How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2

How do you know they are not conditional? Which prophesies do you have in mind? (I can think of a few; we'll see if they match)

=====

Renamed as new topic created from this and subsequent posts. - Daryl

What about, for instance, the time prophecies, particularly the 70 week prophecy?

The 70 week prophecy certainly had a conditional aspect to it, as it involved the free will choice of Israel. That is, Israel could have chosen to accept Christ. That would have had a profound impact upon the time prophecies.

=====

To rename topic only. - Daryl

The prophecies which are not conditional are those which express the general purpose of God for humanity - for instance, the prophecies about the first and the second coming of Christ are not conditional, although there might be some conditional details about them (for instance, Christ could have come long ago if His people had fulfilled the conditions necessary for this to happen); the final events, and the millennium and post-millennium events are not conditional. I also believe Daniel's time prophecies are not conditional, because God already knew that Israel wouldn't accept Christ.

=====

To rename topic only. - Daryl

The prophesies about God's general plan for humanity are unconditional in the sense that they will happen. The timing is conditional. For example, when Christ comes again is conditional. Often EGW wrote, "Christ could have come before this," which shows it is conditional. In fact, Ellen White tells us what it is conditional upon, in this well known statement:[/color]



The last paragraph tells us that it is our privilege to hasten Christ's coming, which clearly is not possible if His coming were for a fixed date.

Regarding the prophecies of Daniel, according to the principles of Jer. 18, they must have been conditional, at least the ending of it, which should be clear to see. That is, Israel had every opportunity to repent and accept Christ. They didn't have to reject Him. To assert that the prophecy was unconditional is to assert that it had to happen, which is to assert that Israel had to reject Christ, which is to assert that Israel did not have free will.

By the way, whether a prophecy is conditional or not has nothing to do with what God knows. It has to do with whether or not the prophecy has conditions. Conditional means "subject to, implying, or dependent upon a condition."


=====

To rename topic only. - Daryl

The 70 week prophecy wasn't conditional as it clearly stated that Israel had 70 weeks to make a choice. They had the choice within that time period to either repent or not repent. They chose not to repent. When the 70 weeks came to an end, the choice they made was cemented in stone.

Within that same time period there were other things that were cemented in stone. The final week of the 70 week prophecy in relation to Christ was Israel's final week to make their choice. They had the choice to either accept Christ as the Messiah, or to reject Him as their Messiah. Even in their rejection of Christ they were given 3 1/2 more years to repent, as that was what remained of the 70 weeks time period. They sealed their rejection of Christ by the stoning of Stephen. They made their choice. The prophetic period ended. This was an unconditional time prophecy in that they had to make a choice within that time period, which they did. Unfortunately, they made the wrong choice.

"Conditional" means " "subject to, implying, or dependent upon a condition." I wrote that the end of the prophecy was clearly conditional. Here it is:



Had Israel repented, this would not have happened. Hence it was conditional, right?

Also the way you phrased things makes it appear to me that perhaps you are thinking in terms of God's arbitrarily setting a deadline, which isn't at all the case. As Paul points out:



Jesus said:



God wanted Israel to repent, and would have accept their repentance, whenever it was. God had been patient, and working with them for centuries. If finally came to a point to where they had so hardened their heart (especially when God Himself came and dwelt among them, and they still rejected Him) that there was nothing more that God could do for them as a nation.

(Added "perhaps" which I intended to have in original post) - Tom Ewall

=====

To rename topic only. - Daryl

Had Israel repented, it would still have been necessary for Christ to die for us.

Why are you making this comment? (i.e. what does it have to do with what's been being discussed; I'm not following the train of thought).

=====

To rename topic only. - Daryl

What I posted is based on the first part of your post #84680.

As all the relevant posts didn't move with part 1, I moved the rest into this part 2 topic and closed the part 1 topic.

I hope this isn't confusing.

Let the discussion continue here.

Ah, Ok. You're addressing the part in the prophecy about Christ's dying. Christ would have died one way or another, but it wasn't necessary that Israel be responsible for it. Is that what you are saying? If so, I agree with that.

Yes, that is what I am saying, therefore, even that part of the prophecy wasn't conditional. The way Christ died may have been different, however, He still would have died at the precise time He died on the Cross.

And I believe the prophecies turned out exactly the way they did because God knows the end from the beginning. He did not prophesy possibilities. Instead, He foretold the truth, exactly the way things would unfold in amazing detail.

I agree. In the case of unconditional prophecies, although things didn't need to have happened that way (because man is a free moral agent), God knew they would happen that way, and expressed it accordingly.

Besides, I would point out that, although men can hasten or delay Christ's coming by their behavior, God knows the day and the hour of His coming. God always knows the end from the beginning.

The conditional prophecies, as Jeremiah 18 shows, are the prophecies related to nations (promises and threats), given in order to motivate those nations to turn from their sinful ways and follow God. I don't remember any conditional prophecies in the NT.

Right. Nothing in the NT, the Revelation in particular, is conditional. Everything will unfold exactly the way it is foretold. In other words, the USA will lead the rest of the world in enforcing the MOB, etc.

Mike, where does the line go between assured prophecy and human interpretation of said prophecy?

The "line" goes all over the place without inspired guidance. The Remnant Church is blessed with the Spirit of Prophecy. The book, Last Day Events, provides awesome insights into the mind of God. In the SOP we have a more sure word of prophecy. Without it we are no better off than people who read stuff like The Left Behind series.

Why would He have had to die on a cross? There's nothing magical about a cross, is there? The prophecy just indicates He would die, and gives the timing. It doesn't say anything about a cross, does it?

Sometimes. Sometimes things don't happen as prophesied. So is the conclusion that when the things happen as prophesied, God is not prophesying possibilities, but when they don't, He is? That doesn't really make sense, does it?

This is indirectly lumping together two things which are mutually contradictory, unless you use a compatibilitistic definition of free will (which you aren't). That is, if we assume that God knew things would happen in a certain way (not could, but would), then it is not possible that they could have happened in any other way. This should be obvious. (for example, consider if the following question can be answered "no". God has known for all eternity that X will happen at a precise time in a precise place. Is it possible that X not happen?)

Given that only one thing can happen at a given time in the future, which is the thing that God knows will happen, then it follows that a free moral agent does not really have the possibility of doing something different than the only thing that can happen at the given time in the future. He may think he can, but it's an illusion. Even the act of thinking he can do something different is the only thing he could have done at that time he was thinking it.

The problem that comes into play is not that God's knowing something will happen gets in the way of what one chooses to do. It doesn't. Everyone knows that. The problem is that it rests upon certain assumptions regarding the nature of the future (that is, the future is determined), which in turn contradict the imcompatibilistic or libertarian concept of free will. One can avoid the contradiction involved if one uses the compatibilistic definition.

The reason the compatibilistic definition of free will is called "compatible" is because it is compatible with the notion of a determined future. The definition of free will is given that a being has free will if said being is free to do what he wants. This definition does not rest upon the notion of valid options. One can have free will, although one has only one option (the future being determined) because one is free to do what one wants.

Jonathan Edward's work "Freedom of the Will" discusses this definition in detail here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.html (click on "plain text" to view on line).

The imcompatibilistic definition, also called "libertarian", asserts that free will implies that not only must the free moral agent have the desire to do something (either A or B), but must possess the ability to do those things (that is, it really is possible to do A and not B, or vice versa). It is "imcompibilisitic" because it is not compatible with determinism.

What's happening here is a mixture of deterministic ideas (only one thing can happen at a given time in the future) and libertarian ideas (a free moral agent can choose between different options, implying that more than one thing can happen at a given time in the future). So to be logically consistent, we can either go along with Edwards, who proposes the compatibilistic definition and shows the results of this view, or we can go with the libertarian definition (a free moral agent can not just desire to do A and not B, or vice versa, but actually do it), and accept the implications of that view. But it's logically inconsistent to mix and match from one system to the other.

Now Lutheran theology does this, but it admits to the logical inconsistency. It says its theology (specifically regarding predestination; which it asserts applies only to the elect, but not to the last; i.e. they reject Calvin's double predestination, which includes the lost being predestined to being lost) is not logical, but it is Biblical. In so asserting, Lutheranism is being honest (in recognizing that it's not logically consistent).

This is quite a statement, MM. "Nothing in the NT ... is conditional". Well since you singled out Revelation, I'll pick something from there, but there must be hundreds of examples that one could pick from the NT to show your assertion is false.

A conditional prophecy is a prophecy which has conditions, right? Just off the top of my head, wouldn't everything in the 7 letters to the churches in Revelation fall into this category? They are chock full of "ifs," stipulating conditions upon which either this or that will happen. That's conditional prophecy, isn't it?

I disagree with most of this.

Tom,

I see nothing “incompatibilistic” in the notion that it’s I who decide if I will be saved or lost, because I am a free moral agent, but God knows beforehand which will be my decision, because He knows the end from the beginning.


I would define it as a promise or threat whose fulfillment depends on certain conditions. I wouldn’t classify the 7 letters, for instance, as conditional prophecy. It seems to me the conditional prophecies consist just of the promises or threats themselves, without an “if”. If you have an “if”, you no longer have a prophecy, but just a promise or warning which can only be true. Statements like “If you don’t repent you will be lost” or “If you accept Christ you will be saved” are not prophecies – they are truths, aren’t they?

I didn't say His alternate death would have also been on a cross.

Where did you get that idea?

I only said that He would die this alternate death at the same precise time He died on the cross. I was referring to the same exact timing of His death, not the manner in which He would die.

I guess I am not the only one who is guilty of not reading another person's post carefully and properly, or is it my wording that may have been confusing?

What about the prophecy concerning Judas Iscariot?

What about the prophecy that Peter would deny Christ?

Were these conditional prophecies? If it were not a conditional prophecy, then why would Christ give Judas every opportunity to not go ahead with his plans of betrayal, by telling him what he was going to do, knowing the choice Judas would make?

At any rate, the above two prophecies are telling us what choice each would make even to the point of who would repent and who wouldn't repent.

Tom, none of the prophecies in the Revelation are conditional. The example you cited is a conditional promise, not an unconditional prophecy. There are plenty of promises and prophecies in the Revelation. Which prophecy do you think is conditional?

The incompatible part has to do with the idea that the future is determined yet we as free moral agents have not only the desire but the ability to do different things. That is, at a given time X, you can choose to do A rather than B, or B rather than A. If God has known from all eternity that X will happen at a given time (say, for example, X is the event that you will do A), then it is certain that you will do A and not B. There is no logical contradiction if one holds to the definition of free will as your being able to do whatever you want to do (incompabitibilistic definition of free will). There is a logical contradiction if one holds to the definition of free will as you being able to do B and not A. In the statement you wrote that I responded to you wrote:



The contradiction comes between the phrase "although things didn't need to have happened that way (because man is a free moral agent)," which implies the incompatabilistic definition of free will, and the phrase "God knew they would happen that way, and expressed it accordingly," which implies the compatibilistic definition.

In simpler terms, either "things" didn't need to have happened that way, or they did. It can't be both.



I'm sorry but I'm not understanding you. At first you say that a conditional prophecy is a promise of threat whose fulfillment depends on certain conditions. This would be involving an "if". "If" you do this good thing, then this good thing will happen. "If" you do this bad thing, then that bad thing will happen. That's what conditional promises and threats are. You can't have conditionality with "if."

Then you say if you have an "if," you no longer have a prophecy. That would imply you don't believe in conditional prophecy at all. If there's no "if," there's no conditionality. If there's no "if," (you say) there's no prophecy. So you can't have conditional prophecy.

I take it you don't consider Jeremiah to be prophetic, since Jeremiah 18 explains the promises and threats in terms of "if."

Regarding your last sentence, that's exactly right! They are truths, and that's exactly what prophecy is! To prophecy means "a discourse emanating from divine inspiration". It needn't be a prediction. For example, Ellen White exercised her prophetic gift as much with the health messages as with the predictions in "The Great Controversy". So the example statements you gave are truths, and they are prophecies.

Daryl, you're right, I misread your post (which, you may note, I am recognizing and admitting; I think I am the only one guilty of this!)

Why indeed. Good question, Daryl. Was it just a show? Or did Jesus really try to lead Judas to repent?



So Judas could have repented. In that case, the prophecy could have been fulfilled in some other way. God has many ways to fulfill prophecy. For example:



Regarding Peter, Jesus knew Peter's heart. He knew he would deny him for that reason. Jesus prayed for Peter, and when Peter looked at Him, he read only pity and compassion, which broke his heart and led to repent. What a wonderful Savior!

MM, any conditional prophesies I cite you would define as "promises," so this discussion is pointless, isn't it?

TE: MM, any conditional prophesies I cite you would define as "promises," so this discussion is pointless, isn't it?

MM: No. You're not studying with just me, you're studying with all of the members on MSDAOL. For sake of discussion, please share your opinion as to whether or not the following prophecies will be fulfilled exactly as foretold. In other words, is there any part of it that might not be fulfilled in the way the SDA church interprets it?

Revelation
13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

IMO, the identity of the lamblike beast, the beast and the image of the beast would be very much conditional.
The identity of the mark of the beast is likely conditional.

Thomas

Thomas, does your opinion reflect what the SDA church teaches about it? Or, does the SDA church hold a different view of it? If so, what is it?

It seems to me that there are three kinds of prophecies:
1) Prophecies in which God determines that certain things will happen – these prophecies don’t involve the human will and they will be fulfilled. A classical example are the prophecies related to the plan of salvation.
2) Prophecies in which God predicts that certain things will happen – they involve the human will, but they will be fulfilled. Their purpose is to show God’s foreknowledge. God is revealing what will happen, so that, when it happens, people may believe. Judas (John 13:19) is a classical example.
3) Prophecies in which God predicts certain things that may happen – they involve the human will, and may be fulfilled or not, depending on the human response. Jonah is a classical example. So are the prophecies predicting a golden age for Israel.

Please note that in the second case the prophecy doesn’t determine that things will happen in a certain way – it just reveals that things will happen in a certain way. The future is not determined, just predicted.


What I’m trying to say is that, if the “if” is expressed and not implied, it is no longer a prophecy, but a promise or warning which will be fulfilled. Let’s take for instance Revelation 2:5: “Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent”. If the church doesn’t repent, God will remove its lampstand from its place. Is there any way this isn't fulfilled? No. Therefore, this is not a conditional prophecy, but a warning. Take Jer. 29:13: “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.” Is there any way this isn't fulfilled? No. Every time you seek God with all your heart you will find Him. Therefore, this is not a conditional prophecy, but a promise.
Now take a conditional prophecy. “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”. Is there any way this isn't fulfilled? Sure! In fact, it wasn’t. Take for instance the prophecy of Ezek. 40-48, about the new temple and its sacrifices. The same principle applies here.
So, what I see is that a promise or warning of God will always be fulfilled, while a conditional prophecy may or may not be fulfilled, depending on the human response.

The prophetic interpretation tends to reflect the age one lives in. It would be interesting to know who people identified the lamblike beast with 300 years ago. We know that people were reading revelation back then. And we know that people couldnt have identified it as US back then (for the simpel fact that there was no such nation at that time). Was US the best fit for the lamblike beast at the time of the early SDA, consiering what they thought and knew? Likely so. Is it still so based on what we now know and considering how the world has changed since then? Good question, one that I do not have an answere to at this time.

Thomas, if the "beast" symbolizes Catholic Europe between 538-1798, then the lamb/dragon beast cannot symbolize a nation before 1798, right? It also seems reasonable to suggest the "image beast" rises to power sometime after 1844.

TE: MM, any conditional prophesies I cite you would define as "promises," so this discussion is pointless, isn't it?

MM: No. You're not studying with just me, you're studying with all of the members on MSDAOL. For sake of discussion, please share your opinion as to whether or not the following prophecies will be fulfilled exactly as foretold. In other words, is there any part of it that might not be fulfilled in the way the SDA church interprets it?

You made the point that there aren't any prophecies in Revelation which aren't conditional. I pointed out some which clearly are. You say these aren't "prophecies" but "promises". There's no point in continuing a discussion where when you are shown to be wrong, you just redefine things to agree with what you thought before, rather than admit to the point being made. This is exactly what you've done in the past. I don't see the point in continuing a discussion along these lines.

Regarding your question of Revelation, I believe the traditional Adventist interpretations of prophecy. I'm not the one who has Calvinistic leanings in my prophetic understanding. Our traditional prophetic Adventist understanding is Armenian, not Calvinistic.

In regards to Judas, is it possible that Judas could have not betrayed Christ?



This is an artificial distinction. There's all sorts of ways "if" can be expressed. For example, in English, "maybe," "whether," "when," "whenever," "given," "suppose," are just a few that immediately come to mind. Many more examples can be given.

In the case of Jonah's prophecy, there was no "if" expressed. That would make it, under your suggestion, a prophecy. Yet it didn't happen.

Regarding the examples I gave, I don't see what you're saying. The prophecy, or promise, or whatever you want to call it "You will find me when you seek for me with all your heart" was given to Israel, and wasn't fulfilled, because they didn't seek God. It's exactly the same thing that happened in Jonah.

The principle of prophecy is laid out by Jeremiah. It's very simple:



This applies to individuals or groups of individuals. Prophecies are not arbitrary pronouncements upon God, about things which He arbitrarily determines to do against or for people who act for or against Him. They are the result of our choosing to live according to His principles or against them.

The people of Israel were arguing that since God has prophesied against them, it didn't make any difference what they did. The prophecy had been made, revealing the future, so that was that. God, through Jeremiah, explained that His prophecies are conditional. When one, whether nation or individual, abides by His principles, He blesses them. When one acts contrary to the principles of God, one suffers the consequences.

God, being infinitely intelligent, can reveal precisely what the consequences of acting for or contrary to His principles will be. Whether the things He says come to pass, depends upon whether God's warnings are heeded.

God is not willing that any should perish. The purpose of prophecy is to warn of the what the results of acting contrary to His principles with be, with the aim of leading the rebellious one to repentance. God's purpose in disclosing truth, whether by way of prediction or not, is salvation.

Mike, nontheless, I claim that people who lived between 538 and 1798 had an opinion about who the beast, the lamblike beast and the image of the beast are. And as you pointed out, what they though about this must by nessesity be something other than what we think about it today. What makes it sure that what we think today wont be changed by tomorrows political upheavls?

This is an important text in relation to all prophetic statements:


We have three important points in the above text:

1 - sure word of prophecy. (verse 19)
2 - no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. (verse 20)
3 - prophecy came to holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (verse 21)

TE: You made the point that there aren't any prophecies in Revelation which aren't conditional. I pointed out some which clearly are. You say these aren't "prophecies" but "promises".

MM: Conditional promises and unconditional prophecies are distinctly differently. Rosangela made this point quite nicely. You’re unwillingness to provide an example of a conditional prophecy in the Revelation is telling.

TE: Regarding your question of Revelation, I believe the traditional Adventist interpretations of prophecy. I'm not the one who has Calvinistic leanings in my prophetic understanding. Our traditional prophetic Adventist understanding is Armenian, not Calvinistic.

MM: I’m not sure I understand your position.

1. Do you believe the prophecies will play out exactly the way the SDA church describes it in LDE and EW and GC, etc?

2. Or, do you believe there is a possibility things might play out slightly or even radically differently?

3. For example, is it possible that the USA will not lead the rest of the world to enforce the MOB?

TV: Mike, nontheless, I claim that people who lived between 538 and 1798 had an opinion about who the beast, the lamblike beast and the image of the beast are. And as you pointed out, what they though about this must by nessesity be something other than what we think about it today. What makes it sure that what we think today wont be changed by tomorrows political upheavls?

MM: The SOP makes it clear that there is no way Jesus could have returned before 1844. The prophecies disallow it. Paul confirms this insight:


Here Paul makes it clear that Jesus will not return before the MOB crisis, which places it after 1844. Even though people before 1844 had their opinions about Revelation - they were wrong. It led them to a bitter disappointment. Through the SOP God has made it clear exactly how the prophecies in the Revelation will play out. We have a more sure word of prophecy. We have no reason to wonder or question if we've got it right, or if it will play out differently.

TE: You made the point that there aren't any prophecies in Revelation which aren't conditional. I pointed out some which clearly are. You say these aren't "prophecies" but "promises".

MM: Conditional promises and unconditional prophecies are distinctly differently. Rosangela made this point quite nicely. You’re unwillingness to provide an example of a conditional prophecy in the Revelation is telling.

How could I possibly do this? If I point out that such and such is a conditional prophecy, you will just say (as you did) "No, that's not a prophecy, that's a promise." You will define as a promise anything which is conditional, and anything as a conditional as not a prophecy. It's the same thing you do in the sinless perfection thread. And in the atonement thread. You just redefine words to agree with what you think. My "unwillingness" is not telling of anything other than a lack of desire to go down a path I've gone done before.



