them to be.
Regarding God's seeing the future, God sees it as it is, which is as a vast web of possibilities. For any given contingency, God sees what will happen. He knows the end from the beginning. If you go down path A, God knows the end. If you go down path B, God knows the end.
Old Tom: But God is communicating to us as humans.
MM: Would you agree, then, it is entirely possible that when Sister White used the word “risk” that she did not intend to contradict the Bible? The reason I ask is because nowhere in the Bible is it taught that God wasn’t absolutely sure Jesus would succeed on the cross. In other words, the Bible makes it crystal clear that God knew in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross.
Tom: If there's a discrpency between how MM perceives things and inspiration, my inclination would be that MM is in error, not inspiration. Here's what inspiration says:
quote:
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.
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)
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)
quote:
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)
Because these quotes do not agree with your preconceived notions, you dismiss them as "hyperbole," but they clearly are not. Each statement is made to make a larger point:
1. a. God sent His son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
b. Wonder o heavens, and be astonished O earth at such great love!
2. a. Only when we see heaven, and remember that NOT ONLY did Christ leave all this BUT He took the risk of failure and eternal loss will we realize the great sacrifice made.
b. Then we will respond, Worthy is the lamb to receive honor, etc.
3. a. All heaven was imperiled for our redemption. Christ risked all.
b. Only be realising this can the value of a soul be estimated.
When our private ideas do not coincide with inspiration, we should prefer to adjust our ideas, rather than make inspiration an "hyperbole".
Regarding the view of Scripture, EGW's view is in perfect harmony. God created human beings with free will, which entailed risk on His part. God did not intend that sin should occur, but there was a risk involved, and unfortunately the evil that was possible to happen actually did happen. When Christ came, He took humanity, so it was just as possible for Him to sin as for any other human. God also took a risk in sending Christ, just as He did in creating Adam. Fortunately Christ succeeded where Adam failed, but there is nothing in what EGW wrote which is not in harmony with Scripture.
MM: As such, at least in my way of thinking, the word “risk” must necessarily mean something entirely different than the way you are applying it. Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding how you are applying it. Are you saying the word "risk" implies God didn't know in advance if Jesus would succeed on the cross?
Tom: Risk means "hazard: a source of danger; a possibility of incurring loss or misfortune." There's no ambiguity in how EGW used the term. Everybody knows what risk means, even a small child. She also says the same way using equivalent phrases, in cases you were confused by the word "risk". For example, "For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled." "Imperiled" means "to be brought into peril." "Peril" means "exposure to the risk of being injured, destroyed, or lost."
She even makes an analogy using human parents
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.
She then says the risk that God took was "more fearful" than the one just cited. There is no lack of clarity in her writing here. It's difficult to imagine how she could have put things any more clearly.
God really did, well and truly, take a risk in sending His Son on our behalf, and this fact should fill our hearts with awe and praise.
Old Tom: Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice?
MM: Let me rephrase this question: Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice (not one chance)?
Tom: No.
MM: Do you agree that God gives us multiple chances to make the one choice to be saved?
Tom: We have multiple chances, but we have more than one choice.
I think what you're wanting to say is that there's only one way to be saved, which is through Christ. That's true, but we always have more than one choice available, provided we haven't passed the point of no return.
Old Tom: Do you agree that if we refuse to choose Jesus we are choosing, by not choosing, to sin and die in the lake of fire?
MM: I’m glad we agree on this point.
Tom: Well, I didn't like the way you put it, but I agree with the general idea. The way Sister White puts it, which I prefer (the part in bold especially addresses the point you are making), is like this:
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. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (DA 764)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/09/05 12:59 AM
quote:
I was in the middle of a response to this, and my browser died. Bummer. I hope I can be as eloquent as the response that died.
Bummer, indeed. For that very reason I compose all my posts on MS Word before pasting them on MSDAOL.
quote:
… from your perspective, is it possible that God can see the future as if it were a re-run without it actually being like a re-run.
1) The future really is like a re-run.
2) God perceives the future like a re-run.
3) We perceive the future not like a re-run.
Again, I wouldn’t write the formula the same way. Instead, I would write it this way:
1) God knows what we will do before we do it.
2) We know not what we will do before we do it.
quote:
Regarding God's seeing the future, God sees it as it is, which is as a vast web of possibilities. For any given contingency, God sees what will happen. He knows the end from the beginning. If you go down path A, God knows the end. If you go down path B, God knows the end.
How far down the path does God see? Can He see beyond our next choice? Or, can He only see our vast web of options after each choice we make?
quote:
God really did, well and truly, take a risk in sending His Son on our behalf, and this fact should fill our hearts with awe and praise.
Yes, it does have that affect on me. But you still haven’t answered my question. So, here it is again - Are you saying that the words "risk" and “imperil” imply God did not know in advance if Jesus would succeed on the cross? A simple yes or no answer would suffice, but please feel free to elaborate.
quote:
We have multiple chances, but we have more than one choice.