TE: Regarding your question of Revelation, I believe the traditional Adventist interpretations of prophecy. I'm not the one who has Calvinistic leanings in my prophetic understanding. Our traditional prophetic Adventist understanding is Armenian, not Calvinistic.

MM: I’m not sure I understand your position.

1. Do you believe the prophecies will play out exactly the way the SDA church describes it in LDE and EW and GC, etc?

2. Or, do you believe there is a possibility things might play out slightly or even radically differently?

3. For example, is it possible that the USA will not lead the rest of the world to enforce the MOB?

I think you're confusing the SDA church with Ellen White, but to answer your question, I think the future will play out according to the principles that were laid out in the Great Controversy state, as well as other prophetic writings in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. I agree with Ellen White's writings regarding the interpretation of the mark of the beast and the role of the United States.

In addition, I agree with what she wrote about the importance of the 1888 message, and that the role it will have in prophecy is as she described, which is a reason I believe it's important to study and understand the messages the Lord sent us through its messengers.

TE: My "unwillingness" is not telling of anything other than a lack of desire to go down a path I've gone done before.

MM: You're not only disagreeing with me, you are also disagreeing with Rosangela. Again, there are no unconditional prophecies in the Revelation. Jesus is telling it like it is and like it will be. We have no reason to doubt it.

TE: I think you're confusing the SDA church with Ellen White ...

MM: I believe SDA theology is confirmed by the SOP. Any deviation from the SOP is, in my opinion, falsehood.

TE: I think the future will play out according to the principles that were laid out in the Great Controversy state, as well as other prophetic writings in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. I agree with Ellen White's writings regarding the interpretation of the mark of the beast and the role of the United States.

MM: Amen!

TE: In addition, I agree with what she wrote about the importance of the 1888 message, and that the role it will have in prophecy is as she described, which is a reason I believe it's important to study and understand the messages the Lord sent us through its messengers.

MM: Amen! That's why I give Steps to Christ to everyone who shows an interest in righteousness by faith.

TE: My "unwillingness" is not telling of anything other than a lack of desire to go down a path I've gone done before.

MM: You're not only disagreeing with me, you are also disagreeing with Rosangela. Again, there are no unconditional prophecies in the Revelation. Jesus is telling it like it is and like it will be. We have no reason to doubt it.

To the best of my recollection, Rosangela has never had to rely upon redefining words to make an argument. If she is saying the same thing you are, then I can just respond to her arguments, and that will take care of yours as well.

TE: I think you're confusing the SDA church with Ellen White ...

MM: I believe SDA theology is confirmed by the SOP. Any deviation from the SOP is, in my opinion, falsehood.

I was referring to what you wrote. The SDA church did not describe things in The Great Controversy, etc. That was Ellen White.

TE: I think the future will play out according to the principles that were laid out in the Great Controversy state, as well as other prophetic writings in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. I agree with Ellen White's writings regarding the interpretation of the mark of the beast and the role of the United States.

MM: Amen!

TE: In addition, I agree with what she wrote about the importance of the 1888 message, and that the role it will have in prophecy is as she described, which is a reason I believe it's important to study and understand the messages the Lord sent us through its messengers.

MM: Amen! That's why I give Steps to Christ to everyone who shows an interest in righteousness by faith.

Interesting response. You give out a book written before the 1888 message was given written by someone who was not one of the 1888 messengers because you agree that it's important to study and understand the 1888 message.

Not that there's anything wrong with handing out copies of "Steps to Christ." It's a great book. It's just an odd response to what I wrote.

I would think an appropriate response to the things she wrote regarding the 1888 message and the messengers who brought it would be to read the message itself from the messengers who gave it.

(btw, are you aware that Ellen White knew she did not bring the 1888 message? I'm asking this be you seem to be referring to her as if she had.)

Ehm, you appear to fail to get my point. Anyways, moving on.

Obviously we know the mark of the beast happends after 1844, becourse now is 163 years hence and it hasnt happened yet. If that is really what Paul is talking about? Dont know.

So we do not need to think anymore since Ellen did that for us?
If that works for you...

Thomas

TE: Interesting response. You give out a book written before the 1888 message was given written by someone who was not one of the 1888 messengers because you agree that it's important to study and understand the 1888 message.

MM: Steps to Christ was published in 1892.

TE: (btw, are you aware that Ellen White knew she did not bring the 1888 message? I'm asking this be you seem to be referring to her as if she had.)

MM: She was teaching it before 1888. SC is the best synthesis of the 1888 message available today.

TV: Ehm, you appear to fail to get my point.

MM: Here what you wrote:


MM: "What makes it sure that what we think today wont be changed by tomorrows political upheavls?" Because God confirmed "what we think today" through the SOP.

TV: If that is really what Paul is talking about? Dont know.

MM: The SOP verifies it.

TV: So we do not need to think anymore since Ellen did that for us? If that works for you...

MM: Thinking that undermines or contradicts the interpretation God outlined in the SOP is, in my opinion, damnable heresy.

TE: Interesting response. You give out a book written before the 1888 message was given written by someone who was not one of the 1888 messengers because you agree that it's important to study and understand the 1888 message.

MM: Steps to Christ was published in 1892.

Must (all?) of what was published in Steps to Christ was written before 1888. When it was published doesn't make a difference. What she wrote before 1888 could not have come from the 1888 message, which she hadn't heard yet.

TE: (btw, are you aware that Ellen White knew she did not bring the 1888 message? I'm asking this be you seem to be referring to her as if she had.)

MM: She was teaching it before 1888. SC is the best synthesis of the 1888 message available today.

I guess this means "no." (i.e. you're not aware that she knew she wasn't bringing the 1888 message)

Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what "Sister White said"-- "Sister White said this," and "Sister White said that," and "Sister White said the other thing." But say, "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel," and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says, {SpM 167.2}

Christ says, "I do the works of my Father. The works that I saw him do, I do." Now the works and the sentiments and the principles that we have seen, that God has manifest in dealing with one another, the


-168-

the purchase of the blood of Christ - only think of it. Here we are, the purchase of the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. You just think of it. It cost his life. He was crucified for us, and yet here is the very instrumentality that God would have stand next to heaven, that God would have stand where the light of His glory can shine upon them in unmistakable rays, and they know that the light of heaven is with them. It is no emotion, but it is a living faith that is founded on a living Word and a living God, and the Saviour, who proclaimed over the sepulcher of Joseph. "I am the resurrection and the life." {SpM 167.3}




But don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now. You will have fresh matter - O, you will have precious matter; you won't be going over and over the same ground, and you will see a world saved. You will see souls for whom Christ has died. And I ask you to put on the armor, every piece of it, and be sure that your feet are shod with the preparation of the gospel. {SpM 174.1}

Tom, what did Sister White learn from J&W in 1888 that is not clearly explained in SC?

Thomas, I have complied with Sister White's requirement for the right and privilege to use the SOP to support her interpretation of the Revelation. There is no way the future will not play out exactly the way it is described in the SOP.

He who lives will se...

MM, anything EGW learned from Jones and Waggoner wasn't explained in SC, because SC was written before she heard Jones and Waggoner preach.

Even after she heard the preach, she didn't bring the message they brought, because the Lord gave it to them, not her.



This is from J. S. Washburn, who was a delegate at the 1888 Conference who met with Ellen White.

Ellen White wrote that Jones and Waggoner brought us truth that we would not have had had they not brought it to us (unless the Lord sent someone else to bring that truth). She *never* stated that she presented the same message that they did, or that we could get their message by reading her writings.

Tom, what did J&W teach in 1888 that is not clearly explained in SC?

LDE 200
The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders [E.J.] Waggoner and [A. T.] Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. {LDE 200.1}

Thomas, your unwillingness to accept the interpretation of the Revelation as described in the SOP is unsettling.

MM, what in my answer to your question did you not understand?

Tom,


Judas chose to betray Christ, and of course he could have chosen otherwise. But when the prophecy was pronounced, God already knew what he would do, and said this to strengthen the faith of His people in Him (John 13:19).

Every intelligent being in the universe has free will, including God. If you will define a conditional prophecy in terms of what those involved in it could choose, then every prophecy would be conditional, even those related to the plan of salvation. Christ could have changed His mind and chosen not to come to earth. After He came, He could have changed His mind and chosen to come back to heaven instead of dying for us (DA 690). Satan could choose at any moment to repent of his sins. Israel as a nation could have chosen not to reject Christ. The soldier could have chosen another method to verify Christ’s death instead of piercing His side. The man of sin could choose to not oppose God. And so on.

I think what defines a prophecy as conditional or unconditional is its purpose. The purpose of some prophecies is specifically to shed light upon the future, to show God’s omniscience (Isa. 46:9,10) or to guide God’s people. Of course the failing in the fulfillment of these prophecies would ruin God’s purpose. These are unconditional prophecies. God is telling exactly what will happen, because He knows it beforehand.

The purpose of some other prophecies is to motivate a nation, or a group of people, to follow God, through promises or threats. These are the conditional prophecies, and their fulfillment depends on the human response to God’s message.

TE: MM, what in my answer to your question did you not understand?

MM: I think I understood what you posted. What I want to know are a few examples of things J&W taught that Sister White did not explain in SC. I hear you saying God revealed things to J&W that He did not share with Sister White. What are some of those things?

PS - Just in case somebody feels this is off topic, please keep in mind that it relates to the third angel's message, which I believe is an unconditional prophecy.

Rosangela, thank you. Nicely put. I agree with it. Even in cases involving conditional promises or prophecies, ones which can go either way depending on human choice, God knows exactly how it will play out beforehand, from eternity past.

I still don't know the answer to this question, "In regards to Judas, is it possible that Judas could have not betrayed Christ?"

In case this isn't clear, I'm asking if it actually could have happened that Judas did not betray Christ. (i.e. could we have had a history which did not have Judas betraying Christ).

Let's say that it's given that history up until the point in time when Judas decided to betray Christ is as we know it (so prophecy has already been recorded).

Regarding the purpose of prophecy, I don't think any of the contemporaries of prophecy thought of it as having anything to do with God's omniscience. That weren't concerned about what God knew, but with what He could do. Indeed, the prophecy states:



God's purpose was to build trust in Him by demonstrating that He was able to do that which He said He would do.

Also even the idea that Isa. 46 is unconditional doesn't seem right.



Israel rejected Christ, so they did not see this prophecy come to pass.

Can something that God knows how it will play out happen differently than what God knows will happen?

Rosangela

Would it be possible that some prophesies point out the general direction but not nessessarily the specifics? For instance, if Judas had choosen not to betray Jesus after all, someone else would have done it instead? Or, there will be a man of sin, but more exactly who or in what position are details that are as of now open?

I don’t know how my answer can be different from what I’ve already said.
Could it actually have happened that Christ did not die on the cross but chose to go back to heaven? Could it actually have happened that Christ did not bruise the serpent’s head but, instead, fell into temptation and sinned?
What is the answer to these questions? Yes or no? Yes, in the sense that these were very real and concrete possibilities, but No in the sense that God knew beforehand the outcome of things.


Isa. 46:11 refers to Cyrus. I see two possibilities here:
1) God stated beforehand how things would happen because He knew it (showing His omniscience)
2) God stated beforehand how things would happen because He would force things to happen that way (showing His power)


I disagree. God placed salvation in Zion for the remnant in Israel.

Thomas,

God seems to be very specific in His prophecies, so that their fulfillment isn't missed.

For instance, God said about the betrayer: "Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me" (Psalms 41:9). And then Jesus said: "'Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.' They began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one after another, 'Is it I?' He said to them, 'It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me'" (Mk 14:18-20). So, it would be someone from Christ's closest circle of friends, that is, the twelve.

As to the man of sin, the lawless one who will be destroyed by Christ's coming (2 Thess. 2:8), and who opposes God and exalts himself above Him, he has the same characteristics of the leopardlike beast of Revelation, who would exercise authority for 42 months, and the same characteristics of the little horn of Daniel, who would prevail for 3 1/2 times. But Daniel shows that this little horn arises out of the Roman Empire, the fourth beast, and is destroyed only just before the saints receive the kingdom (Daniel 7:7-27). So we must look for a power which arises out of the Roman Empire and remains until it is destroyed by Chirst's coming.

TE: In case this isn't clear, I'm asking if it actually could have happened that Judas did not betray Christ. (i.e. could we have had a history which did not have Judas betraying Christ).

R: What is the answer to these questions? Yes or no? Yes, in the sense that these were very real and concrete possibilities, but No in the sense that God knew beforehand the outcome of things.

MM: I agree with Rosangela.

TE: Can something that God knows how it will play out happen differently than what God knows will happen?

MM: No. Unconditional prophecies will play out exactly as God foretold. God’s knowing the end from the beginning, however, in no way robs people of their ability or freedom to choose.

Deuteronomy
18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

In case this isn't clear, I'm asking if it actually could have happened that Judas did not betray Christ. (i.e. could we have had a history which did not have Judas betraying Christ).

I don’t know how my answer can be different from what I’ve already said.
Could it actually have happened that Christ did not die on the cross but chose to go back to heaven? Could it actually have happened that Christ did not bruise the serpent’s head but, instead, fell into temptation and sinned?
What is the answer to these questions? Yes or no? Yes, in the sense that these were very real and concrete possibilities, but No in the sense that God knew beforehand the outcome of things.

In the case of Christ, God has told us (through Ellen White) that it was a risk for Him to send His Son. That means He knew that Christ might not succeed. But we can set this aside for the moment, and go back to Judas.

Here's what I'm asking. Was it possible for Judas not only to choose to betray Christ, but to actually betray Christ? Was it an event which actually could have happened? This is a question which can be answered "yes" or "no."


Quote:
Regarding the purpose of prophecy, I don't think any of the contemporaries of prophecy thought of it as having anything to do with God's omniscience. That weren't concerned about what God knew, but with what He could do.

Isa. 46:11 refers to Cyrus. I see two possibilities here:
1) God stated beforehand how things would happen because He knew it (showing His omniscience)
2) God stated beforehand how things would happen because He would force things to happen that way (showing His power)

There's a third possibility, which is that it is some combination of 1) and 2). If you look at the stated purpose of the prophesy, it was to show that God could bring to pass what He said He would.

Quote:
Israel rejected Christ, so they did not see this prophecy come to pass.

I disagree. God placed salvation in Zion for the remnant in Israel.

The context is talking about the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel rejected Christ.

TE: In case this isn't clear, I'm asking if it actually could have happened that Judas did not betray Christ. (i.e. could we have had a history which did not have Judas betraying Christ).

R: What is the answer to these questions? Yes or no? Yes, in the sense that these were very real and concrete possibilities, but No in the sense that God knew beforehand the outcome of things.

MM: I agree with Rosangela.

This is a question which can be answered "yes" or "no." Was it possible for Judas not only to have chosen to betray Christ, but to actually have betrayed him? Is this an event which could have happened? From the answer to the following question, it appears to me your answer must be "no."

TE: Can something that God knows how it will play out happen differently than what God knows will happen?

MM: No.

Ok, let's stop here a moment. If something that God knows how it will play out cannot happen differently than what God knows will happen, then is there anything that can happen differently than what God has already seen? The answer must be know, right?

Unconditional prophecies will play out exactly as God foretold.

This is irrelevant, isn't it? The relevant factor is that God knows exactly what will happen, and things cannot happen differently than what He knows. What you call unconditional prophecies are simply a small subset of the totality of what God knows will happen which He has chosen to share with us.

God’s knowing the end from the beginning, however, in no way robs people of their ability or freedom to choose.

This isn't the problem.

Deuteronomy
18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

TE: Ok, let's stop here a moment. If something that God knows how it will play out cannot happen differently than what God knows will happen, then is there anything that can happen differently than what God has already seen? The answer must be know, right?

MM: Right. God knows the future in the same way He knows the past. It is based on the facts. He knows the end from the beginning. God "calleth those things which be not as though they were." (Rom. 4:17) In such cases, there is nothing uncertain or conditional about it.

Isaiah
42:9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

John
13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he].
14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

What can I say. Seems we are all living in the Matrix, except in this version, there is no Morpheus with red and blue pills who could get us out into the real world. We live on in a world that only exists in our imagination, foolishly believing that we have such things as choise, and in the real world, we just do a bad rerun of universe history...

This is what I hear you guys tell me.

You've hit the nail on the head, Thomas. If things must happen in a certain way, then our so-called free will is just an illusion. We may think and feel as if we had the ability to do something that has not been foreseen, but we don't really.

Unconditional prophecy does not rob people of their ability and freedom to choose. Nor does it limit them to one choice. They are free to choose as they please. Just because God knows how they are going to choose does not mean they have no other choice.

They have a "choice" in the sense that they could want or desire to do something different, but they don't have the ability to actually do anything different than what God has prophesied or known.

Think about it. If a person actually did something different than what God knew or prophesied, then something God knew would happen wouldn't, which is impossible, right?

Mike

To use one of your illustrations, if what will happen during next week is recorded in the multimedia library of heaven today, then free choise is on the same level as round squares or God creating a rock that heavy that he cannot lift it.

The multi-media library of heaven idea is a good illustration of the paradox. If God can just play a film of something you or I will do at a given time, say noon tomorrow, how could we possibly do something different than what the film records? (assuming the film records the "actual" future, rather than a "possible" one).

If the future is comprised of "actual" events, then in reality there are no possible futures. There only misguided ideas of what the future might be (which we have), and the true ideas about what the future will be (which God has). If exactly what will happen can be determined, it's not possible for anything else to happen than that, hence there are no possibilities for the future, only certainties. In this case our perception of possibilities is founded on ignorance.

God's foreknowledge does not rob us of our ability or our freedom to choose. Foreknowledge does not mean we are incapable of choosing right or wrong. The best illustration is the "rerun" example. God knows the future choices of every created being. He also knows the outcome of every choice. He has known it from eternity past. Knowing what we will do, before we do it, does not mean we are robots or dogs incapable of doing anything else.

The Bible is full of examples of God describing what so and so will do before they do it, in some cases, even before they are born. Did they have any choice? Did such foreknowledge divest them of their ability to choose otherwise? Learning about it in advance motivated Cyrus to do precisely what God foretold. During the MOB crisis the entire world will do exactly what God foretold. Do any of them have a choice?

There is another factor to be considered here.

God knows the end from the beginning, therefore He knows exactly how any prophecy, conditional or unconditional, will come to pass.

We do NOT know the end from the beginning, therefore, we do NOT know what will happen to a conditional prophecy. We do, however, have a better idea of what will happen to a conditional prophecy.

Does freedom to choose imply the ability to do? If so, how can we do something which God has already seen we won't?

It's because God knows the choice we are going to choose to make.

Daryl, how is this idea you and Mike have anything above wishfull thinking?

Tom:Does freedom to choose imply the ability to do? If so, how can we do something which God has already seen we won't?

Daryl:It's because God knows the choice we are going to choose to make.

I had trouble understanding this, because my first question was a yes or no question. Since you didn't answer yes or no, but you did answer the second question, I assume the answer to the first question is "yes." Is that right.

And the sentence starting "It's because" is answering the second question? So we have:

Q.How can we do something which God has already seen we won't.

A.Because God knows the choice we are going to choose to make.

Is this what you are trying to say? This doesn't make any sense to me. Assuming God knows what choice we will make doesn't explain how we can make a choice He has seen we won't make. I really don't know what point you're trying to make. Please elaborate.

What do you mean, Thomas? (I think I know what you mean, but not positive.)

Tom, as in "this is so becouse, eh, so is how it is"...
as in, "I cant explain this but it must be so regardless"
as in, "no, the fact that someone has a movie where every act I will ever undertake for my entire life is recorded and the fact that nothing I will ever do differs the slightest from what is recoded in this movie does not mean that my actions are bound to what the movie shows and I do have a choise, even though the entire universe knows I will never use it to do anything except what is already recorded in this said movie"

Thats wishfull thinking for ya...

Ok, gotcha.

I base what I say on the following text:


Nothing is impossible with God is what the text says, therefore, why do you limit God by saying that it is impossible for God to know what choice we will make even before we make it?

Let us also look at the following text:


Christ prophesied to Peter that Peter would deny him three times this very night before the cock crows. Peter said he would not. Christ told Peter what he would choose to do. Peter said he wouldn't make such a choice.

Who was correct? Was it Christ, or was it Peter?


This is a good example of a choice Christ said Peter would make even when Peter himself said he would never make such a choice. The above text tells us that Peter chose to do exactly what Christ prophesied he would do.