As it relates to our salvation what other choices do we have? How many different ways can we be saved or lost? I’m glad we both agree that Jesus is the only means by which we can experience salvation.
quote:
"From my perspective, where He sees the future not as a single line but as a vast web, the answer is yes."
I’m not sure I understand your answer. Help me out here. Are you saying God has known from eternity the precise, exact day and hour Jesus will return? Or, are you saying God is aware of a million possible dates but that He actually hasn't known or doesn't know the exact day and hour?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/09/05 02:07 AM
Old Tom: I was in the middle of a response to this, and my browser died. Bummer. I hope I can be as eloquent as the response that died.
MM: Bummer, indeed. For that very reason I compose all my posts on MS Word before pasting them on MSDAOL.
Tom: I think MS Word is much more likely to die than Mozilla is. I've never had that happen before. And there was user error involved as well.
Old Tom: … from your perspective, is it possible that God can see the future as if it were a re-run without it actually being like a re-run.
1) The future really is like a re-run.
2) God perceives the future like a re-run.
3) We perceive the future not like a re-run.
MM: Again, I wouldn’t write the formula the same way. Instead, I would write it this way:
1) God knows what we will do before we do it.
2) We know not what we will do before we do it.
Tom: This doesn't address the question of the reality of the future. It really is fixed, or not fixed, which is to say it really is possible for more than one thing to happen, or only possible for one thing to happen. Which is it, MM? Note that this is in no way dependent upon God's foreknowledge (although God's foreknowledge will agree with how the future really is).
Old Tom: Regarding God's seeing the future, God sees it as it is, which is as a vast web of possibilities. For any given contingency, God sees what will happen. He knows the end from the beginning. If you go down path A, God knows the end. If you go down path B, God knows the end.
MM: How far down the path does God see?
Tom: All the way.
MM: Can He see beyond our next choice?
Tom: Yes.
MM: Or, can He only see our vast web of options after each choice we make?
Tom: No. God is infinitely intelligent. It's no easier for Him to foresee things after the fact than before.
Old Tom: God really did, well and truly, take a risk in sending His Son on our behalf, and this fact should fill our hearts with awe and praise.
MM: Yes, it does have that affect on me.
Tom: How could it possibly? You don't believe it's true! You don't believe God took any risk in sending Christ, because God knew without any doubt that Christ would succeed. Your comment appears to me to be disingenuous.
MM: But you still haven’t answered my question. So, here it is again - Are you saying that the words "risk" and “imperil” imply God did not know in advance if Jesus would succeed on the cross? A simple yes or no answer would suffice, but please feel free to elaborate.
Tom: The words "risk" and "imperil" mean it was possible for Christ to fail. That's what the words mean. I provided the definitions. Really, "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" is not difficult to understand.
Since God knows all things, He must have foreseen both the possibility that Christ would succeed and that Christ would fail. If it were not possible for Christ to fail, then God would have seen that, and there wouldn't have been any risk.
Old Tom: We have multiple chances, but we have more than one choice.
MM: As it relates to our salvation what other choices do we have? How many different ways can we be saved or lost? I’m glad we both agree that Jesus is the only means by which we can experience salvation.
Tom: Well, wide is the way that leads to destruction. So there are many ways to be lost. I don't know how this impacts our discussion, however.
Old Tom: "From my perspective, where He sees the future not as a single line but as a vast web, the answer is yes."
MM: I’m not sure I understand your answer. Help me out here. Are you saying God has known from eternity the precise, exact day and hour Jesus will return? Or, are you saying God is aware of a million possible dates but that He actually hasn't known or doesn't know the exact day and hour?
Tom: If there were one fixed date, then it would not be possible for us to hasten Christ's coming, or delay it. So God must be aware of all the possible dates. There's no date set in stone. When Christ's character is perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come and claim them as His own. This could have happened at different points in the past (specifically around 1888 and before 1860 are two times mentioned).
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/09/05 11:49 PM
quote:
No. God is infinitely intelligent. It's no easier for Him to foresee things after the fact than before.
Okay, let me rephrase the question. Does God know what we will do before we do it? Or, does He only see our vast web of options?
quote:
Your comment appears to me to be disingenuous.
Just because it doesn’t mean the same thing to me that it does to you doesn’t mean it cannot affect me in a positive way. Do you agree?
quote:
If it were not possible for Christ to fail, then God would have seen that, and there wouldn't have been any risk.
You still haven’t answered my question. So, here it is again - Are you saying that the words "risk" and “imperil” imply God did not know if Jesus would succeed on the cross? I already know you believe God was aware of the many different options available to Jesus on the cross. But that’s not what I’m asking. Do you believe God did not know which option Jesus would choose before He chose it?
quote:
So there are many ways to be lost.