Daryl, I asked this:



Does your response have anything to do with my questions? If so, what? I'll go ahead and respond in a separate post to your comments, but I have not idea why you're saying the things you're saying. A context would be helpful.

Nothing is impossible with God is what the text says, therefore, why do you limit God by saying that it is impossible for God to know what choice we will make even before we make it?

You're misuing this text. God can't do something that's logically impossible. For example, He can't create a rock that's so big He can't lift it. I guess Thomas "foresaw" this because he wrote:



Same example! Anyway, the problem is not with God, but with us. The problem is that we cannot do something which we cannot do. That is, we cannot do B if God has seen we will do A. If we cannot do B, then we cannot do it. We do not have free will to do something we can't do; only what we can do, which is A. We have free will to do exactly one thing, which is what God has seen.

Regarding Peter, clearly Christ was right, but why is this important? It shows that Christ knew Peter better than Peter knew himself, but it doesn't address the issue of how one can do one of two things if it is only possible for one to happen.

Yes, the freedom to choose implies the ability to do.


We can't, simply because God has seen beforehand, as in the case of Peter, what Peter would freely choose not to do, and what Peter would freely choose to do instead. God didn't force any choice out of Peter, and He doesn't force any choice out of us. Christ telling Peter what he would or wouldn't do didn't remove the power of choice from Peter. Peter still had the freedom of choice to do whatever he chose to do. In spite of what Peter said when Christ told Peter what he would do, when the rubber hit the road, Peter chose all by himself to deny Christ three times, exactly as Christ prophesied Peter would do.

God making a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it?

Why would God even consider such a thing?

For what purpose would God even consider this?

God can make a rock as large and as heavy as He wants, however, by saying that He could make a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it would be senseless, for why would God ever want to even consider doing such a thing that would limit Himself? God can't be limited in that manner, otherwise He wouldn't be God.

God has limited Himself though in a more realistic way. Do you know what that is?

First, Luke 1 talks about the promise of Jesus birth to Mary and the background and birth of John the baptist. Thus it does not adress wether God is able to do two mutually exclusive things at the same time or not.
Secoundly, it is possible that God knows everything that will happen between now and eternity and that He has always done so. What I am saying is that if this is true, then the doctrine of free will of man joins with the doctrine of mans eternal soul and the doctrine of hell and the doctrine of the Pope being Jesus auctorised representative on earth and the doctrine of Abraham and Lazarus sitting in heaving looking down at a rich man and his brothers burn in hell.The question is not if Christ or Peter was right. The question is if Peter after hearing this could have choosen to stay away from any opportunity to deny Jesus or if Peter had no choise but to deny Jesus as soon as Jesus had prophesied it.

In a hypotetical situation. Tonight while you sleap, Jesus in a dream tells you that before the week is over, you will have left your wife for a younger woman and moved to Tahiti. If this happen, what do you do? Do you take it as a warning and to the outmost of your ability stay away from younger women for the rest of the week, or do you start a quest to find the most likeable young woman to run away with since Jesus now prophesied that you would do so?And as soon as Jesus had said the last sylable, Peter was forced to deny Him that very night?

No. Peter wasn't forced to do anything that very night, and neither was Judas. Both freely chose to do what they did.

You and Tom both forget that Christ knew beforehand what they would choose to do. He didn't make it happen. He only knew beforehand what freewill choice each would make, just as He knows what choices we will make even before we know ourselves.

Why do you limit God in this area?

I can see you limiting God in the senseless example that was posted earlier, but there isn't anything senseless about limiting God in this area.

God never claimed that He could make a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it, however, Christ in the already provided text did claim that He could know beforehand what a person would choose to do.

It is in this sense that God said that nothing is impossible for Him to do.

We're not forgetting this. This isn't the relevant fact. The relevant facts are the following:

a)If God's knowing that A will happen means that A will happen and not B, then it's not possible for B to happen.
b)If a person has free will mean he can do either A or B, then we have a contradiction.

Either it's true that only A can happen, or it's true that A or B can happen. Both cannot be the case.

Now I've asked you if the fact that God has seen that A will happen means that A must happen, and you've answered yes, which is a) above, meaning that A must happen, not B.

I've also asked if free will means that a person can do B and not A, and you've said yes.

Well, this is a contradiction! On the one hand, the person can't do B because B can't happen, because A must happen, because God has foreseen that this is what will happen. On the other hand, the person supposedly can to B because he has free will.

Well either he can do B (because he has free will), or he can't (because God has seen that he won't), but not both!

Which is it? Can the person do B or not?

I should add that many bring up the fact that God's foreseeing what will happen does not force a person to do what God has foreseen. This is of course true from the sense of physical force. God is not forcing a person to do what he has seen (and force isn't a principle of God's government anyway).

The "forcing" that takes place is of the logical variety. If God has foreseen that A will occur and not B, the person is "forced" to do A not because of anything God does, but by the logic of the situation. If it is the case that A must happen, then obviously the person cannot do B. That's just logic. It's not dependent upon anything that God is doing.

So what you should be asserting is not that God's foreseeing the future does not force a person to do what God has seen, but that logic does not force this to happen. But logic *does* "force" this to happen.

Daryl,

As for myself (and I guess Tom aswell), I have not forgotten about knowing beforehand. You and Mike keep minding about that.
If Peter wasn't forced to do anything that very night, the there was a posibility that he could have gone home instead of going to the high priests house and thereby could have avoided denying Jesus? Yes or no?

As for the rock example. I agree that it is totally senseless. And my point in giving it was to show that I think the idea of Gods absolute foreknowledge and mans absolute free will both being true at the same time is exactly as senseless as is the idea that God could or would create such a rock.

What I believe is that in creating intelligent beings such as ourselves, and giving us a free choise, God by this act surrendered some of His absolute power by His own choise.
I believe that God created humans because He wanted to have communion with Him. He wants us to love Him. Now, it is impossible to force love. Many things can be forced but love cannot be forced. It can only be given. So for God to recieve something from His created beings that must be given by free will, God surrendered controll over humans in the sence that we can choose for ourselves what we will do. (Though humans have been known to try and force our will over other humans, and at other times to surrender our will to someone else.) Now, if Jesus by telling Peter that he would deny Him, and thus leaving Peter without the choise not to deny Jesus. Then Peter no longer had the free choise to do what He wanted.

Is this making any sence at all? I do not think you are at all understanding what I am writing. Am I wasting my time here? Maybe we should just agree to disagree and be done with that. This effort appears to have to many things in common with Sisyfos struggle for comfort.

Carry on y'all.

You're making sense to me! I have a friend, who sees things similarly to I do, who thinks that we have a different gene than others who don't see the problem. It is, to us, a very obvious one, but apparently there are others who have trouble seeing it. It's very frustrating. Anyway, I appreciate your chiming in. I've tried to present things as clearly as possible, with the A and B bit, and am curious to see how that goes, if the point is understood.

When I've had this discussion in the past, the response that keeps coming back is "The fact that God knows what we will do does not interfere with our free will," but actual dealing with the logical problems involved.

Your point about love and free will and surrendering a bit of His sovereignty (my choice of words here, but the idea you shared) is right on! God has given us power to will and to do, so that His will is not always done (in fact, is seldom done), which is why we are enjoined to pray, "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

Hope you keep posting!

TE: Assuming God knows what choice we will make doesn't explain how we can make a choice He has seen we won't make.

MM: You make it sound like God’s foreknowledge is the reason why we won’t or can’t choose differently than He has foreseen, as if His foreknowledge somehow prevents us from choosing another way. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

God’s foreknowledge is based on His divine ability to see the end from the beginning. God is simply reporting the facts. Foreknowledge and hindsight are, in God’s case, one and the same thing. From God’s divine perspective there is no difference between history and the future.

The future, for God, is like watching a rerun. His divine ability to see the future like history in no way affects the choices we have made or will make. To insist that God’s divine ability to see the future like history means we cannot choose differently than He has foreseen is ludicrous. It ignores the fact God views the future as if it were a rerun.

No one would accuse someone who is watching a rerun of preventing the actor from choosing another way simply because they report what will happen before it happens. Nobody accuses historians of preventing the people they write about from making different choices. They are simply reporting what has already happened.

Explaining what a person will do, before they do it, based on divine foreknowledge or hindsight, has nothing to do with whether or not that person can't or won't do something else. It has nothing to do with it. God is simply reporting what, from His divine perspective, has already happened - before it happens. He is God, therefore, He can report the future like it was history.

That is the question, if what you here claim to be fact indeed is a fact. I say no. You say yes. And this means we do not have enough common ground to have this discussion.

TE: Assuming God knows what choice we will make doesn't explain how we can make a choice He has seen we won't make.

MM: You make it sound like God’s foreknowledge is the reason why we won’t or can’t choose differently than He has foreseen, as if His foreknowledge somehow prevents us from choosing another way. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I've never done this, even once! I've denied this countless times, very likely, hundreds of times I've explained to you that the problem has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge, but rather with the nature of the future, as to whether it's fixed or not. The logical contradictions exist without God's foreknowledge being discussed at all.

I've explained this many times, but you keep coming back to this point. I don't know why.

The contradiction lies in the fact that, on the one hand, you assert something which implies that only one thing can happen in the future, and on the other hand something else which implies that more than one thing can happen in the future. Which is it? Is the future comprised or possibilities or is it an actuality which we simply can't see? It can't be both.

It depends upon whether or not the person can actually do something else. For example, I know my wife well enough to know that if I say something in certain circumstance she will respond in a certain way. But can she actually do something different? Yes she can.

However, if our future history is recorded in a book, can we do something different than what's recorded? No.

I asked you earlier if the fact that God has seen us doing A in the future means that A will happen, and you responded "yes." Now if A must happen, then I can't do anything other than A. God's foreknowledge doesn't force me to do A, however. What "forces" me to do A ("force" is really the wrong word, but it's the word you have been using, so I'll go along with it) is that fact that I can't do anything other than A.

Again, God's foreknowledge isn't the problem. The problem is that only A can happen and not B.

God's foreknowledge doesn't force us to do anything. Everyone knows this. Please don't keep making this point. No one is saying otherwise.

Another question to consider is what makes it possible for God to see the future. I think many think that God has some special power that we don't have, like a witch who can gaze into a crystal ball. I don't perceive it that way. I think God experiences time similarly to how we do (there are literally dozens of Scripture passages, maybe hundreds, which present God in this way, as experiencing time; just to mention one, God repented that He had made man). The difference between God's knowledge of the future and ours is one of intelligence.

That is, God is infinitely intelligent, and because of this He is able to figure out everything that can possibly happen, and has power, based on His intelligence, to visualize what will happen. Also God is not a passive observer of human events. He is actively involved. He doesn't do anything to infringe upon our free will, but He works to bring about His will. He shapes the future. This should be the lesson of prophecy; not that God see the future (that's never His point) but that He shapes it. For example:



"I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it."

Tom,

What you are posting seems to basically say that man doesn't really have free will, only God directed will, in that God makes us choose to do this or that, as in the case of Peter and Judas.

If this were true, then God would also be responsible for the choices we all made, both human and angel alike, as well as the choices we will make, which, again, if what you are posting is true, wouldn't really be our choice at all, but God's choice imposed upon us.

This all goes contrary to the God I know.

Daryl, nothing I've said states that God makes us choose to do anything. Why do you have that idea?

Here's what I'm saying. If a person can only do one thing, say A, and not B, then we cannot have a definition of free will which states that he can do either of A or B. It's really not a point which directly involves God.

Now if the person really can do either of A or B, then we cannot, without incurring a logical contradiction, have a definition of the future (e.g. it's fixed, or it's like a T.V. rerun, or it's just like the past) that necessitates that only A can happen.

Does this make sense to you Daryl?

That's just it.

A person can choose either A or B.

God knows beforehand what choice a person is going to make. In other words, God knows in advance whether or not a person is going to choose A or B.

In the case of Peter, Christ knew that Peter would choose choice B (denying Him) over choice A (not denying Him), even though Peter said he would do choice A.

MM: Explaining what a person will do, before they do it, based on divine foreknowledge or hindsight, has nothing to do with whether or not that person can't or won't do something else.

TE: It depends upon whether or not the person can actually do something else. For example, I know my wife well enough to know that if I say something in certain circumstance she will respond in a certain way. But can she actually do something different? Yes she can.

MM: Comparing your imperfect knowledge to God’s perfect knowledge is hardly helpful.

TE: However, if our future history is recorded in a book, can we do something different than what's recorded? No.

MM: What book are you talking about?

TE: I asked you earlier if the fact that God has seen us doing A in the future means that A will happen, and you responded "yes."

MM: Right.

TE: Now if A must happen, then I can't do anything other than A. God's foreknowledge doesn't force me to do A, however. What "forces" me to do A ("force" is really the wrong word, but it's the word you have been using, so I'll go along with it) is that fact that I can't do anything other than A.

MM: How do you know “A” must happen? What is the basis of your information? Who told you only “A” will or can happen?

TE: Again, God's foreknowledge isn't the problem. The problem is that only A can happen and not B.

MM: Again, how do you know what will and will not happen? Who told you?

TE: God's foreknowledge doesn't force us to do anything. Everyone knows this. Please don't keep making this point. No one is saying otherwise.

MM: Our knowledge of the future is based on God’s divine ability to view the future like history. Otherwise, we know nothing about the future. We do not possess the necessary divine attributes to view the future like history. Only God can do it. Thus, we cannot divorce God’s ability to foretell the future from this discussion.

For God, foreknowledge and hindsight are one and the same thing. Hindsight is 20/20. It’s like watching a rerun. He views the future in exactly the same way He views history. God is simply reporting what has already happened - before it happens.

As such, whether a person can or cannot do this or that is not an issue. It has nothing to do with it. What is done is done. Reporting what has already happened does not, in the least, affect the facts. It has nothing to do with what a person can or cannot do. It’s already done!

Here's the problem. If God knows that the person will choose A, then he can't choose B. It's not that God forces Him not to choose B, it's just that it's not logically possible for him to choose B since B can't happen.

I think this would be easier to deal with if you take God out of the question. We can add Him in later. For now, please let me ask if the following makes sense.

If a person can do A or B, then it's not possible for the future to be such that only A can happen. Let's just try this for now. Would you agree to this? Does this make sense?

MM: Explaining what a person will do, before they do it, based on divine foreknowledge or hindsight, has nothing to do with whether or not that person can't or won't do something else.

TE: It depends upon whether or not the person can actually do something else. For example, I know my wife well enough to know that if I say something in certain circumstance she will respond in a certain way. But can she actually do something different? Yes she can.

MM: Comparing your imperfect knowledge to God’s perfect knowledge is hardly helpful.

It's as helpful about talking about knowledge at all. This isn't an epistemological issue; it's an ontological one.

TE: However, if our future history is recorded in a book, can we do something different than what's recorded? No.

MM: What book are you talking about?

A hypothetical book.

TE: I asked you earlier if the fact that God has seen us doing A in the future means that A will happen, and you responded "yes."

MM: Right.

TE: Now if A must happen, then I can't do anything other than A. God's foreknowledge doesn't force me to do A, however. What "forces" me to do A ("force" is really the wrong word, but it's the word you have been using, so I'll go along with it) is that fact that I can't do anything other than A.

MM: How do you know “A” must happen? What is the basis of your information? Who told you only “A” will or can happen?

It should be obvious that this doesn't matter. Why it is known that A will occur isn't important. What's important to the argument is that A must happen.

TE: Again, God's foreknowledge isn't the problem. The problem is that only A can happen and not B.

MM: Again, how do you know what will and will not happen? Who told you?

Again, this isn't the issue. The problem is not epistimelogical. It's ontological. In other words, what is known or not known is not the issue. The issue involves reality. Reality is what it is regardless of whether or not we know what it is.

If the person in my example must to A, then the fact that he doesn't know he must to A (because the future is hidden to him) doesn't make it any less the case that he can't do B. The fact that he thinks he can do B when he can't doesn't change the fact that he can't do B.

TE: God's foreknowledge doesn't force us to do anything. Everyone knows this. Please don't keep making this point. No one is saying otherwise.

MM: Our knowledge of the future is based on God’s divine ability to view the future like history.

Only to a small degree. Our knowledge of the future is based upon our intelligence and experience. What God says about the future is only one of many factors that we take into account. Now if you're dealing with some prophetic event, then of course what God says forms a huge percentage of what we know about that future event. But if you're dealing with something like what you think will happen tomorrow, like whether it will rain or not, God's divine ability to view the future doesn't come into play much if at all.

Otherwise, we know nothing about the future. We do not possess the necessary divine attributes to view the future like history. Only God can do it. Thus, we cannot divorce God’s ability to foretell the future from this discussion.

For God, foreknowledge and hindsight are one and the same thing. Hindsight is 20/20. It’s like watching a rerun. He views the future in exactly the same way He views history. God is simply reporting what has already happened - before it happens.

As such, whether a person can or cannot do this or that is not an issue. It has nothing to do with it. What is done is done. Reporting what has already happened does not, in the least, affect the facts. It has nothing to do with what a person can or cannot do. It’s already done!

You're really not even touching the point I have been making. I have pointed out repeatedly that God's foreknowledge isn't important to the argument. It's just cloudying up the water. Let's keep things simple, then add complexity later.

If a person can do either A or B, then the future cannot be such that only A can happen. Does this make sense to you?

Daryl, this is a very good explanation of where, in my opinion, we end up with the "God sees the future as if it was a TV rerun" theory. The one I think you explain in the post below. IMO, your point below leads inevietably to your example above.

TE: If the person in my example must to A, then the fact that he doesn't know he must to A (because the future is hidden to him) doesn't make it any less the case that he can't do B. The fact that he thinks he can do B when he can't doesn't change the fact that he can't do B.

MM: The words “must do” and “can’t do” do not make sense to me, Tom. We’re talking about God’s divine hindsight, His ability to view the future like history. Words like “must do” or “can’t do” do not make sense to me since God is describing something that someone has already done. I think He would use words like “will do” and “has done” and “did not do”.

TE: Now if you're dealing with some prophetic event, then of course what God says forms a huge percentage of what we know about that future event.

MM: What does our percentage consist of?

TE: But if you're dealing with something like what you think will happen tomorrow, like whether it will rain or not, God's divine ability to view the future doesn't come into play much if at all.

MM: Unless we’re talking about Noah. This discussion is, at least I thought it was, dealing with God’s ability to foretell future events like reporting history. Not what could or might happen – but what has already happened.


TE: You're really not even touching the point I have been making. I have pointed out repeatedly that God's foreknowledge isn't important to the argument. It's just cloudying up the water. Let's keep things simple, then add complexity later.

MM: “Thus, we cannot divorce God’s ability to foretell the future from this discussion.” (Please see context above)

TE: If a person can do either A or B, then the future cannot be such that only A can happen. Does this make sense to you?

MM: Only if we divorce God’s foreknowledge and hindsight from the equation. From our perspective, if God says nothing about it, the future is unknown. We cannot know with certainty what will or will not happen.

I just discovered that Tom created a new topic on this, therefore, let us continue with this side-topic there. Use relevant quotes from this topic here, but discuss it there.

When Tom created the new topic, he should have informed us here, so we could have gone there, myself included.

This makes God just a better guesser than we are.

Where is it? Sorry, I'm packing things to move, so I'm not having much time to visit the several forums. Not even those where I'm a moderator!

The topic is called The Contradiction which is at the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=84991

You're right, I should have done that. I guess I thought everyone would just see the new topic and know it had been continued from this one, but that was silly of me. It would have been much easier to have explained that from here.

Tom,

We all live and learn.

I didn't want this topic to be overtaken, as the question of how to determine if a prophecy is conditional is an interesting one.

The reason why God gives prophecies are to either encourage us when we are going the right direction and to warn us when we are going the wrong direction. Therefore none of the prophecys of God are unconditional. If you find a prophecy that is truely unconditional (and being written to sound on a superficial level as unconditional does not necessarly mean that they are unconditional) you can know that the prophecy did NOT come from God. Prophecy's purpose is to work with our choices.

But there are other facts that make things a little more complicated; the promises are also on the other hand not a flash in the dark and forgotten about if they do not come to pass. God sees the future and controls history. God knows the perfect time for the second coming, but God gives each generation the chance to either be the last generation, or to prepare for a generation or two later to be the last generation. God reveals what he sees will happen in principles found in current events of the people at the time He is revealing to. The conditional aspects are in the details of how and when they are fulfilled and in our relationship to the prophecys. To understand this better it is wise to learn about ancient cyclic thought (an excellent book is "Before Philosophy" By Henri Frankfort and others, 1946 [or 1941?]University of Chicago Press. Sadly out of print, but worth getting... one interesting aspect of this book for Adventists is that it explains what Desmond Ford says does not exist, the year-day principle.)

God promised to bring the Hebrews into the promiced land. They were lead to the promised land, were afraid to go in, so God lead them into the wilderness and gave the opputunity to the next generation. According to Deuteronomy 4, Jesus should have been born during the Babylonina Exile, as the exile was suposed to be THE LAST DAYS (Deut 4:30--some translations don't ephesise the prediction that the exile was to be the last days as clear as some others do).

Deuteronomy actually offers two prophectic pathways for God's people. One is staying in the land, being blessed, others wondering why these people are blessed and thus learn about God and nations either join with Israel, or reject the message and become enemies of Israel and come against to make a war where they are distroyed by the brightness of seeing God in person and their hearts failing them.

The second pathway was if they were unfaithful, God would give different curses to warn them and encourage change. If nothing worked, then they would have to go into exile, but Deuteronomy 4 predicted that the exile would be the last days. In exile they were to tell their neighbors about their unfaithfulness and God's faithfulness.

The land theology is basically "Stay in the land and the world will come to you" exile theology is "Go ye into all the world"

See "Destroyed for lack of knowlege" in Prophets and Kings and the "Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary to see these prophecys spelled out in clearer language that our presupositions tend to keep us from noticing when we read the texts.

Basically other prophecies are based on the Deuteronomic pathway, adding more details and making applications to current situations.

Isaiah 1-39 is the story of events of the people's unfaithfulness, then suddenly good king Hezekiah brings a reformation. Hezekiah gets ill, but prays for healing and is healed. The news of this healing brings representatives from Babylon. Hezekiah could have told about the God who healed him and the representatives could have brought the gospel to Babylon and instead of being the worst years of Hezekiah's life, they could have been the best. Instead of wicked King Manasseh, the way would have been prepared for good King Joshua. (Interestingly, according to the book "Lies My Teacher Taught Me" Israel's neighbors, sailors from Phoenicia, would occasionally sail over to what would latter be called the Americas. The ships were too small for major trade and frequent trips, but they could have carried over a few missionaries)God made the word ready for Hezekiah's reformation to spread to the whole world.

But instead of showing the Babylonians his true riches, he showed them his temporal riches. In stead of them taking home the true riches and preparing for Christ to rule the world, they decided they would return for the temporal riches and set up for those who were going to rule in place of Christ (or in Greek: Anti-Christ).

Starting in Isaiah 40 is the message about how the exile COULD have ended. The exodus was to cycle around and be lead by the Messiah to take God's people home to the promiced land. Daniel 1-6 is based on this view. Daniel 7 and 8 start to open the door that the exile may not end this way, and Daniel 9-12 is about returning in a lactluster return and setting up land theology for another 490 cycles to try to follow the plans of land theology. It also predicts what could have happened had Jesus been accepted when he came. It was only partially fulfilled and Jesus sent us back into Deuteronomy's exile theology sending us into all the world waiting for the great exodus when the Messiah comes to bring us home.

I hope this was not too confusing. If so please read "Destroyed for Lack of Knowlege" in Prophets and Kings, and "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the Bible Commentary and Frankfort's "Before Philosophy" The combination of the three should make this clearer.

These are good points. I'd also add that God gives prophecy to demonstrate His faithfulness, His ability to do that which He has promised to do. I agree with you, that this is conditional, and would also add Paul's comment that the unfaithfulness of man does not make God unfaithful (viz. Romans 3:3, 4)

If all prophecies are conditional, so were those which spoke of Christ's first coming, and so are those which speak of Christ's second coming, and the millennium, and the new earth, and no second rise of sin.

Rosangela, Kevin covered your comment in detail. *That* Christ's coming would happen was not in question, but the details weren't set in stone, as Kevin pointed out. Iow, Christ could have come much earlier than He did, had the Hebrews responded positively to God's overtures at some previous point. Instead things played out according to the recalcitrant scenario. (Kevin points out a couple of other possibilities, from Deut. and Isaiah)

What could have been and should have been does not change the fact God knows in advance exactly what will happen. Just because He reveals it to us a little bit at a time does not mean He doesn't know how it will play out.

I'm not following why you would post this. The first statement says:



Do you think anyone is asserting the converse this? (i.e. that what could have been or should have been changes what God knows will happen)

Also this is odd:



Is anyone asserting the converse of this?

Why are you pointing out this self-evident things?

I have a different opinion. The prophecies about Christ are very specific and I don't consider the details to be conditional, even if the Jews had responded positively - the place in which He would be born, the details about His death, the time of His coming according to the 70-week prophecy.

Tom, are implying you agree with it? That is, do you believe God knows in advance exactly how things will play out before it happens? Or, do you believe God knows a multitude of possible outcomes but that He does not know exactly which one will happen before it happens?

You have mentioned the "err this" quotes in the past to prove God does not know exactly when Jesus will return, that the date is tentative, not set in stone. I do not agree. I believe the "err this" quotes simply teach what could have been or should have been. They do not imply God isn't certain of the date, that the date is flexible.

MM, you wrote:



and



I said I didn't know anyone was asserting the converse of either of these things, which would be, respectively:

a)What could have been and should have been does change the fact God knows in advance exactly what will happen. Because He reveals it to us a little bit at a time means He doesn't know how it will play out.

and

b)What could have been and should have been changes the fact God knows in advance exactly what will happen.

These assertions seem like utter nonsense to me. I don't know anyone who believes these things. I certainly don't.

Your rebutting points no one is making.

Please consider the following quote:



I doubt it's possible to express any more clearly than this that the date *is* flexible.

Daniel is only treating the case where Israel rejected the good path given earlier. Had they taken the good path, Daniel's prophesies would not have been written, so his timetable would not even have been an issue.

Waggoner discusses this idea (Israel taking the good path) in the Glad Tidings:

Tom,

Does God know the day of Christ's coming or doesn't He?

Yes, according to how God sees the future (not how you think He does).

Jesus said God knew the day and the hour of His coming. To know a date means that that date cannot be another date - or else you don't really know what the date is.

Jesus said "of that date, no one knows, but the Father." You are assuming that this means that God's knowledge of the date fits into your paradigm of the future, but I have doubts about your paradigm. For example, the inspired concepts of risk ("God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss"), danger ("all heaven was imperiled for our redemption"), ability to hasten or delay Christ's coming ("not only to look for but to hasten ...") do not fit with your paradigm.

You are saying that. I don't see any problem with them.

If the future is single-threaded, and God knows exactly what that is, there can't be any risk or danger, can there? That is, to say that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss doesn't make sense if it was 100% certain that Christ would succeed. Given your paradigm, how could that not be the case (i.e. how could Christ have not succeeded?)

Similarly, how could it be said that heaven was imperiled? That is, how could heaven have been in any danger, given that God was 100% certain that it wasn't in any danger?

Also, if the timing of Christ's coming is 100% certain, then it is fixed, isn't it? If it's fixed, it can't be moved, can it?

Christ's risk was real because His struggle with temptation was real and, therefore, the danger was real. Suppose you are going to cross the Niagara Falls on a tight rope, and suppose God reveals to you beforehand that your efforts will be successful. Does this mean that there won't be any danger in your crossing? Does this mean that you won't have to occasionally make an extrordinary effort to not fall? Does this mean that you can relax and don't need to watch your steps at every second of that crossing? So I see risk in relation to the degree of danger to which you were exposed, not in relation to the final result.

And yes, I believe the timing of Christ's coming is 100% certain, because God already knows when His church will be ready for His appearing. This doesn't mean that the church could not have been ready before.

Christ's risk was real because His struggle with temptation was real and, therefore, the danger was real. Suppose you are going to cross the Niagara Falls on a tight rope, and suppose God reveals to you beforehand that your efforts will be successful. Does this mean that there won't be any danger in your crossing?

Yes, that's precisely what it means, given that God has given a 100% assurance that your attempts will be successful. "Danger" and "risk" are concepts which are predicated upon the possibility of failure. *That is what the words mean.*





The first definition is Webster, the second Oxford (Webster's was having problems loading the second time). Note that both definitions use the word "possibility." If there is no possibility of failure, there is neither risk nor danger.

Does this mean that you won't have to occasionally make an extrordinary effort to not fall?

Effort is not the issue. The possibility of failure is the issue. No one is saying that Christ didn't exert effort.

Does this mean that you can relax and don't need to watch your steps at every second of that crossing? So I see risk in relation to the degree of danger to which you were exposed, not in relation to the final result.

That's because you are not thinking of "risk" in terms of what it really means. When Ellen White says "at the risk of failure loss" she means that Christ could have failed. She also says Christ could have failed in those words (that is, "Christ could have failed."). Now if God was 100% certain of Christ's success beforehand, how could Christ have possibly failed? In fact, to ask the question in a more open-ended way, how can *anything* that God knows with 100% certainly will happen not happen?

And yes, I believe the timing of Christ's coming is 100% certain, because God already knows when His church will be ready for His appearing. This doesn't mean that the church could not have been ready before.

This is like saying "2 + 2 = 4. That doesn't mean 2 + 2 couldn't have been 5." God's knowing something will happen with 100% certainty is exactly like 2 + 2 = 4. There is as much possibility of the church being ready at some other time than God knows it will be ready (either before or after, it doesn't matter which) as 2 + 2 not being equal to 4.

How do you compare "risk" to what it says in Genesis 3:15?

I think the key is in the word "possibility". Webster gives as definitions of "possible": 1 that can be; capable of existing
2 that can be in the future; that may or may not happen.
Perhaps I'm focusing on the first definition while you are focusing on the second. I believe Christ's fall was possible in the full sense of "capable of existing," not in the sense of "that may or may not happen" - for God already knew Christ would be victorious.

In the example of your crossing, your fall was a possibility at every step, in the sense of "capable of existing" - since you are not a bird nor were you created as an "unfallable" being.


That's the point. Men were not ready before by their own fault. God established the day of Christ's coming having in view man's behavior, not His own wish. His wish was that Christ should have come long ago.

I think the key is in the word "possibility". Webster gives as definitions of "possible": 1 that can be; capable of existing
2 that can be in the future; that may or may not happen.
Perhaps I'm focusing on the first definition while you are focusing on the second. I believe Christ's fall was possible in the full sense of "capable of existing," not in the sense of "that may or may not happen" - for God already knew Christ would be victorious.

Under your view, Christ's fall was not capable of existing. Maybe in some other hypothetical reality it could have existed, but it would not be capable of existing in our reality. The word "risk" has to do with the possibility of something happening or not happening. Surely you understand that, right? There are probabilities associated with risk. One can calculate actuarial probabilities based on such. If something has a 100% chance of occuring, there is no risk. This concept is used economically all the time. There's no such thing as an event with a 100% chance of occuring incurring risk.

In the example of your crossing, your fall was a possibility at every step, in the sense of "capable of existing" - since you are not a bird nor were you created as an "unfallable" being. \:\)

This has nothing to do with risk. Here's an example. Suppose I have a two-headed coin. I "risk" a dollar that it will come up heads. Under your definition, I'm undertaking a risk, because I could have had a fair coin. I didn't, and in reality the probability is 0 that the coin won't come up heads, but I could have had a different coin. Fair coins are "capable of existing."

God's knowing with 100% certainty something will happen makes an event as likely to occur (more actually; the two-headed coin could land on its edge) as the two-headed coin coming up heads. *There is no risk.*

Quote:
There is as much possibility of the church being ready at some other time than God knows it will be ready (either before or after, it doesn't matter which) as 2 + 2 not being equal to 4.

That's the point. Men were not ready before by their own fault. God established the day of Christ's coming having in view man's behavior, not His own wish. His wish was that Christ should have come long ago.

I agree with this, as far as it goes. However, Ellen White wrote that is our privilege to *not only* look for but to *hasten* Christ's coming. The key word is "hasten." "Hasten" means to cause to occur more quickly than it would have happened had the given action not occured. Now if it is 100% certain that Christ will come in 2020, then there is nothing we can do cause it to happen before that time. We cannot hasten it.

Wonders how many pages that have been written thus far on the topic of establishing that common everyday words that are understood by all people acctually mean what everyone thinks they mean and not something else. Like reading the word "risk" and finding that one rather redefine the word than take a second look at ones own concepts of the future. Like if a person is being called "ugly", and refusing to accept it redefines the word "ugly" to mean "quite good looking" and then goes on a campain to convince the world that the word acctually means "quite good looking" rather than the dictionarys "offensive to the sight".

Your comments, Thomas, remind me of the following, from a different thread:



Here's another example the same principle. If an idea doesn't agree with what I believe, then the words must mean something different). It's hard to know how one could ever possibly be convinced to believe anything different than one's present belief with such a paradigm.

This discussion has been going on for centuries, and it's obvious that we won't resolve it. It's also obvious that we won't agree.

But, speaking of redefining words, the word "foreknowledge" means "knowledge of something before it happens or exists." It's not guessing; it's not a tentative prediction, like that of a weather forecast; it's not an analysis of several possible alternatives that may happen. The Greek word is prognosis, beforehand knowledge.

Becareful Rosangela, this and your continuing comments on this is getting very close to accusing Deuteronomy and Ellen White and the SDA Bible Commentary of lieing.

I understand that the argument on God's foresight is being debated here, and I hope that I've made it clear that I believe in the infinite God not being limited to time and space, and that God transends time and space and knows the end from the begining.

As to this specific group of questions: Prophecies of Christ's first coming included both the land and exile theology threads of Deuteronomy, and the royal threads in say the Psalms. Yes, Jesus could have come as the litteral king ruling from a palace in Jerusalem. Yes, young Daniel fully expected to see Jesus come and to lead like a second Moses, a great exoduse from Babylon. The older Daniel had a different understanding which broke his heart, but there was no need to there to be a first and second coming, Jesus could have done it all when he first came. Now God knew what would happen, but the prophecys were given with the possibility for it to be fulfilled earlier.

The condition for the second coming include "IF I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again." and "When the gospel of this kingdom is preached to all the world THEN the end shall come" Jesus predicted his second coming to be connected to the fall of the temple, AD 70. Paul said that the gospel had been preached into all the world, but in Romans he also said that he would like to bring the gospel to Spain... Paul did not see Spain as part of the world where the gospel needed to be preached, but that it would be nice to bring it to places outside of what he and the disciples understood as "The World" probably as the Jewish world.

Hebrews and Revelation deal with the great dissapointment of AD 70, Hebrews pointing to the heavenly ministry of Jesus, and Revelation saying "Yes, but don't be so focused on Jesus heavenly ministry that you forget that he is coming again, you lost your first love, you need to preach again" and discribes what could have happened durring the persecution of the current emperor Domatian (Spelling?) if the church was willing to be martyered in the persecution but boldly preach again.

Yes, the Millennium could have been for ONLY the martyrs of the Nero-Domitan, with the rest of us rising at the end of the thousand years. By analogy and that the conditions for the second coming to occure during the Domitan persecution were not fulfilled, Mrs. White mixes John's special resurection for specific martyrs with Paul's general resurection for the righteous of all ages and thus have us rise with John's martyers of his day.

Also in Greek, the term "Thousand years" did not mean a set number, but only "As much time as needed" for a situation. No rushing, but taking plenty of time to take care of an issue. Thus it is a conditional term to start with. And again it is to give enough time so that sin will not rise again. The extra time before Jesus comes is also to give us the evidence we need to fulfill the contitions for sin to not rise up again. We know it well enough to not want to be burned by it again.

I was going to mention on the last post that I appreciate your carrying on a conversation. I have no aspirations of your changing your mind, as to the best of my recollection in our years of discussions, you never have (at least in relation to anything I've written). However, by reading your explanations, I may get some idea of how you are thinking, which I would be very pleased to understand. So far I'm not getting it, I'm afraid. It's so obvious, to me anyway (I would think to anyone) what "risk of failure and eternal loss" means, as well as "all heaven was imperiled for our redemption" that I'm just not able to conceive of how you could fit these phrases with the concept of 100% certainty, when these are such polar opposites.

At any rate, I agree that foreknowledge means knowledge of something before it happens, I just disagree as to the nature of that something. You see the future as a single-threaded thing, a thing which must happen. I believe it's more complex than that, comprised in part of certainties, but also of things that are uncertain, decisions to be made by self-determining creatures which are not yet realities, but possibilities.

When God looks into the future, He sees it as it is, which is a complex web of yet to occur actions. He doesn't see it as a movie or T.V. rerun, as the statements such as "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" "All heaven was imperiled for our redemption" "It is our privilege not only to look for but to hasten" Christ's future make clear. These statements simply don't fit with a T.V. rerun future. I haven't even seen any effort to explain these statements, other then the idea that words such as "risk" "imperiled" and "hasten" don't mean what we would understand them to ordinarily mean, an argument which, it seems clear to me, would make it possible to interpret any statement in any way which one would choose to do.

Anyway, I'll end again with thanking you for participating in the dialog. Maybe some time I'll get it (your way of thinking).

I'm interested in this. Could you provide some back up, or more information on this thought. The reason I'm asking is a friend of mine has discussed this idea with me, but we were not aware of the linguistic point you are making.

Kevin,
I’ve never accused the SDABC of lying (although I sometimes disagree with it), much less the Bible and Ellen White. What I disagree with is the interpretation some give to them, and by the way, I disagree with yours.

No, Jesus could not have come as the literal king ruling from a palace in Jerusalem.

“None of the people, not even the disciples, understood the nature of Christ's kingdom. … They seemed unable to believe that he would not sit on David's throne, that he would not take the scepter, and reign as a temporal prince in Jerusalem. Words true and full of significance when rightly placed are misleading when misapplied. The utterances of the prophet describing the second appearing of Christ were applied by the Jewish teachers to his first advent. The description of Christ's second coming is true, but this truth, tho beautiful and grand, could not be made to harmonize with his first coming. The word was true, but it was truth placed in the wrong setting.” {ST, July 1, 1897 par. 6,7}

“The leaders in Israel professed to understand the prophecies, but they had received false ideas in regard to the manner of Christ's coming. Satan had deceived them; and all the glories of Christ's second advent they applied to his first appearing. All the wonderful events clustering around his second coming, they looked for at his first. Therefore, when he came, they were not prepared to receive him." {RH, September 5, 1899 par. 5}

Yes, there was a need for a first and a second coming, and no, Jesus could have done it all when He first came.

Jesus did not predict His second coming to be connected to the fall of the temple in AD 70, but, instead, “blended the description of the two great crises, leaving the disciples to study out the meaning for themselves. When He referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, His prophetic words reached beyond that event to the final conflagration in that day when the Lord shall rise out of His place to punish the world for their iniquity, when the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. This entire discourse was given, not for the disciples only, but for those who should live in the last scenes of this earth's history” (DA 627).

And no, the millennium could NOT have been only for the martyrs of the Nero-Domitian persecution, with the rest of us rising at the end of the thousand years. Would Satan have been bound during all this time? Where?

Rosangela, Kevin is arguing that had things been different, a different result would have occurred. Quoting from Ellen White doesn't address Kevin's issues, unless Ellen White is addressing the same hypothetical issue Kevin is.

Tom, I totally agree with what Rosangela posted. As you can see, I am not the only one who believes it.

Tom,

Ellen White does address the issue. She says that had the Jews fulfilled God's plan, they would have prepared the world for Christ's first coming (PK 703, 704). But of course Christ would have come in exactly the same way - as a great Teacher, to die for our sins - not as a King. Since she says that they would have prepared the world for Christ's first coming, of course there would have been a second coming, for which the role of Christ as King was reserved.

As to Christ's second coming in 70 AD, she is clear that that couldn't have been the case, for she says that, at the time Christ spoke on the Mount of Olives, in mercy to the disciples He blended the description of Jerusalem's destruction with the description of the end of the world, because they weren't prepared to know that so many years would transpire between the two events.

Taking the 2300 day/year prophecy into consideration, Christ couldn't have come the 2nd time prior to 1844.

I hope Kevin will comment, since the ideas he expressed are his, but regarding PK 703, 704, that doesn't say that there had to be two advents. It simply says that it was God's will that the Israelites prepare the way for the first advent.

Regarding the second point, I would like to see the quote you're referring to before commenting.

Regarding the 2300 days question, I have some thoughts, but I'll let Kevin comment first.

Tom,

If there should be only one coming, Ellen White would have said that they were to prepare the way for Christ's coming, not for Christ's first coming. The Bible is clear that when Christ comes as King He will rule for ever. If you can show me from the Bible that He would come as King, but then be defeated by His enemies, captured and killed, and then would be raised and re-assume His throne, I'll believe it. His death for humanity makes it necessary that there are two comings.