From what I’ve read there is only one way to be saved and lost. We only have one choice (not one chance). If we refuse or neglect to accept Jesus Christ as our personal Saviour then we are lost. What are some of the “many ways” we can be lost that you alluded to?
quote:
I don't know how this impacts our discussion, however.
Here’s my point. The fact our choices are limited to one, as far as our salvation is concerned, means we only have one choice. However, according to your theory of the future, from what I have been able to piece together (correct me if I’m wrong, but, please, don’t make me go back and try to find quotes, just restate your position), if our choices are limited to one then we are not truly free.
quote:
There's no date set in stone.
By this do you mean God has never known and still does not know exactly when Jesus will return?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/10/05 01:08 AM
Old Tom: No. God is infinitely intelligent. It's no easier for Him to foresee things after the fact than before.
MM: Okay, let me rephrase the question. Does God know what we will do before we do it?
Tom: Yes.
MM: Or, does He only see our vast web of options?
Tom: Yes. He sees the vast web of options, which of course includes what we will actually do.
MM: Your comment appears to me to be disingenuous.
Tom: Just because it doesn’t mean the same thing to me that it does to you doesn’t mean it cannot affect me in a positive way. Do you agree?
MM: It seemed to me it would be as if I said something like I was moved by how God will kill children, or bring up those He had killed in the resurrection and kill them again. That is, I would be saying I was moved by something I didn't agree with.
You've been arguing consistently that God did not take a risk in sending Christ, because He knew 100% that Christ would be successful, so how could you be moved by something which states the exact opposite of what you believe? That seems odd to me. Maybe "odd" is a better word than "disingenious" since it is not so pejorative. Let's retract "disingenious" and go with "odd".
Old Tom: If it were not possible for Christ to fail, then God would have seen that, and there wouldn't have been any risk.
MM: You still haven’t answered my question.
Tom: Let me interject a question of my own, as which is if you agree with my above statement? (i.e. the one just above yours where it says "Old Tom")
MM: So, here it is again - Are you saying that the words "risk" and “imperil” imply God did not know if Jesus would succeed on the cross?
Tom: How could they not? What else could "risk" and "imperli" mean? If God knew 100% for sure that Christ would succeed, then the chance Christ would fail would be 0%. This is self-evidently true, isn't it? If the chance that Christ would fail was 0%, then the risk God took was also 0%
MM: I already know you believe God was aware of the many different options available to Jesus on the cross. But that’s not what I’m asking. Do you believe God did not know which option Jesus would choose before He chose it?
Tom: If God was 100% certain Christ would succeed, He could hardly have told us He took a risk in so doing, could He?
Old Tom: So there are many ways to be lost.
MM: From what I’ve read there is only one way to be saved and lost. We only have one choice (not one chance). If we refuse or neglect to accept Jesus Christ as our personal Saviour then we are lost. What are some of the “many ways” we can be lost that you alluded to?
Old Tom: I don't know how this impacts our discussion, however.
MM: Here’s my point. The fact our choices are limited to one, as far as our salvation is concerned, means we only have one choice. However, according to your theory of the future, from what I have been able to piece together (correct me if I’m wrong, but, please, don’t make me go back and try to find quotes, just restate your position), if our choices are limited to one then we are not truly free.
Tom: Let's say you live on an island, and there's only one way to get home, which is by ferry. The last ferry leaves at 11:00 P.M. I could say there's only one reason why you could not get home that night, which is by missing the ferry. However, there are many different ways you could miss the ferry. You could get injured; you could have car trouble; you could start to try to catch the ferry too late; etc. etc. etc. Now any vision of the future would have to cover ALL of these options. You couldn't just say there's only one way to not get home, which is by missing the ferry, so there's only one path of the future that would need to be seen to cover it.
What you are suggesting is analogous to this.
Tom: There's no date set in stone.
MM: By this do you mean God has never known and still does not know exactly when Jesus will return?
Tom: Do you believe Christ's coming can be hastened? If it can be hastened, then the date is not set in stone. If the date is not set in stone, then God cannot know the date as set in stone.
God can only know the future in the way it really is. This is a key point I've been repeatedly trying to get across. Allow me to ask two questions on this:
1)Do you understand what I mean by stating that God can only know the future as it is? (if this is unclear, I'll try to explain what I mean in more detail)
2)Do you disagree with the statement?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/11/05 02:06 AM
quote:
Yes. He sees the vast web of options, which of course includes what we will actually do.
Okay, when I asked you, “Does God know what we will do before we do it”, you answered, “Yes.” Great. We agree on something. All along I thought you were saying God does not know which option we will choose before we choose it.
So, since we agree that God knows which option we are going to choose before we choose it, tell me, does He also know the outcome of our choices before we choose it? That is, does He know exactly how it will play out? And, how long has He known it? From eternity?
quote:
[S]o how could you be moved by something which states the exact opposite of what you believe?
Who said it is the exact opposite of what I believe? As I see it, it agrees perfectly with what I believe. Even though God knew in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross it doesn’t take away from the fact it caused Him great suffering to watch His Son suffer so. That God was willing to allow His only begotten Son to go through all that to save us is more than moving.
quote:
If it were not possible for Christ to fail, then God would have seen that, and there wouldn't have been any risk.
It was possible for Jesus to sin and fail. But God knew He wouldn’t, which didn’t lessen His personal suffering. The “risk” that God took in sending Jesus to earth involved losing FMAs if Jesus decided to abandon the plan of salvation. The “risk” God took didn’t have anything to do with losing Jesus forever. That wasn’t possible. “Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.” (LHU 76)
The “risk” that God took was hypothetical. He knew Jesus would be successful on the cross, that He would satisfy all the requirements necessary to qualify to serve as our Saviour and to save all who call upon His name. Ellen White used words like “risk” to emphasize the enormous sacrifice that God made in sending Jesus to live and die for us.
I realize you totally reject this explanation, and you are entitled, of course, to your own opinion. So please, let’s just agree to disagree on this particular point. Okay?
quote:
If God was 100% certain Christ would succeed, He could hardly have told us He took a risk in so doing, could He?
Alright, then, do I have your permission to say - You do not believe God knew in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross on our behalf.
quote:
Now any vision of the future would have to cover ALL of these options.
Not if you’re God and have already watched it play out, like a rerun. That’s my whole point. I watched a movie years ago where a guy kept going back in time to change things to prevent something bad from happening. But each time he went back in time and changed something, new bad things happened, which made it necessary for him to go back in time again to stop that new thing from happening. And on and on it went until he died. My point? God knows exactly what is going to happen, before it happens, therefore it isn’t necessary for God to know all the alternate outcomes, especially since time travel isn’t possible for us.
At any rate, so far as salvation is concerned, all the different ways and reasons we can be lost all boil down to one thing, namely, we failed to choose Jesus. “Our condemnation in the judgment will not result from the fact that we have been in error, but from the fact that we have neglected heaven-sent opportunities for learning what is truth.” (DA 489) Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 14:12) Clearly our choices are limited to one. Praise the Lord.
quote:
1) Do you understand what I mean by stating that God can only know the future as it is?
I think so. You mean God only knows the myriad of options and outcomes that are possible based on the choices we are free to make.
quote:
2) Do you disagree with the statement?
No. I believe God knows exactly which options we will choose, before we choose them, and that He knows the outcome of every choice we will ever make throughout our entire lifetime. He knows the future as it is, like a rerun, not just how it can or might turn out if we choose this or that option (which in and of itself would require God to know the future like a rerun).
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/11/05 04:04 AM
Old Tom:Yes. He sees the vast web of options, which of course includes what we will actually do.
MM: Okay, when I asked you, “Does God know what we will do before we do it”, you answered, “Yes.” Great. We agree on something. All along I thought you were saying God does not know which option we will choose before we choose it.
Tom: If there is more than one option available, then God knows what will happen whichever option we choose. God knows the end from the beginning. As to which option we will pick, for God to know which one we would choose would imply the future is fixed, wouldn't it? I don't believe the future is fixed.
MM: So, since we agree that God knows which option we are going to choose before we choose it, tell me, does He also know the outcome of our choices before we choose it? That is, does He know exactly how it will play out? And, how long has He known it? From eternity?
Tom: God knows how each option would play out if we chose it. Since the future is not fixed, He must see the sum of our choices, not just one choice. How could God know which choice we will choose (with 100% certainty) if the future were not fixed?
Consider the example of God sending His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. If God knew which option Christ would choose, then the future would have to be fixed; only one option would have been available to Christ, and God would have known that. However, given that there was a risk involved, God could not have known with 100% certainty which option Christ would choose, correct? Because then there wouldn't be any risk.
Well our situation in this regard is no different than Christ's. We are in risk of failure and eternal loss just as Christ was.
Old Tom: [S]o how could you be moved by something which states the exact opposite of what you believe?
MM: Who said it is the exact opposite of what I believe? As I see it, it agrees perfectly with what I believe. Even though God knew in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross it doesn’t take away from the fact it caused Him great suffering to watch His Son suffer so.
Tom: The original statement I referred to was not dealing with watching His Son suffering. Here's the statement:
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)
This is not saying that God knew in advance with 100% certainty that Christ would succeed on the cross. It says the opposite, so you are simply repeating what I said you said. You are being "moved" by something which says the opposite of what you believe.
It says that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. "Risk" means the possibility of loss, which means God did NOT know with 100% certain that Christ would succeed, because in that case there were have been NO possibility of loss (the opposite of risk).