Regarding the second point, the quote is from DA 628:

"Christ's words had been spoken in the hearing of a large number of people; but when He was alone, Peter, John, James, and Andrew came to Him as He sat upon the Mount of Olives. 'Tell us,' they said, 'when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?' Jesus did not answer His disciples by taking up separately the destruction of Jerusalem and the great day of His coming. He mingled the description of these two events. Had He opened to His disciples future events as He beheld them, they would have been unable to endure the sight. In mercy to them He blended the description of the two great crises, leaving the disciples to study out the meaning for themselves. When He referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, His prophetic words reached beyond that event to the final conflagration in that day when the Lord shall rise out of His place to punish the world for their iniquity, when the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. This entire discourse was given, not for the disciples only, but for those who should live in the last scenes of this earth's history."

Tom, you have often said my views are singular and do not represent the norm. The fact is, though, God knows precisely when Jesus will return. That date is not flexible. If it were flexible it would imply God does not know the future with certainty, which, in turn, would make prophesying the future impossible.

I hope Kevin will respond, because it's his idea, but I think Kevin's point may have been that the two events (Christ's first and second coming) need not have been separated. (i.e., Christ could have, upon being resurrected, set up His kingdom; I'm not sure what Kevin's point is). In any case, Christ would have been born, and died. These are events related to Christ's first coming. It makes perfect sense for Ellen White to refer to this as Christ's "first coming".

Regarding the second quote, I was familiar with that, but it doesn't say anything about Christ's not saying anything "because they weren't prepared to know that so many years would transpire between the two events." as you stated, right?

Tom, you have often said my views are singular and do not represent the norm. The fact is, though, God knows precisely when Jesus will return. That date is not flexible. If it were flexible it would imply God does not know the future with certainty, which, in turn, would make prophesying the future impossible.

[color:blue]Truth is not determined by majority. My comments regarding your "views" have not been directed towards your ideas, but your methodologies. You make statements like common words, such as "risk," "sin," and "repent," do not mean what everyone knows they mean when they are used in a way which disagrees with your view. Rather than adjust your view, or admit to the possibility that you might be wrong, you assert that the words cannot mean what they normally mean. Why not? Because then you'd have to change your mind, and admit to your error. That's what I've objected to.

It reminds me of this:



You challenged me for a long time to produce a statement which said that Lucifer had sinned. I responded that it wouldn't do any good, because even if such a statement were produced, you would say that "sin" did not mean "sin" as it normally does. When Rosangela produced such a statement, that's exactly what you did! It's similar to the position of those who reacted against what Waggoner wrote.

No matter how much evidence was given to demonstrate they were wrong, they refused to admit it. When evidence came that even included the possibility that it might lead down a path where they would have to admit they were wrong, they wouldn't accept that.

It's a good thing for us to not to be moved like a flag blowing in the wind, and change our positions willy-nilly, but OTOH we should be flexible enough to be able to admit to error.

For example, you say the date is not flexible. Yet both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy tell us it is. For example:



If the date were fixed, then we would have the privilege of looking for it, but not have hastening it.

Also often Ellen White wrote that Christ could have come before the time she was writing (i.e., as early as the late 1850's, Christ "could have come before now," in our parlance). If the date were fixed, Christ could not have come before now. That's obvious. He hasn't come yet, so the fixed date has not yet arrived. If He could have come before now, the fixed date would have to be at some other time than it is. But "fixed" means that can't be the case.

Except that we need to know just what Daniel was saying in that prophecy. Once again may I refer you to "Before Philosophy" by Henri Frankfort and others.

The ancient world though in terms of cycles that they saw as interchangeable. To an ancient Egyptian a day meant either the 24 hour cycle of the sun or the annual flooding of the Nile. If we were living in ancient Egypt and I was to borrow some money from you and say that "I will pay you back in two days" you would expect me to either pay you in two 24 hour cycles of the sun, or you would expect me to pay you back after the second flooding of the Nile, and either would have been fine with you.

Daniel 8:14 says 2300 evenings-mornings, which is ancient cyclic language. When you compare the cycles to the cycles in Levicitus, you would find that the 2300 cycles could mean 2300 days, 2300 months, 2300 half years, 2300 years, or 2300 Jublees. However Daniel is based more of Deuteronomy (which has cycles but does not have the cycles spelled out as nicely as Leviticus does) and Deuteronomy does not have the emphesses that Leviticus has on the Jublees, thus from a Deuteronomic foundation the options for Daniel are 2300 days, 2300 months, 2300 half years or 2300 full years, and could have been fulfilled with any of these.

Also, we base our 2300 cycles on the start of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9. This was an intertexual a re-application of the prophecy, making the setting of the prophecy in Daniel 8 to be the type and Daniel 9's re-application an anti-type. Daniel 9's re-application could have been fulfilled at the 2300 day mark, the 2300 month mark, the 2300 half year mark (but they were not and extended to the longest possibility) where the world conditions were ready for it to be applied at the 2300 year mark. Just because it was not fulfilled until the 2300 year mark does not mean that they could not have been fulfilled at one of the earlier marks. October 22, 1844 was the LAST time that cycle would come around, and the LATEST date that could have filled it.

Before I get back to the 2300 days in Daniel 8, I'd like to point out. I do not have the date, but there is a Signs of the Times article where Mrs. White says that Miller was right and that Jesus could have come on October 22, 1844,(if I recall correctly the words were something like "There was no reason why William Miller could not have diserned from the scripture the coming of the Lord") but she goes on to say that Jesus did not because he knew that too many were not ready so like with Nineveh, God gave them more time, and that instead of making fun of the Millerites they should have been greatful that God gave them more time.

Getting back to the 2300 evenings-mornings in the Daniel 8:14 setting... Some who study the text said that the text should be interpeted as 1150 days, and this has been used by people against our application to 1844. When both this 1150 day theory was formed, as well as when our Pioneers decided on it meaning 2300 days we did not know when Belshazzar lived, and the liberal critics said that there was no such person.

Well, Daniel 8:14 was given in Belshazzar's third year, and we have since learned that Belshazzar was indeed a historical person and unlike our pioneers as well as those who formed the 1150 day theory, we have an advantage over both groups. Today we know when Belshazzar's third year was. Now we don't know what day in his third year Daniel received the vision, but it is interesting that 1150 days after the vision was business as usual. However, 2300 days latter you get to a year that includes the Medio-Persions breathing down Babylon's neck, the fall of Babylon and the start of the Medio-Persia empire. Had the Hebrews preached the gospel in Babylon, with the escatology of Deuteronomy 4, the 2300 litteral days from Daniel's vision the Messiah could have come for the great exodus home. Now Daniel 8 does offer hints that the conditions for the Messiah's coming was not being fulfilled and that time might last longer... that made Daniel sick and was able to open for the prophecys of Daniel 9-12 and the re-application of the 2300 days for what is important for us.

But it encourages my faith that the specific timing of Daniel 8 is about 2300 days from the end of Babylon, showing that the Lord lead our pioneers to the correct application, as opposed to those who argued for the 1150 days.

I think the meaning of this quote is made clear two pages ahead:

“From the destruction of Jerusalem, Christ passed on rapidly to the greater event, the last link in the chain of this earth's history,--the coming of the Son of God in majesty and glory. Between these two events, there lay open to Christ's view long centuries of darkness, centuries for His church marked with blood and tears and agony. Upon these scenes His disciples could not then endure to look, and Jesus passed them by with a brief mention” (DA 630, 631).

Rosa: You need to put these quotes in the context of first how Mrs. White said she wanted her visions to be used and what she said the purpose of her prophetic ministry was. I have no problems with these quotes when you look at the bigger picture of what she teaches, and what point she was trying to get across. Be careful to use her words the way she wanted them to be used and not in the way you want them to be used.

Once again the only answer to your criticizism are the two chapters "Destroyed for Lack of Knowlege" in Prophets and Kings and "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the Bible commentary. These two chapters can answer you much better than I am able to to, and any answer I'd give would either be quoting, paraphrasing or looking at examples of applying those chapters. While there are other books out there on different Old Testament Escahtologies and New Testament Eschatologies that are useful, but "Destroyed for Lack of Knowlege" is still foundational for this whole field of study and one of Mrs. White's key chapters, and everything that I'm saying that you don't like is based on that chapter, and brief comments she has here and there that you notice when you've seen the principle of that chapter.

This is based on if the churches took John's advice to "Preach Again" and, despite martyerdom, preached with the same ferver as their first love that they lost, so that the gospel would have been preached into all the world and the end [could] have come. The millennium begins at the second coming of Jesus, and it would have begun at the second coming had Jesus come err this.

(and once again, we have a tension in both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. On the one hand "The Lord could have come err this" "looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God" and the prophecys given could be either fulfilled by that generation, or they could prepare for the next generation to fulfill the prophecys, yet on the other side, God sees the end from the begining and God's purposes know neither haste nor delay)

If the church had been ready before, the date would have been fixed earlier, but from the beginning God knows when this date will be, because He knows when the church will be ready.

"But like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path, God's purposes know no haste and no delay. ... So in heaven's council the hour for the coming of Christ had been determined. When the great clock of time pointed to that hour, Jesus was born in Bethlehem" (DA 32).

If this was true for the first coming, why not for the second?

"We are not to know the definite time either for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit or for the coming of Christ. . . . Why has not God given us this knowledge?--Because we would not make a right use of it if He did. A condition of things would result from this knowledge among our people that would greatly retard the work of God in preparing a people to stand in the great day that is to come." – LDE 33

"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, 633

These quotes make clear that God knows the day and the hour of Christ's coming, but deliberately chose to conceal this knowledge from us.

This is exactly what I am saying! God gives the prophecys so that the generation can have the possibility of spreading the gospel into all the world and have the second coming tied to events in their time... such as the exile, the fall of Jerusalem, the Domitian persecution, October 22, 1844, and events open to us today. But God sees when the perfect time will be, He teaches us principles when we study what Could have happened, we will find the principles of what WILL happen. But if we think that it is mearly written in cement and going to fit our little box, then the only differnce between us and the dispensationalists is who's words tickel your ears.

Rosa, what you say is COMPLETELY true, however it is not the COMPLETE truth. The problem is that you have taken half the truth and have used it against the other half of the truth.

All of us see through a glass dimly and the only place where truth dwells completely is in Jesus, but we are in danger whenever we use part of the truth AGAINST the rest of the truth.

If the church had been ready before, the date would have been fixed earlier, but from the beginning God knows when this date will be, because He knows when the church will be ready.

The position you are presenting here is known as "simple foreknowledge." (see, e.g., http://www.basictheology.com/definitions/Simple_Foreknowledge/). One of it's problems is that God is powerless to affect the future. He can see what will happen, but He can't do anything to affect it.

Also your logic is backwards. The date is fixed *before* any decisions were made by the church. All the church can do is play out the role God has foreseen. It can make no decisions which actually affect anything (they are as powerless as God in this respect).

"But like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path, God's purposes know no haste and no delay. ... So in heaven's council the hour for the coming of Christ had been determined. When the great clock of time pointed to that hour, Jesus was born in Bethlehem" (DA 32).

If this was true for the first coming, why not for the second?

Because the Second Coming can be hastened!



"We are not to know the definite time either for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit or for the coming of Christ. . . . Why has not God given us this knowledge?--Because we would not make a right use of it if He did. A condition of things would result from this knowledge among our people that would greatly retard the work of God in preparing a people to stand in the great day that is to come." – LDE 33

"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, 633

These quotes make clear that God knows the day and the hour of Christ's coming, but deliberately chose to conceal this knowledge from us.

That doesn't make sense given that a)Ellen White often wrote that Christ "could have come before now" b)We have the privilege of hastening Christ's coming. If the date were fixed, neither of these things would be possible.

Kevin,
The Jews rejected Christ exactly because they tried to apply the prophecies of the Messiah as King to their time! Like Ellen White said, “the word was true, but it was truth placed in the wrong setting.” The prophecies about the Messiah as King applied to the second coming, not to the first!

In the same way, Christ just didn’t tell the disciples clearly that He wouldn’t come at the destruction of Jerusalem because they couldn’t endure it at the time. But at His ascension, He told the disciples, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority” (Acts 1:7). That is, they should be always prepared for Christ’s second coming, not wait for it to occur at the destruction of Jerusalem or at any other particular time. Although the gospel was preached to the whole world as Paul knew it, he understood that Christ wouldn’t come in his time, because “that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:3). And then with the prophecies of John in Revelation that man of sin was more clearly defined. So Christ couldn’t have come before some other prophecies were fulfilled, although the people of God in general didn’t understand these prophecies (since the book of Daniel was sealed until the time of the end).

While it is indeed what Mrs. White said, it is not ALL she said. Once again, you quote the quotes that support the half of the truth. Since you are indeed saying the truth you can find tons of quotes to support what you say. The problem is with the other quotes. Once again I appeal to "Destroyed for Lack of Knowlege" and "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy."

I completely disagree. If God knows that the plane I plan to board is going to crash, He can prevent me from boarding the plane if He so wishes.


Then Ellen White’s statement is not always true. In relation to the second coming God’s purposes can know haste and delay.

Christ could have come before now - if the church had been ready before now – this is perfectly true.

We have the privilege of hastening Christ’s coming – the date of Christ’s coming depends, partly at least, on His church – if the church reflects Christ’s character, this will arouse the persecution of the world, humanity will be divided into two classes, and the world will get ripe for Christ’s coming. But God already knows when all this will occur, so He determined the date for Christ’s coming based on this knowledge, or foreknowledge.

Now, one of EGW's quotes, for instance, says that God hasn’t given us the knowledge of the time of Christ’s coming because we would not make a right use of it if He did. Another quote says that Christ could not make known the day or the hour of His second appearing because He wasn’t at liberty to reveal this. These words make no sense if God doesn't know the day and hour of the second coming.

Kevin,

What I see in that chapter of Prophets and Kings is that the ten tribes, "until the end of time ... were to be 'wanderers among the nations.' [which indeed has happened] But through Hosea was given a prophecy that set before them the privilege of having a part in the final restoration that is to be made to the people of God at the close of earth's history, when Christ shall appear as King of kings and Lord of lords [which is yet to happen, when the Jews join the commandment-keeping people of God]." (PK 298)

Keep reading

The following tells me that the Father knows the day and the hour of the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ:


Christ, at least while on the earth, didn't know the day and the hour of His 2nd coming, however, as the above shows, the Father did, therefore, the day and the hour of Christ's 2nd coming was foreknown by the Father way back then.

I did an EGW CD word search without any success, therefore, in order to verify that the quote does exist, I am requesting more information.

Is blue easy to read?

One of it's problems is that God is powerless to affect the future. He can see what will happen, but He can't do anything to affect it.

I completely disagree. If God knows that the plane I plan to board is going to crash, He can prevent me from boarding the plane if He so wishes.

No, He can't. (again, this is speaking logically, not in terms of physical power). He has seen from all eternity what will happen, including His own action. If He were to have acted to prevent it, He would have seen that too. All that remains for Him to do is exactly that which He has already seen that He will do.

Quote:
Because the Second Coming can be hastened!

Then Ellen White’s statement is not always true.

I'm not following this. She said it could be hastened.



She says it is our purpose NOT ONLY to look for Christ's coming, but to *hasten* it. Why would the fact that she says Christ's coming can be hastend mean that Ellen White's statement is not always true?

In relation to the second coming God’s purposes can know haste and delay.

The First Coming and Second Coming are not the same event. We have a prophecy in Daniel telling us when the first coming would be. That's the coming her statement referrs to. Why would you throw out a statement dealing directly with the Second Coming ("It is the privilege of every Christian not only to look for but to hasten the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ") in favor of one which is dealing directly with the First Coming?


Quote:
That doesn't make sense given that a)Ellen White often wrote that Christ "could have come before now" b)We have the privilege of hastening Christ's coming. If the date were fixed, neither of these things would be possible.

Christ could have come before now - if the church had been ready before now – this is perfectly true.

There's no way the church could have been ready before now if the date was fixed in the future! If God has seen from all eternity that the church would not be ready at a previous time, there's no way it could have been ready. This is simply logic. It doesn't have to do with cause and effect in the sense of God's seeing what will happen coerces the free will of the church; it's simply a logical impossibility.

It's not logically possible for something to happen which God has seen for all eternity will not happen. Doesn't this make sense? If not, please provide me with a counter-example.

You are suggesting a premise which is not possible. You are saying, IF the church had been ready for Christ to come, then He could have come earlier. But the problem is, given that it's not possible for something to happen which God has known for all eternity will not happen, the probability of the event occuring is precisely 0.

Look at it this way. If you were to ask God in 1840, what was the possibility that Christ would come before the late 1850's, if your ideas about the future were true, He could, if He chose to do so, tell you the truth, which is "0". The fact that He could tell you that there was 0 percent chance of Christ's coming before 1860 means that Christ could not have come before 1860! The fact that God chooses to tell or not tell someone what the date of Christ's coming is doesn't change that date. Surely you see that, don't you? If the date is fixed at 2020, or whatever, then the probability is 100% that it will occur on that date, and 0% that it will occur on some other date, or could have occured on some other date.

We have the privilege of hastening Christ’s coming – the date of Christ’s coming depends, partly at least, on His church – if the church reflects Christ’s character, this will arouse the persecution of the world, humanity will be divided into two classes, and the world will get ripe for Christ’s coming.

You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. If it is true that "In relation to the second coming God’s purposes can know haste and delay." then there is nothing the church can do to hasten or delay it, even partially.

But God already knows when all this will occur, so He determined the date for Christ’s coming based on this knowledge, or foreknowledge.

This is the simple foreknowledge view that I linked to before earlier. Again, this suffers the logical weakness that God, and anyone else, including the church, is powerless, from a logical standpoint, to change the future.

Here's a formal presentation of the logical argument:

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p ? q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/)

This is a bit more difficult to follow than the less formal way I have presented it, I think, which is simply that if God has known from all eternity that a given thing will occur, it's not possible for that thing to not occur.

Now, one of EGW's quotes, for instance, says that God hasn’t given us the knowledge of the time of Christ’s coming because we would not make a right use of it if He did. Another quote says that Christ could not make known the day or the hour of His second appearing because He wasn’t at liberty to reveal this. These words make no sense if God doesn't know the day and hour of the second coming.

We know from other quotes that Ellen White believed that we can hasten and/or delay Christ's coming. We also know she believed that Christ could have come before 1860. The quotes you are mentioning need to be interpreted taking into account other things Ellen White wrote on the subject.

Ellen White also wrote that God sent Christ at the risk of failure and eternal loss. She wrote that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. These concepts do not fit with a deterministic view of the future. It's like trying to get a square peg into a round hole. If the simple-foreknowledge view were correct, then

a)God would have looked into the future, seen that Christ would be successful, and known there was no risk.
b)God would have looked into the future, seen that Christ would be successful, and known that heaven was in no danger.
c)God would have looked into the future, seen exactly when Christ would come, and not tell us that we could do something to affect that date. He would have told us it was fixed, and to be ready for it whenever it happened, not tell us to work to hasten it.

TE: Truth is not determined by majority. My comments regarding your "views" have not been directed towards your ideas, but your methodologies.

MM: I assume you think everyone else who disagrees with you are also guilty in your mind of employing bad methods? Do you think there is wisdom in the counsel and testimony of the majority?

TE: For example, you say the date is not flexible. Yet both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy tell us it is. For example:

MM: Nothing you quoted proves God does not know the precise date Jesus will return. You keep arguing God does not know the exact day and hour Jesus will return and yet you have posted nothing to substantiate God's supposed ignorance.

TE: Truth is not determined by majority. My comments regarding your "views" have not been directed towards your ideas, but your methodologies.

MM: I assume you think everyone else who disagrees with you are also guilty in your mind of employing bad methods?

No. Rosangela, for example, usually uses a very sound methodology. She stays on point regarding an argument, tries to identify where exactly it is that we disagree. She rarely misrepresents my viewpoint. And her arguments are usually sound. Where we disagree are generally on the premises taken.

To suggest that common words like "risk," "sin," "repent," and so forth must mean something different than they normally mean is a very weak methodology, and one which can lead to one believing anything they want. Where does this end? When Ellen White writes that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, do we say "alone" must not mean what it normally means? Nothing is provable using this methodology.

Do you think there is wisdom in the counsel and testimony of the majority?

If that were true, we'd all be Catholics, wouldn't we? There is wisdom in the counsel of spirit-filled believers.

TE: For example, you say the date is not flexible. Yet both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy tell us it is. For example:

MM: Nothing you quoted proves God does not know the precise date Jesus will return.