MM: That God was willing to allow His only begotten Son to go through all that to save us is more than moving.
Tom: Here's what I said:
"God really did, well and truly, take a risk in sending His Son on our behalf, and this fact should fill our hearts with awe and praise."
to which you replied:
"Yes, it does have that affect on me."
But this is the opposite of what you believe! You have been asserting that all along, and are still asserting it. So I repeat, how can you say you are moved by something which is the opposite of what you believe? Or do you really think God took a risk in sending His Son on our behalf? If so, what was the risk God took?
Old Tom: If it were not possible for Christ to fail, then God would have seen that, and there wouldn't have been any risk.
MM: It was possible for Jesus to sin and fail. But God knew He wouldn’t
Tom: So it wasn't possible. Unless it's possible for something God knows will happen not to happen. Perhaps you could explain this to me, but I don't see how anything that God knows will happen can not happen. IOW, if God knew Christ wouldn't sin, then it's not possible for Christ to have sin, because that would mean that something God knew would happen didn't happen.
Unless you disagree with the statement that if God knows something will happen, then it will happen. Do you disagree with this?
MM:, which didn’t lessen His personal suffering. The “risk” that God took in sending Jesus to earth involved losing FMAs if Jesus decided to abandon the plan of salvation. The “risk” God took didn’t have anything to do with losing Jesus forever. That wasn’t possible. “Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.” (LHU 76)
Tom: It was the risk of losing Christ that EGW was referring to in the three quotes. Here's a portion of one of them:
quote:
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)
Notice it says Christ took the risk of failure and eternal loss for us.
MM: The “risk” that God took was hypothetical. He knew Jesus would be successful on the cross, that He would satisfy all the requirements necessary to qualify to serve as our Saviour and to save all who call upon His name. Ellen White used words like “risk” to emphasize the enormous sacrifice that God made in sending Jesus to live and die for us.
Tom: This is not a reasonable interpretation of what she wrote. Christ "not only" became an exile for us, but "took the risk of failure and eternal loss" for us.
MM: I realize you totally reject this explanation, and you are entitled, of course, to your own opinion. So please, let’s just agree to disagree on this particular point. Okay?
Tom: Well certainly you can disagree with the statments, but I think it's highly likely I'll come back to them because they are the clearest statements from the Spirit of Prophesy that I'm aware of which deal with this subject.
Old Tom: If God was 100% certain Christ would succeed, He could hardly have told us He took a risk in so doing, could He?
MM: Alright, then, do I have your permission to say - You do not believe God knew in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross on our behalf.
Tom: I'll repeat my question, If God was 100% certain Christ would succeed, He could hardly have told us He took a risk in so doing, could He?
Old Tom: Now any vision of the future would have to cover ALL of these options.
MM: Not if you’re God and have already watched it play out, like a rerun.
Tom: But God doesn't have the power to perceive things in a way they aren't. He can't mistake a square for a triangle. He could only see the future play out like a re-run if it really were like a re-run.
MM: That’s my whole point. I watched a movie years ago where a guy kept going back in time to change things to prevent something bad from happening. But each time he went back in time and changed something, new bad things happened, which made it necessary for him to go back in time again to stop that new thing from happening. And on and on it went until he died. My point? God knows exactly what is going to happen, before it happens, therefore it isn’t necessary for God to know all the alternate outcomes, especially since time travel isn’t possible for us.
Tom: Then in this case the future is fixed, because there's only one thing that can happen, which is the one thing which God sees.
MM: At any rate, so far as salvation is concerned, all the different ways and reasons we can be lost all boil down to one thing, namely, we failed to choose Jesus. “Our condemnation in the judgment will not result from the fact that we have been in error, but from the fact that we have neglected heaven-sent opportunities for learning what is truth.” (DA 489) Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 14:12) Clearly our choices are limited to one. Praise the Lord.
Tom: This point is irrelevant to the discussion of the future being fixed.
Old Tom: 1) Do you understand what I mean by stating that God can only know the future as it is?
MM: I think so. You mean God only knows the myriad of options and outcomes that are possible based on the choices we are free to make.
Tom: No, that's not what I meant. I mean that if God sees the future as X, regardless of what X is, then the future is really X. X could be a myriad of possibilities, or just one, it wouldn't matter as far as the validity of my statement is concerned.
Old Tom: 2) Do you disagree with the statement?
MM: No. I believe God knows exactly which options we will choose, before we choose them, and that He knows the outcome of every choice we will ever make throughout our entire lifetime.
Tom: By "no" here do you mean "yes"? I asked if you disagreed with my statement. You said no, but then went on as if you meant yes, although the yes you appeared to be going on about had nothing to do with what I asked you.
MM: He knows the future as it is, like a rerun, not just how it can or might turn out if we choose this or that option (which in and of itself would require God to know the future like a rerun).