It does using ordinary logic. Let's say we plan to have a picnic to celebrate some achievement. We will have the picnic a week after the accomplishment. I can encourage workers to hasten our picnic, because the picnic shortly follows the accomplishment, and we have control over how quickly the accomplishment occurs. The date of the picnic is not fixed. If it were fixed, we couldn't hasten it.

Now let's say we will have a picnic on your birthday, which is, say, July 15th. Now suppose I were to say, "Let's hasten the date of the picnic!" That would be nonsense. The date is fixed, because your birthday isn't going to move. It's July 15th. Fixed date = can't hasten. Simple.

You keep arguing God does not know the exact day and hour Jesus will return and yet you have posted nothing to substantiate God's supposed ignorance.

My argument is that you have misunderstood the nature of the future. It is not epistemological but ontological. I've pointed this out many times now. You keep trying to frame the problem as an epistemological one, but it isn't. That's simply misunderstanding the issue.

Tom, here is just two recent examples of what you think of Rosangela's posts: "Also your logic is backwards." "That doesn't make sense..."

Your picnic example does not address the issue. God has known from eternity the day and hour of Jesus' second advent. Many, many inspired statements have been posted to substantiate it, and yet you continue to argue against them. Why? Nothing you have quoted says God does not know when Jesus will return. Nothing!

Tom,

1- Your problem is that you mix too much philosophy into theology. Things are very simple. God has many times prevented His children from boarding planes that will crash and from suffering other disasters – this is a fact. Saying that all God can do is what He has already seen He would do may make sense philosophically speaking but not theologically speaking. As I said previously, omniscience cannot annul omnipotence. Both must coexist.

2- “God’s purposes know no haste and no delay.” Is this statement true:
(a) always
(b) sometimes
(c) never?

3-
You don’t seem to have understood this concept, although I’ve explained it many times. When I say the church could have been ready before, I’m referring to the church’s ability to achieve this goal.

When I say that I could have had many children, I mean I had the necessary conditions (physical, mental, or whatever) to have many children. However, I chose to have just one child. This concept doesn’t have anything to do with God seeing or not seeing the future. Suppose He had seen that I would have just one child. When you say that it was impossible for me to have had many children you are referring to the fact that God saw that I would have just one. But when I say that it was possible for me to have had many children, I’m referring to my ability to have had many children (that is, I'm not sterile. I could have had as many children as I chose to.)
It’s in this sense that I’m saying that the church could have been ready before, although God knew that it wouldn’t have been ready before. If the members had chosen to dedicate themselves entirely to God, Christ could have come earlier.
Now if the majority of members choose to dedicate themselves entirely to God, the church may be ready next month. But suppose the majority of members don’t make this decision, then the church will be ready only in ten years. It could be five years, or 25 years, or 100 years – this depends on several factors and is related to the free will of the members. But God knows when the church will finally be ready, and He fixed the date having this in view.

Tom, here is just two recent examples of what you think of Rosangela's posts: "Also your logic is backwards." "That doesn't make sense..."

I don't understand why you're posting this. She writes things like this to me as well, even more pointed. If your taking issue with me regarding this, why not her?

I'm sticking to the argument she's making, as she does when speaking to me. I wasn't taking issue with her methodology, but with her logic.

Arguments have premises, and from those one reasons to a conclusion. If the argument is unsound, it's because either the premise is faulty, or the logic is. I didn't say Rosangela's logic was perfect. I said "usually" when we disagree, it's because of a difference in premise.


Your picnic example does not address the issue.

It does address the issue. In fact, it addresses the issue so well, you have no response for it.

God has known from eternity the day and hour of Jesus' second advent.

In which case it is 100% certain it will occur on the day and hour God has known from all eternity, right? In which case, it can't be changed, either hastened or delayed.

Many, many inspired statements have been posted to substantiate it, and yet you continue to argue against them. Why? Nothing you have quoted says God does not know when Jesus will return. Nothing!

I haven't claimed that God does not know when Jesus will return. Again, the issue is ontological, not epistemological. You keep wanting to frame the issue epistemologically, but that's not the issue!

God knows things perfectly, as they are. Now how God sees the future is not necessarily according to how you envision the future. You envision the future as fixed, like a T.V. rerun. But God is not limited to your understanding of the future; He has a broader vision.

Kevin,

I've read the whole chapter. All the promises for Israel there are for the new earth. Ellen White says clearly that there was NO promise for them to be established again in Palestine.

Tom,

1- Your problem is that you mix too much philosophy into theology. Things are very simple. God has many times prevented His children from boarding planes that will crash and from suffering other disasters – this is a fact. Saying that all God can do is what He has already seen He would do may make sense philosophically speaking but not theologically speaking. As I said previously, omniscience cannot annul omnipotence. Both must coexist.

This particular topic is one which has been dealt with at great detail in Christian philosophy, which is simply the application of logic. Being logical is good!

To say something makes sense philosophically is simply to say it makes sense logically. And I agree! However, theology (if you're not Lutheran) is logical. (I'll explain the Lutheran reference if it's not understood, if desired.)

2- “God’s purposes know no haste and no delay.” Is this statement true:
(a) always
(b) sometimes
(c) never?

Are you speaking specifically in reference to the timing of an event, such as Christ's coming? If you are, then I would say "sometimes." That is, sometimes He has a fixed date in mind, which cannot be hastend or delayed (such as, by the time of Daniel's prophesy, Christ's first coming), and sometimes He has a purpose in mind whose time is affected by the self-determining creatures He has created, such as Christ's second coming. We know the timing of this event is not fixed because it can be hastened, it can be delayed, and it could already have happened.


3-
Quote:
There's no way the church could have been ready before now if the date was fixed in the future! If God has seen from all eternity that the church would not be ready at a previous time, there's no way it could have been ready. This is simply logic.

You don’t seem to have understood this concept, although I’ve explained it many times. When I say the church could have been ready before, I’m referring to the church’s ability to achieve this goal.

But this is not what I've been talking about! Sure, the church has the physical ability to do some hypothetical thing, but they do not *logically* have the ability to do so. In other words, it's not an event which could actually have happened. It's not possible that the church could have been ready in the sense that it's something which really could have happened. From all eternity, God has known it wouldn't happen. Nothing that God has known from all eternity will not happen can happen.

Think in terms of logic, not in terms of physical ability.

When I say that I could have had many children, I mean I had the necessary conditions (physical, mental, or whatever) to have many children. However, I chose to have just one child. This concept doesn’t have anything to do with God seeing or not seeing the future.

Right!

Suppose He had seen that I would have just one child. When you say that it was impossible for me to have had many children you are referring to the fact that God saw that I would have just one.

No. I'm refering to the ontological nature of the future; i.e. if it is single-threaded vs. multi-threaded. You're making the assumption that it's single-threaded. I don't believe that to be the case.

Actually the example of having another child may not be the best one, because it's possible, for example, that God knows that physically you cannot have another one.

At any rate, what I'm saying is that if the future is single-thread, and if in that future you do not have any more children, then you can't, *regardless of whether or not God tells you about it or not*. You're simply ignorant about what will happen. But you can't change what will happen, in a single-threaded future universe. You will, 100%, do what the single-threaded future shows you will do.

But when I say that it was possible for me to have had many children, I’m referring to my ability to have had many children (that is, I'm not sterile. I could have had as many children as I chose to.)
It’s in this sense that I’m saying that the church could have been ready before, although God knew that it wouldn’t have been ready before.

There weren't any SDA's in the 19th century that thought this way. They all believed that they could actually hasten Christ's coming, not simply possed the theoretical physical possibility of doing so.

If the members had chosen to dedicate themselves entirely to God, Christ could have come earlier.

But there was no chance they would do so. None. Therefore there was no chance Christ could have come earlier. Therefore the statement that Christ could have come earlier is simply false.

Now if the majority of members choose to dedicate themselves entirely to God, the church may be ready next month.

But this isn't a real possibility if it has been known by God that this won't happen until 2025.

But suppose the majority of members don’t make this decision, then the church will be ready only in ten years. It could be five years, or 25 years, or 100 years – this depends on several factors and is related to the free will of the members. But God knows when the church will finally be ready, and He fixed the date having this in view.

If the future is single-threaded, then there is only one possible future, which is what will happen. Nothing different than is possible. So you're listing a bunch of hypotheticals which can't happen (except for the one which actually will happen). That is, you say "if the majority of the members don't make this decision, then the church will be ready only in ten years." But if Christ won't come for another 30, there is 0 chance that this hypothetical "if" will happen.

Now we're ignorant of what will actually happen, so to us it *seems* that we can make a difference. But we can't. Our "free will" is simply an exercise of ignorance. We can't really affect when Christ will come, but God keeps us blissfully ignorant, because if He told us the truth, that wouldn't be good for us.

Now I'm confused, I have not said anything about them becoming established again in Palestine, or that the promices are not for the new earth. I think I've just gotten you confused and that we are talking about completely different things and have no idea what the other is saying. I'm sorry. I don't think I've ever said anything about them becoming established except for the conquest under Joshua and the return from the Babylonian exile. I think you are taking my coments about the Hebrews returning from Babylon to the land at the end of the 70 years of exile, and have me somehow placing that way in the future. No, we are waiting for Jesus to come to take us to the heavenly promiced land.

If you are reading the correct chapter, it is full of promices that God WANTED to do to Israel/Judah, the plans that God was WILLING to do for Israel/Judah, and that you seem to not want to look at those words. The chapter sounds very similar to the chapter "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" (which is based on that chapter.) and everything that I am saying here is built on those two chapters.

What I'm trying to say is God raised up the family of Abraham for a reason, with blessings that he was willing to give them and a plan to evangelize the world through them. When the conditions for these promises were not fulfilled the promises and plans were re-applied. It is wise for us to know what God wanted to do, how God's people failed, so that we can do what should be done for us to fulfill the conditions.

You are (rightly) defending God's foreknowlege, but your defence of that truth, and looking at the evidence over how God has applied the promises, have gotten us into a place where you appear to be arguing that everything is set in stone and that we just passively have to wait until Jesus comes at the pre-determined time.

My argument is that God does indeed know when the perfect time for Jesus to come, but it has not been revealed to us. What has been revealed is what God wants us to do, God tells it to his people in a way that offers them the possibility to fulfill the conditions, and God's people through history have gone through issues very similar to what God's people at the very end will go through, and as we study what they faced, we will see the principles that we will face. Instead of passively waiting, we can actively prepare through studying the scripture.

In the 1800s there have been two different approaches to prophecy: There was the view of the Dispensationalists, who said that the prophets wrote as if all the things were close, but actually there was a long path, sort of like seeing mountains where it looks like one mountain range, but in reality it is two mountain ranges with a long valley in between. The prophets only saw the mountain tops and did not realize there was the valley so discribed as if one mountain range, and that our job is to untangle what was back then and what is future.

The second is a firm holding to Historism which has guided the church faithfully through the centuries. Historisism sees it more like the exodus. God lead his people to the promised land. They sent spys and the spys gave their report. After hearing the spy's report the people felt that they could not get into the land. Joshua and Calab argued that they could get the land, but the people refused to listen to them. Therefore God lead them out into the desert for that generation (except for Joshua and Caleb) to die off, then brought them back to the border and this time they went in.

Now God knew that the people were not going to enter the promised land until the next generation, but does that mean that he did not give the generation he brought out of Egypt the chance to accept Joshua's and Caleb's message? If that generation said "Joshua and Caleb make sense, let's trust in God and get the land" would God have replied "WAIT, The choosen day for you to enter the promised land is in 40 years!"

In the same way as God was leading a generation to the border, then in the wilderness and another generation back to the border, so through history God has lead his people to the true promised land of heaven, and willing to lead us in continued life on earth and let entering heaven be offered to latter generations. Historisism sees how God has lead us through history, how God was willing to work with former generations. to see how he WILL work with the generation that finally enters the promised land.

Sadly in the 1900s Adventists have tended to accept the conclusions of the historisists, but the methods of the dispensationalists. This is what I see you as doing.

So God has often lead his peo

Tom,

I’m definitely in favor of logic, for it was God who has given us the ability to reason and think, but God transcends human logic. We cannot try to place the Deity inside the box of human logic. So, saying that all God can do is what He has already seen He would do, may be humanly logical, but it poses a conflict between omniscience and omnipotence, and God cannot be in conflict with Himself.
Some concepts cannot be completely understood by us, and that’s the reason why we are having this discussion.


But this is not what Ellen White says. She says, “Like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path, God's purposes know no haste and no delay.” She didn’t say “some of God’s purposes,” nor “God’s purpose in relation to Christ’s first coming,” but “God’s purposes”.


This is how you see the matter: if God knows that things will happen in a certain way, then things must happen in that way. Like Arnold, this is how I see the matter: if things will happen in a certain way (for whatever reason), then God knows that things will happen in that way.
We simply can’t see things in the same way.

Kevin,

Maybe we are just talking past each other, but I didn't understand what you meant when you said that Christ could have reigned as a literal King in the literal Jerusalem, or that Christ's second coming could have been in 70 AD.

Tom,

I’m definitely in favor of logic, for it was God who has given us the ability to reason and think, but God transcends human logic. We cannot try to place the Deity inside the box of human logic. So, saying that all God can do is what He has already seen He would do, may be humanly logical, but it poses a conflict between omniscience and omnipotence, and God cannot be in conflict with Himself.

Omnipotence has to do with having the power to do what it possible to do. Some things are not possible. For example, you can't force someone to love you. Not even God can do that. God cannot make a square triangle. God can not see the future in some way it is not. Iow, if the future is not single-threaded, God doesn't see it that way. There's no conflict here. Neither God's omniscience nor His omnipotence is limited.


Some concepts cannot be completely understood by us, and that’s the reason why we are having this discussion.

I don't think the concepts we are discussing here are particularly difficult, but I know that many do find them difficult. Part of what I hope to accomplish in these discussions is discover better ways of communicating ideas.

Quote:
sometimes He has a purpose in mind whose time is affected by the self-determining creatures He has created, such as Christ's second coming.

But this is not what Ellen White says. She says, “Like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path, God's purposes know no haste and no delay.”

In relation to the first coming. In relation to the second she write, "It is the privilege of every Christ to not only look for but to hasten His Coming" (from memory, that's very close). You're trying to force Ellen White to say something she had no intention of saying. Just look at how Ellen White's contemporaries interpreted her words. These is not a contemporary of Ellen White who believed that Christ's coming was fixed.

She didn’t say “some of God’s purposes,” nor “God’s purpose in relation to Christ’s first coming,” but “God’s purposes”.

This is a poor argument. Let's apply this to one's personal decision to accept Christ. It's God's will that everyone be saved, right? Yet some aren't. This is a purpose of God, right? Here's it's not only delayed but thwarted altogether. Is it possible for God's purposes to be thwarted?

Ellen White makes specific statements regarding Christ's Second Coming. She says many times that it could have happened earlier than when she was writing. She says that we can hasten it. She says that it was delayed by the actions of those who did not accept the message of Jones and Waggoner. She says Christ was disappointed He could not come. These writings make clear that she did not believe the concept you are trying to make her say. She did not believe that Christ's coming was fixed.


Quote:
If the future is single-threaded, then there is only one possible future, which is what will happen.

This is how you see the matter: if God knows that things will happen in a certain way, then things must happen in that way. Like Arnold, this is how I see the matter: if things will happen in a certain way (for whatever reason), then God knows that things will happen in that way.
We simply can’t see things in the same way.

Take the God seeing part of the way for a moment, and perhaps that will help. If the future is single-threaded, then that is what will happen. That someone knows this to be the case, or sees it to be the case, is irrelevant. We will do whatever the single-threaded future holds, because there's only one future that can happen.

The logical problem really doesn't have to do with what God sees or doesn't see.

Yes, we did get to where we were speaking past each other. Those are examples of times where God lead us to the border of the true promised land, where some of the highlighted "The Lord could have come err this" times.

Once again, I understand that as we study what could have happened at these "come err this" time. How is it similar and different from other "err this" times, and why didn't the Lord come then, and we can learn the lessons so that when we come to another time that the Lord would see that it is indeed the cycle where instead of returning to the wilderness, that it is time for the Lord to come and take us home.

I hope this helps.

TE: In fact, it addresses the issue so well, you have no response for it.

MM: Tom, I hope you are not reverting back to your old rude ways? Please.

TE: In which case it is 100% certain it will occur on the day and hour God has known from all eternity, right?

MM: Amen!

TE: In which case, it can't be changed, either hastened or delayed.

MM: Just like a rerun.

TE: I haven't claimed that God does not know when Jesus will return.

MM: What? Then why are you arguing God does not know the precise day and hour Jesus will return?

TE: Again, the issue is ontological, not epistemological. You keep wanting to frame the issue epistemologically, but that's not the issue!

MM: Labeling it one way or another doesn't change the fact God has known for eternity the exact day and hour Jesus will return.

TE: God knows things perfectly, as they are. Now how God sees the future is not necessarily according to how you envision the future. You envision the future as fixed, like a T.V. rerun. But God is not limited to your understanding of the future; He has a broader vision.

MM: Because God is God He sees the future like a rerun. But from our perspective most of the future is wide open. It isn't fixed. I suppose one could argue that those parts of the future that are described in unconditional prophecies are "fixed". That is, they will play out precisely the way God says it will. However, the prophecies do not rob us of our ability and freedom to choose. They simply reveal what we are free to do.

TE: In fact, it addresses the issue so well, you have no response for it.

MM: Tom, I hope you are not reverting back to your old rude ways? Please.

I was hoping the same thing about you! I notice you still did not respond. I don't understand why my pointing out that you have no response to the argument I made is rude.

TE: In which case it is 100% certain it will occur on the day and hour God has known from all eternity, right?

MM: Amen!

TE: In which case, it can't be changed, either hastened or delayed.

MM: Just like a rerun.

TE: I haven't claimed that God does not know when Jesus will return.

MM: What? Then why are you arguing God does not know the precise day and hour Jesus will return?

TE: Again, the issue is ontological, not epistemological. You keep wanting to frame the issue epistemologically, but that's not the issue!

MM: Labeling it one way or another doesn't change the fact God has known for eternity the exact day and hour Jesus will return.

TE: God knows things perfectly, as they are. Now how God sees the future is not necessarily according to how you envision the future. You envision the future as fixed, like a T.V. rerun. But God is not limited to your understanding of the future; He has a broader vision.

MM: Because God is God He sees the future like a rerun. But from our perspective most of the future is wide open. It isn't fixed.

If our perspective is different than God's, who's is right, ours or His? Are you arguing that perception makes reality? Or is there an object reality which is what it is regardless of our perspective of it?

I suppose one could argue that those parts of the future that are described in unconditional prophecies are "fixed". That is, they will play out precisely the way God says it will. However, the prophecies do not rob us of our ability and freedom to choose. They simply reveal what we are free to do.

The problem is if the future is single-threaded, there's only one thing we can do. Our perception may be that we can do more than one thing, but our perception is simply wrong. Do you understand what I'm saying here? I'm asking because you've never given any indication that you have.

MM: Because God is God He sees the future like a rerun. But from our perspective most of the future is wide open. It isn't fixed.

TE: If our perspective is different than God's, who's is right, ours or His? Are you arguing that perception makes reality? Or is there an object reality which is what it is regardless of our perspective of it?

MM: Again, just because God sees the future like a rerun it does not effect the way it plays out. His foreknowledge or hindsight does not alter reality in the least.

.....................

MM: I suppose one could argue that those parts of the future that are described in unconditional prophecies are "fixed". That is, they will play out precisely the way God says it will. However, the prophecies do not rob us of our ability and freedom to choose. They simply reveal what we are free to do.

TE: The problem is if the future is single-threaded, there's only one thing we can do. Our perception may be that we can do more than one thing, but our perception is simply wrong. Do you understand what I'm saying here? I'm asking because you've never given any indication that you have.

MM: Our perception is not wrong. We are in reality free to choose Jesus, to abide in Him; the results are predictable, namely, if we are abiding in Jesus we will think, speak, and behave like Jesus. Just because God has seen it all play out after the fact does not mean the future is fixed. God's ability to "inhabit eternity" does not alter reality or the future in any way. Neither divine hindsight nor divine foreknowledge has anything to do with how and why the future plays out like it does.

MM: Because God is God He sees the future like a rerun. But from our perspective most of the future is wide open. It isn't fixed.

TE: If our perspective is different than God's, who's is right, ours or His? Are you arguing that perception makes reality? Or is there an object reality which is what it is regardless of our perspective of it?

MM: Again, just because God sees the future like a rerun it does not effect the way it plays out. His foreknowledge or hindsight does not alter reality in the least.

Which is what I've been saying. God's perspective of reality does not change it. So God will only see the future like a rerun if the future is single-threaded. Otherwise He will see it in a more complex way.