Tom: So here you appear to be agreeing with what I have been stating, which is that God must know the future as it is. You asserted:
1) God knows the future as it is,
2) Like a rerun.
meaning that that future is like a rerun, or fixed. This is what I have been asserting all along. You believe the future is fixed. This is not a question of perspective, but of reality.
So just to be clear, you believe the future is like a rerun, not just because God sees it that way, but because it is that way. I'm saying this because you said, "He knows the future as it is, like a rerun..." Do you agree with my assessment of your position?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/12/05 06:27 AM
quote:
MM: All along I thought you were saying God does not know which option we will choose before we choose it.
Tom: As to which option we will pick, for God to know which one we would choose would imply the future is fixed, wouldn't it? I don't believe the future is fixed.
So, I guess I was right all along. It’s a bummer we don’t agree. Well, at least I’m not guessing anymore. I couldn't live my life that way, that is, believing God doesn't know exactly what is going to happen before it happens.
quote:
… God did NOT know with 100% certain that Christ would succeed …
Finally, I straight answer. Whew! That took a long time.
quote:
IOW, if God knew Christ wouldn't sin, then it's not possible for Christ to have sin, because that would mean that something God knew would happen didn't happen.
You and I both agree God knows how the final outcome of the great controversy will play out, right? Not the various possibilities, but He knows exactly how it will all play out. Does that mean no one is truly free to choose as they please? Of course not! Just because God knows the end from the beginning doesn’t mean we are not free to choose as we please. Well, the same thing applies to Christ. As a human, Christ possessed the power to sin, but God knew, from eternity, that Jesus would not choose to sin.
quote:
It was the risk of losing Christ that EGW was referring to in the three quotes.
This is not a reasonable interpretation of what she wrote.
I absolutely disagree. Deity cannot die. The “risk” she referred to was hypothetical. The fact Jesus was successful on the cross is proof He fulfilled the messianic prophecies, and proof He is the promised Messiah. If He had failed on the cross it would have been evidence that He wasn’t the Messiah. The risk inherent in such a failure was losing FMAs to rebellion and destruction.
If He had failed on the cross God would have lost all the FMAs throughout His vast universe. Why? Because it would have been impossible for God to refute Satan’s accusations and rebellion would have broke out among the FMAs. Knowing this in advance God would have preempted it. Out of love and mercy, He would have put them out of their misery before their insecurities turned into fear, anger, and rebellion.
quote:
But God doesn't have the power to perceive things in a way they aren't. He can't mistake a square for a triangle. He could only see the future play out like a re-run if it really were like a re-run.
My point precisely. In the mind of God, who is all knowing, who sees the end from the beginning, the future is a rerun. He has already watched it play out from beginning to end. He knows exactly what we will do before we do it. You believe that means we are not truly free to choose as we please. I disagree. You believe I am dead wrong. I don’t.
quote:
This point is irrelevant to the discussion of the future being fixed.
I disagree. God knows who will be saved and who will be lost. He has known it for eternity. Knowing the future like a rerun is what enables God to tell us, in the prophecies, what will happen before it happens. That’s why and how God knew, before he was born, that Esau would choose to be lost.
quote:
X could be a myriad of possibilities, or just one, it wouldn't matter as far as the validity of my statement is concerned.
I believe X is what did happen, and you seem to believe X is what could happen. Again, the future, or X, is like a rerun in the mind of God, therefore, X must necessarily represent what has already happened, not what could happen. So, it does matter what you think X symbolizes in your formula.
quote:
So just to be clear, you believe the future is like a rerun, not just because God sees it that way, but because it is that way.
No. The future is like a rerun only in the mind of God because He has already watched it play out. The key phrase is – in the mind of God. From our perspective the future is still future, it hasn't happened yet. On our time and space continuum it has only happened in the mind of God.
God knows what we are going to do, before we do it, because He has already watched us do it. But we do not know what we are going to do before we do it because we do not possess the power of God to see the future like a rerun.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/11/05 07:23 PM
Old MM: All along I thought you were saying God does not know which option we will choose before we choose it.
Old Tom: As to which option we will pick, for God to know which one we would choose would imply the future is fixed, wouldn't it? I don't believe the future is fixed.
MM: So, I guess I was right all along. It’s a bummer we don’t agree. Well, at least I’m not guessing anymore. I couldn't live my life that way, that is, believing God doesn't know exactly what is going to happen before it happens.
Tom: God knows exactly what will happen, but not the way you think. "Exactly what will happen" is not a simplistic lineary thing, but a complex web of possibilities, potentialities, and certainties. I wish to make crystal clear that I do not believe is any way limited in His ability to see the future. In fact, my was of perceiving things requires vastly more intelligence on God's part than your view.
The difference is not in how we perceive God's ability to see the future, which we both believe is perfect and unlimited, but in our perceptions as to what the future is really like. You think the future is fixed. I don't.
Old Tom: … God did NOT know with 100% certain that Christ would succeed …
MM: Finally, I straight answer. Whew! That took a long time.
Tom: I wrote this:
quote:
It says that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. "Risk" means the possibility of loss, which means God did NOT know with 100% certain that Christ would succeed, because in that case there were have been NO possibility of loss (the opposite of risk).
This is the same thing I've been saying all along. Which part of this statement do you disagree with? I'm confused. Do you have some other understanding of the word "risk" which doesn't mean the opposite of absolute certainty? ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/12/05 12:25 AM
quote:
It says that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. "Risk" means the possibility of loss, which means God did NOT know with 100% certain that Christ would succeed, because in that case there were have been NO possibility of loss (the opposite of risk).
Are you telling me that "God did NOT know with 100% certain that Christ would succeed" means God did know? Or, are you saying it was only one of many possible outcomes that God foresaw involving risk?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/12/05 02:30 AM
What I'm saying is this:
1) If God knew with 100% certainty that Christ would succeed then,
2) There would have been no risk incurred.
Do you agree?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/12/05 05:12 PM
Yes.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/12/05 09:57 PM
This is where we disagree. I think there was a risk incurred.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/12/05 10:40 PM
Okay, now that I have answered your question with a simple Yes, please answer mine with a simple Yes or No.
Did God know in advance that Jesus would be successful on the cross?
I suspect your answer is No, based on the fact you believe God took the risk of losing Jesus eternally when He sent Him here to live as a human being. But I would like to hear it from you. So far you haven't been forthcoming in answering this question.
After you answer this question maybe we can address the title question of this thread?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/13/05 01:34 AM
I think I have said quite a number of times now that if God knew with 100% certainty that Christ would succeed, then there could not have been any risk. I have also stated on many occasions that I believe there was a risk. So you have had the answer to your question many times.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/13/05 01:38 AM
Regarding the question of the thread, I should first point out that it makes no difference what God's view of the future is. If the date is fixed, it is so irrespecitive of God's knowledge of that fact. Similarly, if it is not fixed, it is likewise so irrespective of God's knowledge of that fact.
If the future is fixed, then the date is fixed. There's no doubt about that.
If the future is not fixed, then the date might or might not be fixed. This is because saying the future is not fixed does not mean that no future event is fixed but than not every future event is fixed. So the future could be not fixed in general, but fixed in regards to Christ's second coming. However, we know from inspiriation, both the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophesy, that Christ's coming is not fixed because we can hasten and delay it. Both hastening and delaying alter the timing of the event, meaning that it is not fixed.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/13/05 05:49 AM
quote:
MM: Did God know in advance that Jesus would be successful on the cross?
So, your answer is – NO. Right?
quote:
Tom: … Christ's coming is not fixed …
So, your answer to the question, Does God know now exactly when Jesus will return is – No! Right?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/13/05 07:17 AM
I believe God took a risk in sending His Son. I believe the future is not fixed. If God knows something will happen with 100% certainty, then that thing will certainly happen, right? That would mean there would be no risk, which contradicts the first thing I said. Therefore God could not know with 100% certainty that Christ would succeed. I think I've written this over a dozen times by now. I don't know which part of this is not clear.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/13/05 09:23 PM
quote:
Therefore God could not know with 100% certainty that Christ would succeed.
Got it. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure, because somewhere, on one of these overlapping threads, you posted something to the effect - You said that I said it, but I didn't say it.
quote:
Tom: … Christ's coming is not fixed ...
MM: So, your answer to the question, Does God know now exactly when Jesus will return, is – No! Right?
Again, I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your view.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/14/05 08:10 AM
I've got no idea what your posting. Here's what I believe:
1) The future is not fixed.
2) God knows the future perfectly, just as it is.
3) There is nothing which God does not know (which is knowable)
4) God sent His Son at the risk of failture and eternal loss. This is not hyperbole.
5) It was not inevitable, or planned, that sin should occur.
My understanding is that you believe the following:
1) The future is fixed.
2) Even though the future is fixed, we still can choose to do what we want.
3) God did not take a risk in sending His Son.
4) Sin was inevitable.
5) God is the author of sin.
You do not seem to realize that 1) and 2) contradict each other. That is, they are mutually exclusive.
I'd be interested if you agree with my understandings of what you believe.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/14/05 08:43 AM
quote:
I've got no idea what your posting.
Thank you for the list. Before I respond to it I would appreciate it if you would answer the following question:
quote:
Tom: … Christ's coming is not fixed ...
MM: Does God know, right now, the exact day and hour when Jesus will return?