.....................

MM: I suppose one could argue that those parts of the future that are described in unconditional prophecies are "fixed". That is, they will play out precisely the way God says it will. However, the prophecies do not rob us of our ability and freedom to choose. They simply reveal what we are free to do.

TE: The problem is if the future is single-threaded, there's only one thing we can do. Our perception may be that we can do more than one thing, but our perception is simply wrong. Do you understand what I'm saying here? I'm asking because you've never given any indication that you have.

MM: Our perception is not wrong. We are in reality free to choose Jesus, to abide in Him; the results are predictable, namely, if we are abiding in Jesus we will think, speak, and behave like Jesus. Just because God has seen it all play out after the fact does not mean the future is fixed.

How can God see the future as fixed if it is not really fixed? You just said above that how God sees the future doesn't alter reality, but here this is just what you are suggesting, because, on the one hand you assert that God sees the future as fixed, like a T.V. rerun, but on the other you asser that the future is not fixed. You're contradicting yourself here.

God's ability to "inhabit eternity" does not alter reality or the future in any way. Neither divine hindsight nor divine foreknowledge has anything to do with how and why the future plays out like it does.

You are classifying the future in this view as single-threaded. I don’t agree with this. God just sees what you will choose, and you cannot choose two mutually exclusive options at the same time. Then, of course, God sees the only option you will choose, but this doesn’t mean the future is single-threaded.

“I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike with God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily.” {TMK 12.2}

This is so real that the prophets sometimes do not know if what they saw was past or present:

“I have been urged by the Spirit of the Lord to fully warn our people in regard to the undue familiarity of married men with women, and women with men. This lovesick sentimentalism existed in the [city] mission at _____ before you were connected with it. I was shown you with others manifesting the same; whether this was in the past or the future I cannot say, for often things are presented to me long before the circumstances take place.”--Letter 17, 1891. {3SM 54.6}

“In past ages the Lord God of heaven revealed His secrets to His prophets, and this He does still. The present and the future are equally clear to Him, and He shows to His servants the future history of what shall be. The Omniscient looked down the ages, and predicted through His prophets the rise and fall of kingdoms, hundreds of years before the events foretold took place. The voice of God echoes down the ages, telling man what is to take place. Kings and princes take their places at their appointed time. They think they are carrying out their own purposes, but in reality they are fulfilling the word God has given through His prophets. They act their part in carrying out God's great purposes. Events fall into line, fulfilling the word God has spoken.” {UL 96.2}

Seeing possibilities is not the same as seeing realities, and the present has to do with realities. If God sees the future as we see the present, how can He see only possibilities if we see realities?


We have already made a distinction between God’s purposes for individuals and God’s purposes for the race. Both the first and the second coming are included in the second category. God fixed a date for Christ’s first coming, and He fixed a date for Christ’s second coming. This is what Jesus said two thousand years ago - that God knew the day and the hour of His coming.

TE: How can God see the future as fixed if it is not really fixed? You just said above that how God sees the future doesn't alter reality, but here this is just what you are suggesting, because, on the one hand you assert that God sees the future as fixed, like a T.V. rerun, but on the other you asser that the future is not fixed. You're contradicting yourself here.

MM: God's ability to "inhabit eternity" does not alter reality or the future in any way. Neither divine hindsight nor divine foreknowledge has anything to do with how and why the future plays out like it does. Just because God knows the future like the past it does not mean the future is fixed as if we have no freedom to choose. Again, God's unique ability to know the future like the past does not effect the outcome of our choices (unless, of course, He reveals it to us first).

Omnipotence has to do with having the power to do what it possible to do. Some things are not possible. For example, you can't force someone to love you. Not even God can do that. God cannot make a square triangle. God can not see the future in some way it is not. Iow, if the future is not single-threaded, God doesn't see it that way.

You are classifying the future in this view as single-threaded. I don’t agree with this.

I'm trying to come up with a term which is easily understood which describes your view. Your view implies a future which is fixed, or determined, but I saw these terms were having some difficult in being understood, as they were wrongly being understood as if God was forcing the future to occur in a certain way, which the terms do not imply. So I switched to "single-threaded" to convery the idea of ONE possible future (the one which God sees) as opposed to MANY possible futures (all of which God sees).

If you want to suggest some other term, please do so, but the term certainly seems easily understood to me, and accurate. In fact, I'm not sure why you are taking exception with it. Nothing of what you wrote after "I don't agree with this" suggests ayou believe in a future which is not single-threaded.

God just sees what you will choose, and you cannot choose two mutually exclusive options at the same time. Then, of course, God sees the only option you will choose, but this doesn’t mean the future is single-threaded.

If there's only one possible future, then it's single-threaded. Is it possible for there to be some other future besides the one God sees will happen?

“I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike with God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily.” {TMK 12.2}

This is so real that the prophets sometimes do not know if what they saw was past or present:

“I have been urged by the Spirit of the Lord to fully warn our people in regard to the undue familiarity of married men with women, and women with men. This lovesick sentimentalism existed in the [city] mission at _____ before you were connected with it. I was shown you with others manifesting the same; whether this was in the past or the future I cannot say, for often things are presented to me long before the circumstances take place.”--Letter 17, 1891. {3SM 54.6}

“In past ages the Lord God of heaven revealed His secrets to His prophets, and this He does still. The present and the future are equally clear to Him, and He shows to His servants the future history of what shall be. The Omniscient looked down the ages, and predicted through His prophets the rise and fall of kingdoms, hundreds of years before the events foretold took place. The voice of God echoes down the ages, telling man what is to take place. Kings and princes take their places at their appointed time. They think they are carrying out their own purposes, but in reality they are fulfilling the word God has given through His prophets. They act their part in carrying out God's great purposes. Events fall into line, fulfilling the word God has spoken.” {UL 96.2}

Seeing possibilities is not the same as seeing realities, and the present has to do with realities. If God sees the future as we see the present, how can He see only possibilities if we see realities?

She says God sees the future will clarity, as clearly as *He* sees the present. She doesn't say He sees the future as we see the present. Of course that isn't true. We don't see anything clearly.

Quote:
This is a poor argument. Let's apply this to one's personal decision to accept Christ. It's God's will that everyone be saved, right? Yet some aren't. This is a purpose of God, right? Here's it's not only delayed but thwarted altogether. Is it possible for God's purposes to be thwarted?

We have already made a distinction between God’s purposes for individuals and God’s purposes for the race. Both the first and the second coming are included in the second category. God fixed a date for Christ’s first coming, and He fixed a date for Christ’s second coming. This is what Jesus said two thousand years ago - that God knew the day and the hour of His coming.

If the future were single-threaded, one could argue along the lines you are, that knowing the future and its being fixed are synonymous. However, you are assuming your conclusion here. I don't agree that the future must be fixed in order for God to know it. The fact that Christ's coming could be at different times, indeed, could already have occurred, makes it clear that the date is not fixed. Clearly if the date is fixed in the future, He could not have come in the past. Also, it is clear that if the date is fixed, we cannot hasten His coming, since to hasten His coming is to cause Him to come sooner than He otherwise would have come.

"He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily."

We see realities in the present. If you see the horse fall and break his leg and lose the race, this is it. If you go to the beach, you go to the beach. If God sees the future as we see the present, how can He see only possibilites in the future?

A small correction - I should have said in my previous post, "This is so real that the prophets sometimes do not know if what they saw was past or future."

It seems to me clear that EGW is dealing with the clarity with which God sees the future. For example, she wrote in another of the quotes you listed, "The present and the future are equally clear to Him." I think she's saying the same thing in the other quote. That is, it's not an ontological statement regarding the future, but a statement as to the clarity with which God sees things.

In considering EGW's viewpoint in this regard, we need to remember the other statements she has made which inform us regarding the nature of the future. For example, she said that heaven was imperiled for our redemption. That's quite a statement! This doesn't fit with the idea the future is such that God can perceive it as if it were a T.V. rerun in a single threaded fashion (i.e. one T.V. program vs. many T.V. programs). If all heaven was imperiled, then there was a possibility of failure. But view of the future you are proposing wouldn't allow for heaven being imperiled, since God would have known that heaven was in no danger.

Similarly statements regarding Christ being at risk, the timing of Christ's coming being changeable, and so forth, must be considered in coming to a conclusion as to the nature of the future.

Tom, the Bible nowhere intimates that God does not know the future like the past, like a rerun. The SOP is the only inspired source that employs a risk concept. However, she does not go on to conclude it means God does not know the future like the past, like a rerun. That is a conclusion you came to.

It is clear the SOP in no way contradicts the Bible. It is also clear, therefore, she did not intend for us to assume the risk concept she introduced means God does not know the future like the past, like a rerun. The Bible is full of unconditional prophecies. But the only way God can tell us precisely what is going to happen before it happens is if He knows the future like the past, like a rerun.

MM, I referred you to a 367 page book which provides evidence that God, in Scripture, takes risks. There is plenty of evidence in Scripture that God does not see the future like a T.V. rerun. I've already mentioned several places.

According to your view, the future for God is not at all clear, but nebulous - made up only of several possibilities and no certainty.
The present is clear to me because I see realities. How can you say that the future is as clear to God as the present is clear to me, if He sees only possibilities?

Tom,

The EGW quotes that Rosangela presented here is clear enough to me, and has removed any doubt in my mind about God's ability to see the future even better than we see the present, for we can't even see and understand the present, and not even the past, in the way that God can see the past, the present, and the future.

As far as the "risk" factor goes in the EGW quotes, they need to be read and understood in relation to how God sees the future, not the other way round.

Daryl, what is unclear about the following:



It's amazing to me that anyone would find this difficult to understand. What do you think "heaven itself was imperiled" means?

Tom:It seems to me clear that EGW is dealing with the clarity with which God sees the future.

R:According to your view, the future for God is not at all clear, but nebulous - made up only of several possibilities and no certainty.

No, that's not my view. I'll try to explain it clearly.

The future is comprised of a combination of certainties and uncertainties. Where God takes actions Himself, there is certainty. Also there are natural laws in effect, which God, of course, understands perfectly, and these are certainties as well. In addition, one's character may be so fixed that God knows what a person will do. For example, Satan has become such a slave to sin that God can predict his actions. Plus there are times when one has a certain bent of character that God knows what a person will do, just as we know what a spouse will do in certain situations, just because we know them so well.

Where uncertainties come into place are where free will is concerned, and where the decisions to be made by free will creatures is up in the air, to some extent.

So the future is comprised of a combination of certainties and uncertainties, all of which God sees perfectly and knows perfectly.

The present is clear to me because I see realities.

Sort of. That is, you perceive realities to some extent. But certainly not perfectly. Not was well as God does. God's perception is perfect. People make mistakes about what they see all the time.

How can you say that the future is as clear to God as the present is clear to me, if He sees only possibilities?

I didn't say that. I said the future is more clear to God than the present is to you. He sees things better than you do. God can see things which might be just as well as He sees things that are. He's not at all limited in His ability to see hypothetical things clearly.

Here's a simple example. A good chess player can see hypothetical situations ("if the opponent does this, and I do that, then the board will look like this ...") just as clearly as he sees the reality (what the board looks like right now). Indeed, elite players can play blindfolded, even many games at once. God, who is not limited in intelligence, sees hypothetical situations just as clearly as He sees reality. The future is just as clear to Him as the present. He is not dependent upon a thing being a reality in order to see it clearly, just as chess player doesn't need to see the pieces on the board to visualize what will happen (only more so; chess players can make mistakes, but God's foresight is perfect).

God sees perfectly and knows perfectly the uncertainties? How, if they are uncertainties? How can God, for instance, allow someone to die unsaved today, if He does not know if that person would accept Him in the future or not? If God has doubts in relation to the future, and if He can be surprised by the future, how can He see it and know it perfectly?


I’m using “you” generically. It’s Ellen White who says this.
But let’s leave the present aside. She also says that the past and the future are alike with God. When someone dies, God knows if that person died saved or unsaved, and God knows all the choices that person made during his life. But if our future choices are uncertain to God, how can the past and the future be alike with Him?

Tom,

You seem to thrive on the "risk" aspect of the EGW quotes, but ignore the clear "alike" in reference to the past, present, and future in the following quote:


Why is that, Tom?

I would call that selective quoting in which you ignore one quote in favour of the other as it goes contrary to your belief system.

Tom, you may have convinced yourself that the examples you posted prove God does not know ahead of time exactly how things will play out, but you have not convinced me or Rosangela or Daryl or Arnold.

If God cannot know with certainty what FMAs are going to do in the future, then how can you insist that God can accurately predict the future behavior of the laws of nature or what Satan will do? According to your theory, God cannot accurately predict a nuclear holocaust or a biological attack. Plus, according to your theory, it would be impossible for God to predict or prophesy the mark of the beast crisis. Also, you chess game example does not explain God’s ability to jump ahead in time and watch how things played out.

MM, why do you think God's ability to predict the future is limited to there being only one possible outcome? I'll give two examples to show that your logic doesn't follow.

First of all, consider a chess game. The world champion has achieved a winning position. He can calculate that no matter what route his opponent takes, he will be checkmated. Now he doesn't know exactly what moves the opponent will make, but he is 100% certain that he, the world champion, will win.

Here's another example. Let's say I create a computer program to do some specific thing. Now there are all sorts of possibilities as to inputs, etc., but I know what the end of my program will be. I know every possible outcome because I built the program. My program can do that which it was designed to do, even without the specific inputs being known.

God's ability to know the future is not limited to there only being one possibility of how things might happen.

I don't understand the point of this statement. Truth is truth regardless of whether people believe it or not. All I can do is share what I believe to be true. I can't force someone else to believe it, nor is that my intent.

The key words are what you believe to be true, however, that doesn't make it true.

Daryl, I'm not understanding your response. I've been making this point all along. Why would you quote back to me a point I've been making the whole time? I'm glad you agree with me on this.

Daryl, somewhere I asked you what you think it means when Ellen White wrote that "heaven itself was imperiled." Under the point of view you are espousing, I don't see how this could be possible. Would you please explain how this statement fits with your perspective?

(I know I asked this elsewhere, but am unable to find it, so I'm sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself).

God sees perfectly and knows perfectly the uncertainties? How, if they are uncertainties? How can God, for instance, allow someone to die unsaved today, if He does not know if that person would accept Him in the future or not? If God has doubts in relation to the future, and if He can be surprised by the future, how can He see it and know it perfectly?

Please consider the chess game and computer program analogies I mentioned to MM as an explanation as to how God can know what will happen without there only being one possible path.

Quote:
R: How can you say that the future is as clear to God as the present is clear to me, if He sees only possibilities?

T: I didn't say that. I said the future is more clear to God than the present is to you.

I’m using “you” generically. It’s Ellen White who says this.

Her point is that God sees the future clearly. She certainly isn't asserting that we see things as clearly as God does. I don't see how you can disagree with this.

But let’s leave the present aside. She also says that the past and the future are alike with God.

Right. He sees both with equal clarity.

When someone dies, God knows if that person died saved or unsaved, and God knows all the choices that person made during his life. But if our future choices are uncertain to God, how can the past and the future be alike with Him?

He sees them both with equal clarity. This was her point. It was not her point to write something which is contradicted by what she wrote elsewhere, where she states that God took risks in the things He did. Even heaven was put as risk. If the interpretation of the future you are suggesting were correct, she could not have asserted the things she did regarding risk and peril.

Knowing possibilities and knowing realities are two very different things. I married my husband. This is past. In case he dies in the future, I may marry or not marry again. The first is a reality, the second is a possibility. The reality (a past choice) is clear. The possibility - my choice between the two options - is unclear (of course I know the two options; what I don't know is which one will become a reality). So, no, I don't agree that the past and the future can be equally clear to God in the view you are defending.

And again, if God does not know the future as a reality, it's unfair for Him to allow someone to die unsaved (unless that person has committed the unpardonable sin), because He doesn't know whether or not this person would repent and accept Him in the future.

TE: MM, why do you think God's ability to predict the future is limited to there being only one possible outcome?

MM: Because we’re not talking about God “predicting” the future. We’re talking about God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened. He simply reports to us what happened. As such, we’re talking about the past.

Do you believe God can jump ahead in time and look back on what has already happened?

TE: I'll give two examples to show that your logic doesn't follow. First of all, consider a chess game. The world champion has achieved a winning position. He can calculate that no matter what route his opponent takes, he will be checkmated. Now he doesn't know exactly what moves the opponent will make, but he is 100% certain that he, the world champion, will win.

MM: There is no way your world champion chess player can be 100% certain he will. Besides, what does it have to with God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened?

TE: Here's another example. Let's say I create a computer program to do some specific thing. Now there are all sorts of possibilities as to inputs, etc., but I know what the end of my program will be. I know every possible outcome because I built the program. My program can do that which it was designed to do, even without the specific inputs being known.

MM: Again, what does it have to with God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened?

TE: God's ability to know the future is not limited to there only being one possibility of how things might happen.

MM: Not so. He knows exactly how things will play out because He has already watched it happened. It is true, however, that when relating to us He might give us options and explain the various outcomes, but such communication does not imply God does not know exactly how things will play out.

TE: I don't understand the point of this statement. Truth is truth regardless of whether people believe it or not. All I can do is share what I believe to be true. I can't force someone else to believe it, nor is that my intent.

MM: The quotes you posted do not substantiate your theory. Just because you believe they prove God does not know exactly how things will play out it does not change the truth about it. Nor do they demonstrate that God does know the future like a rerun. Why not? Because they aren’t addressing God’s foreknowledge.

TE: If the interpretation of the future you [Rosangela] are suggesting were correct, she could not have asserted the things she did regarding risk and peril.

MM: Tom, you are grossly misapplying what Sister White wrote about “risk”. You are drawing personal conclusions from it that have nothing to do with what she wrote, and then you treat your conclusions as if they are the truth. If it were true, Sister White would have said so, but nowhere does she teach that God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail of succeed on the cross.

In fact, the opposite is true. Sister White plainly wrote that God knew Jesus would succeed on the cross. There was never a moment of doubt of in His mind. Such knowledge, however, in no way lessened the risk Jesus took, the danger and peril it posed for Him and the universe. Just because God knew Jesus would succeed it does not mean the risk was unreal. God’s hindsight knowledge of something does not in the least effect how it plays out. You seem to believe it does, but it doesn’t make sense to me.

Knowing possibilities and knowing realities are two very different things. I married my husband. This is past. In case he dies in the future, I may marry or not marry again. The first is a reality, the second is a possibility. The reality (a past choice) is clear. The possibility - my choice between the two options - is unclear (of course I know the two options; what I don't know is which one will become a reality). So, no, I don't agree that the past and the future can be equally clear to God in the view you are defending.

Clarity of viewing and uncertainty of occurring are two different things. I gave the chess master example for MM. A chess master can see future possibilities as clearly as the current board position. God is not dependent upon seeing just one thing in order to see it clearly.

Another example of this would be the past. Suppose something different had happened in the past, such as Israel accepting Christ instead of rejecting Him. God can see as clearly what would have been the case had that happened as what actually did happen, even though in the one case realities are involved and in the other they aren't.


And again, if God does not know the future as a reality, it's unfair for Him to allow someone to die unsaved (unless that person has committed the unpardonable sin), because He doesn't know whether or not this person would repent and accept Him in the future.

God knows the character of people when they die. The judgment will show that God has judged them accurately. He doesn't arbitrarily decree them saved or lost. The books of heaven will explain why God has judge one to be a goat or a sheep, and their subsequent actions will validate God's judgment.

MM, I'm sorry, but I can't respond to your post. It's too fragmented. I'd have to go back, and get the context of what I originally wrote, and piece it back together, and that would just take too long. If you want to include what you originally posted, my comment to that, and then your question or comment, that would give me enough context to respond.

What I see happening is you make some statement, and I provide a response to your statement, and then you quote my response without your original statement, and make some comment or assertion about it completely devoid of the context of what I was originally responding to.

I can clearly see my possibilities - marrying or not marrying. What I don't know is which one will become a reality. Therefore, possibilities and realities are two completely different things, and so are the past and the future in this respect.


This is obvious. What He doesn't know, according to your view, is if the character of that person will change in the future or not. How many criminals do you know that were converted?

That's interesting. I talked about that in SS the other day, in the context of God creating the universe knowing about the possibility of sin, and designing things such that they will respond accordingly in case sin does arise.

But if I'm understanding you correctly, this analogy is not completely accurate. A computer program is deterministic - if you run it with exactly the same initial conditions and inputs, the output will always be the same; it is completely predictable. You are saying that God made the universe such that it is inherently unpredictable in some aspects. Is that right?