You've already made it perfectly clear that God did not know if Jesus would succeed on the cross. Based on this insight I assume your answer to the question above is - No.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/14/05 10:18 AM
I wouldn't put either thing the way you have, MM. I would put it the way I do put it. Regarding Christ's coming I would say that His coming is not fixed; that is, the date is not fixed. Christ could have come in the past, and there are differnt times in the future in which He may come. God knows all of these dates. Which date actually happens depends on us.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/15/05 06:29 AM
If the future is not fixed in the mind of God, according to His divine hindsight, how can He know any date, not to mention several of them? Since the future is so totally dependent on the zillions of choices billions of people have yet to make, and since, according to your view, God does not know in advance exactly which choices will be made, how can anything He knows about the future be of any value? The zillions of possible outcomes would render such knowledge useless. How can He prophesy anything about the future given the fact it could be wrong for a zillion different reasons? Being wrong is a sign of a false prophet, right?
If, as you say, God doesn't know the exact day and hour Jesus will return, if He is only aware of "a vast web of options and possibilities" [which is a phrase that grossly understates the infinite possible outcomes], why, then, are you unwilling to say God doesn't know, right now, out of all the possible dates Jesus could return, precisely which date is the one Jesus will definitely return on? Why would it be wrong to say so? What are you afraid of?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/14/05 10:05 PM
MM: If the future is not fixed in the mind of God, according to His divine hindsight, how can He know any date, not to mention several of them? Since the future is so totally dependent on the zillions of choices billions of people have yet to make, and since, according to your view, God does not know in advance exactly which choices will be made, how can anything He knows about the future be of any value? The zillions of possible outcomes would render such knowledge useless. How can He prophesy anything about the future given the fact it could be wrong for a zillion different reasons? Being wrong is a sign of a false prophet, right?
Tom: Jonah's prophesy didn't come true, but he wasn't a false prophet. Ellen White said:
quote:
"I was shown the company present at the Conference, Said the angel: "Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." Ellen G. White, 1Testimonies, p. 131-132. May 27,1856
Does this make her a false prophet? That's what the anti-SDA sights say.
YOu seem to have the idea that the future must be fixed in order for God to see it, but there's no reason this should be the case. Take a game of tic-tac-toe. It's possible to foresee every possible game. The end of a chess game can be like this too. A chess player can see every possible ending, if there's a small enough number of possibilities. God's intelligence is not limited, so He can see every possibility.
Not only does God see every possibility, God is not merely an onlooker. He can and does move to bring about His will. He is hampered by the fact that many FMA's refuse to cooperate with Him, but in spite of this He will succeed in the end. We have a role in how quickly He will succeed.
MM: If, as you say, God doesn't know the exact day and hour Jesus will return, if He is only aware of "a vast web of options and possibilities" [which is a phrase that grossly understates the infinite possible outcomes], why, then, are you unwilling to say God doesn't know, right now, out of all the possible dates Jesus could return, precisely which date is the one Jesus will definitely return on? Why would it be wrong to say so? What are you afraid of?
Tom: I'm afraid of being misunderstood and misrepresented. I have said things the way I want to.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/15/05 01:05 AM
quote:
I'm afraid of being misunderstood and misrepresented. I have said things the way I want to.
That explains why you haven’t been forthcoming in answering my questions. Fair enough, though. I will not insist that you answer my questions any more.
quote:
He can and does move to bring about His will.
Amen! As far as I’m concerned we can end this study on that note.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible? - 08/15/05 02:14 AM
Old Tom:I'm afraid of being misunderstood and misrepresented. I have said things the way I want to.
MM: That explains why you haven’t been forthcoming in answering my questions. Fair enough, though. I will not insist that you answer my questions any more.
Tom: Almost every time I reproduce your entire post and respond to every point and every question, which you virtually never do yourself. I have answered many of your questions many, many times. You, OTOH, often post just snippets of what I write, and don't respond to questions at all! And yet you accuse me of not being forthcoming in answering your questions! Amazing!
For example, I posted the following list:
Here's what I believe:
1) The future is not fixed.
2) God knows the future perfectly, just as it is.
3) There is nothing which God does not know (which is knowable)
4) God sent His Son at the risk of failture and eternal loss. This is not hyperbole.
5) It was not inevitable, or planned, that sin should occur.
My understanding is that you believe the following:
1) The future is fixed.
2) Even though the future is fixed, we still can choose to do what we want.
3) God did not take a risk in sending His Son.
4) Sin was inevitable.
5) God is the author of sin.
You do not seem to realize that 1) and 2) contradict each other. That is, they are mutually exclusive.
I'd be interested if you agree with my understandings of what you believe.
(end of what I posted)
You said you would respond to this list, but never did. I've been trying for weeks to get you to acknowledge the self-evident fact that reality can be no different than how God perceives it to be with no success.
The reason I've been so careful in my responses to you is because you have so eggregiously misrepresented what I've said in the past. I'm just trying to minimize the damage.