It would depend upon what you mean by "unpredictable."

If, in my analogy, the inputs were given by creatures with free will, I think the analogy holds. I don't which combination of inputs which be chosen, but I know the result of every possible combination. Similarly, nothing can happen which God has not foreseen.

A chess master can see future possibilities as clearly as the current board position.

I can clearly see my possibilities - marrying or not marrying. What I don't know is which one will become a reality. Therefore, possibilities and realities are two completely different things, and so are the past and the future in this respect.

The concept Ellen White was addressing in the quotes you cited was the clarity with which God sees the future. She was not intending to present a different idea than the other places where she said that Christ could have fallen, that heaven itself was imperiled, that God sent His Son at risk, etc.

What I was pointing out is that the future can be clearly seen, regardless of whether it is a reality or a possibility. See either paradigm, a single-threaded future, or multi-threaded future, could be seen with equal clarity by God.

Quote:
God knows the character of people when they die.

This is obvious. What He doesn't know, according to your view, is if the character of that person will change in the future or not. How many criminals do you know that were converted?

I don't know why you would assert that God doesn't know, according to my view, that the character of the person will not change after the resurrection. I hold the view I hold, and I'm not asserting that.

According to Ellen White, one's character does not change after death. If she is correct, even I, who have no special powers to see the future, can tell you that the person will not change after death.

Of course, I know this truth because God has revealed it, and it begs the question how God knows. When Ellen White explains the principle, she makes no mention of God's foreknowledge to explain it. God may know this truth apart from His foreknowledge. It is not necessarily the case that God can only know things about the future because He can foresee things.

Maybe I'm still confused.

Let's take out the variability of inputs. Given the SAME inputs, do the results always come out the same?

For a well-designed computer program, the answer is Yes. For the universe, what's the answer?

I guess it depends upon what you define as "inputs" (it won't let me double smiley, so I'm doing a sandwich).

I'm not really being facetious here. My initial answer would be that the same inputs in give the same inputs out, but I really would need to know more about what you have in mind.


Tom

I am waiting for you to explain what EGW said in the quote in relation to the past, present, and future.

Daryl, I've been addressing that for three pages now. God sees the past, present and future with equal clarity.

What does "heaven itself was imperiled" mean? Under the perspective you are suggesting, which is, I understand it, that there is only one possible future which God knows see like a T.V. rerun, how could heaven be in any danger?

Then how do you explain the following EGW quote?


Sounds like a TV re-run to me, in the sense that God sees the future in the same detail as He sees the past and the present.

Daryl, as I said, I've been explaining this for the last three pages. I gave an analogy to MM of a chessplayer and a computer programmer. I explained to Rosangela in several posts that EGW is speaking of the clarity with which God sees the future.

She writes in the quote you cite that God sees the event of past history and of the far distant future with "as clear a vision" as we do things which transpire daily. As I have stated a number of times, I believe that she is speaking of the clarity with which God sees the future. This seems very clear to me.

If this quote were saying that God sees the future like a T.V. rerun, in the sense that there is only one possible outcome for the future (like a T.V. rerun can only happen one way), that would contradict what she has written elsewhere, including the following:

a)God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal risk
b)The risk which God took is "more fearful" than the risk we take when bringing a child into the world.
c)The redeemed will be amazed upon realizing the risk that God took.
d)Heaven itself was imperiled.
e)Christ risked all.
d)Christ could have sinned.
e)Christ could have fallen.
f)Christ could have come in the past.
g)Waggoner was mistaken in teaching that Christ could not have failed.
h)God was not the author of sin and death.
i)God was not responsible, in any way, for the entrance of sin.

I don't see how the idea that heaven itself was imperiled fits with the view you are suggesting. Given that God was 100% certain that Christ would not fail, it follows that heaven could not have been in any danger, doesn't it?

This is not at all what I mean. What I asked is, How does God know that that person wouldn't accept Him in the future if he stayed alive instead of dying at that precise moment?

This seems like it's getting into another area of discussion, a very interesting one, actually, that would merit a topic. Your argument, as I'm understanding it, goes like this:

a)It would be unfair for God to allow someone to die, if that person dies unsaved, but would have been saved had (s)he simply lived longer.
b)If God does not know what a person will do in the future with 100% certainty, then it's possible a person could be lost who would have been saved had God simply allowed that person to live, which would be unfair, as per a).

That's it, isn't it?

I think a) is a very interesting proposition. That would be worth discussing. Would this include children before the age of accountability? We can assume these children won't be lost, in the sense of suffering in the judgment, but can we assume that not one child who is "as though (s)he had not been" (i.e., not brought up for the second resurrection) would have been saved had (s)he lived?

So your premise is an interesting one.

Anyway, even assuming it's true, God's knowledge of what one will do in the future is based upon His knowledge of that person's character. It needn't be based upon His foreknowledge. In fact, I'm not aware of a single statement from the Spirit of Prophecy where she makes any argument whatsoever that God makes these sorts of judgments based on His foreknowledge (i.e., that God looks to the future, and bases His judgment on what He sees that a person would or would not have done). Instead, what I see, is that God makes judgments based on His knowledge of a person's character, and this judgment will be born out by what happens in the future.

Does this address your point?

Okay. Here it is again cleaned up:

TE: MM, why do you think God's ability to predict the future is limited to there being only one possible outcome?

MM: Because we’re not talking about God “predicting” the future. We’re talking about God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened. He simply reports to us what happened. As such, we’re talking about the past.

Do you believe God can jump ahead in time and look back on what has already happened?

TE: I'll give two examples to show that your logic doesn't follow. First of all, consider a chess game. The world champion has achieved a winning position. He can calculate that no matter what route his opponent takes, he will be checkmated. Now he doesn't know exactly what moves the opponent will make, but he is 100% certain that he, the world champion, will win.

MM: There is no way your world champion chess player can be 100% certain he will. Besides, what does it have to with God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened?

TE: Here's another example. Let's say I create a computer program to do some specific thing. Now there are all sorts of possibilities as to inputs, etc., but I know what the end of my program will be. I know every possible outcome because I built the program. My program can do that which it was designed to do, even without the specific inputs being known.

MM: Again, what does it have to with God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened?

TE: God's ability to know the future is not limited to there only being one possibility of how things might happen.

MM: Not so. He knows exactly how things will play out because He has already watched it happened. It is true, however, that when relating to us He might give us options and explain the various outcomes, but such communication does not imply God does not know exactly how things will play out.

TE: Anyway, even assuming it's true, God's knowledge of what one will do in the future is based upon His knowledge of that person's character. It needn't be based upon His foreknowledge. In fact, I'm not aware of a single statement from the Spirit of Prophecy where she makes any argument whatsoever that God makes these sorts of judgments based on His foreknowledge (i.e., that God looks to the future, and bases His judgment on what He sees that a person would or would not have done). Instead, what I see, is that God makes judgments based on His knowledge of a person's character, and this judgment will be born out by what happens in the future.

MM: What about the case of William Miller? God laid him to rest to prevent him from rejecting the Sabbath and losing his salvation and causing others to lose their salvation.

That's exactly how I think foreknowledge works. God doesn't pull out some kind of celestial videotape to find out what's going on. Instead, He fully knows the initial conditions found today, and based on cause and effect relationships, He extrapolates the future.

But extrapolation is only accurate if cause and effect relationships are deterministic - identical inputs always result in identical outputs. If there was any doubt in the system introduced by probabilistic effects, etc., extrapolation would be inaccurate.

It looks like we agree on this point.

Where we may disagree is that I understand that when God looks to the future, He sees all the possible inputs that occur, not just one.

We might be in agreement here as well.

At the instant we call "Now," there is only one set of inputs. That is, there is not a plethora of POSSIBLE inputs, but only one set of ACTUAL inputs. Do you agree?

Because God has made things to run by definite cause and effect relationships (whether or not we know or understand those relationships is irrelevant), this one set of actual inputs/causes will result in one DEFINITE set of outputs/effects, rather than a group of POSSIBLE outputs/effects. Do you agree?

That set of ACTUAL outputs will then serve as the set of ACTUAL inputs for the next cause/effect relationship.
Do you agree?

Therefore, given that there is only one set of DEFINITE, ACTUAL inputs right now, there is a DEFINITE, ACTUAL future that can be accurately predicted by extrapolating the countless cause/effect relationships involved. There may have been many possible inputs, and God may have known about all of them, but based on what's going on now, He knows what will result tomorrow. Do you agree?

If I'm understanding you correctly, I don't think I agree. The part I don't agree with is that the inputs of the future are determined by the inputs of the present. In particular, when it comes to free will, there are multiple possible inputs, so the inputs are not determined.

However, I may have misunderstood you.

Let me try to make my description more rigorous.

Let's say that all cause/effect relationships are 1 second long (for simplicity). At t=0, we have a definite set of inputs. At t=1, we get our definite set of outputs from the cause/effect relationships. At t=1, another set of cause/effect relationships is about to start.

In my view, the inputs for t=1, to be used by the 2nd set of cause/effect relationships, are the outputs of the 1st set of cause/effect relationships that started at t=0 and ended at t=1. There are no outside sources of random inputs that will come into the system.

IOW, the bed I have now came about because of how I prepared it prior to now, and will be the bed I will lie on subsequent to now. Nobody else will touch my bed.

Do you agree with that?

Or do you believe that free will introduces factors which are inherently unpredictable, giving rise to random inputs that may or may not be inserted in the middle of the system?

What you're describing, Arnold, it sounds to me, is pure determinism. I don't agree with determinism. Even my knowing all about you, and the effect of the cause started at time t=0 will now allow me to definitively state what you will do at t=1, when you have another decision to make, because you have free will to choose between different alternatives. I can know all the alternatives you have available to pick from, but you choose which of the alternatives you will pick, and this choice is not (necessarily) determined. I say not necessarily because certain choices you make may be 100% sure things.

Okay. Here it is again cleaned up:

I appreciate your taking the effort to do this!

TE: MM, why do you think God's ability to predict the future is limited to there being only one possible outcome?

MM: Because we’re not talking about God “predicting” the future. We’re talking about God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened. He simply reports to us what happened. As such, we’re talking about the past.

Do you believe God can jump ahead in time and look back on what has already happened?

No. I believe God sees the future through the same process we do, except that He sees with perfect clarity and is infinitely intelligent. By the same process, I mean that God uses His reason, His understanding of His creation, His understanding of cause and effect and so forth.

TE: I'll give two examples to show that your logic doesn't follow. First of all, consider a chess game. The world champion has achieved a winning position. He can calculate that no matter what route his opponent takes, he will be checkmated. Now he doesn't know exactly what moves the opponent will make, but he is 100% certain that he, the world champion, will win.

MM: There is no way your world champion chess player can be 100% certain he will.

You often assert things too strongly. I can give you a simple case which demonstrates your assertion here is false. Imagine a position where the next move is checkmate. The opponent has one of two choices. The master will deliver checkmate. He is 100% certain he will win.

Besides, what does it have to with God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened?

The context of my statement was to show that the future can be seen with clarity even though more than one possibility exists.

TE: Here's another example. Let's say I create a computer program to do some specific thing. Now there are all sorts of possibilities as to inputs, etc., but I know what the end of my program will be. I know every possible outcome because I built the program. My program can do that which it was designed to do, even without the specific inputs being known.

MM: Again, what does it have to with God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened?

I gave the chess master example in response to this question:



TE: God's ability to know the future is not limited to there only being one possibility of how things might happen.

MM: Not so.

Not so? Then His ability to know the future is limited to there only being one possibility of how things might happen. I disagree with this assertion. God is not limited in this way. Even human beings aren't, as the example of the chess master and the computer programmer bear out.

He knows exactly how things will play out because He has already watched it happened. It is true, however, that when relating to us He might give us options and explain the various outcomes, but such communication does not imply God does not know exactly how things will play out.

MM: What about the case of William Miller? God laid him to rest to prevent him from rejecting the Sabbath and losing his salvation and causing others to lose their salvation.

I didn't see anything in what you quoted that would support the claim you made. Could you be more specific, please, in regards to which part of the quote you cites you think supports your assertion?

But if God knows the person's character so well that He knows the future of that person, then the future for you is also single-threaded and the person's character cannot change (remember, nothing that God knows will happen will fail to happen). In the past you stated that God can be surprised by His creatures. Can He or can't He? If He can be surprised, He can't know what someone will do in the future on the basis of His knowledge of that person's character.

But if God knows the person's character so well that He knows the future of that person, then the future for you is also single-threaded and the person's character cannot change (remember, nothing that God knows will happen will fail to happen).

In the past you stated that God can be surprised by His creatures. Can He or can't He? If He can be surprised, He can't know what someone will do in the future on the basis of His knowledge of that person's character.

Are you talking about a person who's character is fixed, or one who's character is in flux? There are times in person's life where one can make a choice, and the result of that choice has a great impact on one's character. God knows the result of the different choices.

This is just what happened with Israel. God could see perfectly what would happen if Israel chose to be faithful, and what would happen if Israel chose not to be. Israel's character was being developed. God laid out the results of both choices.

Also not every choice one makes has to do with character. A person with a fixed character, say one of the 144,000, will make predicatable moral choices. But not every choice is moral. For example, suppose one is deciding on whether to eat one of two berries first. This isn't a moral choice. One might choose one berry over another for a whimsical reason.

Regarding being surprised, I do not think I wrote what you said I wrote. I try to be careful when writing on subjects which require preciseness, and I don't believe I wrote that. I'm not infallible, of course, so my memory could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that's not what I wrote.

Daryl, What does "heaven itself was imperiled" mean? Under the perspective you are suggesting, which is, I understand it, that there is only one possible future which God knows see like a T.V. rerun, how could heaven be in any danger?

A: Therefore, given that there is only one set of DEFINITE, ACTUAL inputs right now, there is a DEFINITE, ACTUAL future that can be accurately predicted by extrapolating the countless cause/effect relationships involved. There may have been many possible inputs, and God may have known about all of them, but based on what's going on now, He knows what will result tomorrow. Do you agree?

MM: This cycle would have begun with Adam and Eve, correct?

This is why we’ll never be able to see eye to eye on this topic. We premises are incompatible.


No human being can be 100% he will win a chess game before the first move. In those cases where no matter what a person does the next move will place him in checkmate it does not take foreknowledge to know the future with clarity and certainty.


If you believed, as I do, that God can jump ahead and look back on what we call the future then you wouldn’t disagree with me. There are no alternative outcomes when reporting on what has already happened. The past is what it is. Nevertheless, for theoretical purposes we could discuss what might have happened if different choices had been made, but it wouldn’t change what did happen.

I believe so. Maybe even before.

The following paragraph indicates that God allowed Brother Miller to be laid to rest to prevent him from losing his salvation, and others’, in further rejecting the third angel’s message, and from hindering it. The fact he is not lost suggests that he did not reject the message in a way that made him accountable.

“God suffered him to fall under the power of Satan, the dominion of death, and hid him in the grave from those who were constantly drawing him from the truth. Moses erred as he was about to enter the Promised Land. So also, I saw that William Miller erred as he was soon to enter the heavenly Canaan, in suffering his influence to go against the truth. Others led him to this; others must account for it. But angels watch the precious dust of this servant of God, and he will come forth at the sound of the last trump.”

I agree. The following quotes make it clear to me that God knew before He created them that Lucifer and one-third of the angels and mankind would sin. Thus, I do not find it difficult to believe that God knows ahead of time precisely how everything will play out –not a myriad of options and opposite outcomes based on good guessing.

DA 22
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. {DA 22.2}

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

The character of nobody is fixed, except the character of those who committed the unpardonable sin, and in special occasions, like after the sealing work of the last days.


We’ve discussed something about this in your post #86587 (Mar 16) in the thread “What is the truth about the foreknowledge of God?”. You had written that God sometimes expresses His surprise in the Bible, and I had asked if God can be surprised. Although you pointed out that from all eternity God knew of the possibility of a given event happening, you stated that it was apparently not a likely event (for God!). If something that God didn’t consider very likely can happen, how can He be sure that someone won’t accept Him in the future, or won’t abandon Him in the future? How can He be so sure about the future of that person? If He can be absolutely sure about a person’s future, then the future of that person is fixed, for God doesn’t make mistakes.

Are you talking about a person who's character is fixed, or one who's character is in flux?

The character of nobody is fixed, except the character of those who committed the unpardonable sin, and in special occasions, like after the sealing work of the last days.

I don't think you have any basis for asserting this. Why would being settled into the truth so that one cannot be moved be dependent upon living the last days? Daniel, to name just one, appears to have been one who was settled into truth.

Quote:
Regarding being surprised, I do not think I wrote what you said I wrote. I try to be careful when writing on subjects which require preciseness, and I don't believe I wrote that. I'm not infallible, of course, so my memory could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that's not what I wrote.

We’ve discussed something about this in your post #86587 (Mar 16) in the thread “What is the truth about the foreknowledge of God?”. You had written that God sometimes expresses His surprise in the Bible, and I had asked if God can be surprised. Although you pointed out that from all eternity God knew of the possibility of a given event happening, you stated that it was apparently not a likely event (for God!). If something that God didn’t consider very likely can happen, how can He be sure that someone won’t accept Him in the future, or won’t abandon Him in the future? How can He be so sure about the future of that person? If He can be absolutely sure about a person’s future, then the future of that person is fixed, for God doesn’t make mistakes.

God can see all the possible futures a person has. If none of those possible futures includes the person either rejecting God or accepting Him, as the case may be, then He can be sure of that person's future.

I don't understand why, according your perspective of things, God wouldn't simply not create Lucifer, and have a universe without sin. Why would God prefer a universe with sin to one without it? That makes no sense to me.

The quote you cited doesn't say anything about Miller losing his salvation. It talks about his having been led astray. Miller was acting in ignorance. You can't lost your salvation by making mistakes in ignorance. There was nothing in the quote suggesting Miller was in danger of losing his salvation. What caused you to come to the conclusion Miller was in danger of being lost?

Daryl, What does "heaven itself was imperiled" mean? Under the perspective you are suggesting, which is, I understand it, that there is only one possible future which God knows see like a T.V. rerun, how could heaven be in any danger?

bump for Daryl

Are just some persons settled into truth or are all the sincere children of God?


Is God sure of every person’s future at the moment of their death?

Regarding question one, you'd have to define your terms. Regarding question two, God is going to resurrect everyone in one of two resurrections (assuming they are resurrected at all). How could He do this if He were not sure of their future?

You have to define terms. You said Daniel was probably settled into truth. Daniel was a sincere child of God. You are a sincere child of God. Are you settled into truth? If so, why? If not, why not?


You had said, “If none of those possible futures includes the person either rejecting God or accepting Him, as the case may be, then He can be sure of that person's future.”
So I assume you believe that no person who dies would ever have had, if he/she had remained alive, any other chance of accepting or rejecting God. Is this what you believe?

Following along with Rosangela's question, how would God know when a person has committed the unpardonable sin?

Daryl, What does "heaven itself was imperiled" mean? Under the perspective you are suggesting, which is, I understand it, that there is only one possible future which God knows see like a T.V. rerun, how could heaven be in any danger?

Are just some persons settled into truth or are all the sincere children of God?

You asked the question, so the terms are yours, so you have to define them. In particular, I've never used used the phrase "sincere children of God." What do you mean by that? Do you mean one who is settled into the truth? Or something else?

Tom:Regarding question two, God is going to resurrect everyone in one of two resurrections (assuming they are resurrected at all). How could He do this if He were not sure of their future?

Rosangela:You had said, “If none of those possible futures includes the person either rejecting God or accepting Him, as the case may be, then He can be sure of that person's future.”
So I assume you believe that no person who dies would ever have had, if he/she had remained alive, any other chance of accepting or rejecting God. Is this what you believe?

Why do you assume this? What I am saying is that the fact that God knows that someone will not reject Him does not imply that the future must be like a T.V. rerun.

People are judged according to the choices they made during their life, not according to what they might have done had they continued to live. I'm not following how you reason that believing that God can know that a person will not reject Him without seeing the future as being like a T.V. rerun would imply anything about what a person might have done had they lived.

In the first place, why would you think that God is dependent upon knowing the future at all to know that a person has committed the unpardonable sin? This is an aspect of character, not of foreknowledge.

Secondly, God knows everything a person can possibly do. If there is no future scenario in which the person responds to the Holy Spirit, as would be the case when one has committed the unpardonable sin, God would certainly know that.

The unpardonable sin is when one so hardens one's heart against the Holy Spirit that there is nothing more that God can do to win such a one. God could know when a person's heart is so hardened just by considering his/her present condition. God knows the heart.

Do I really have to define what a sincere child of God is? It's someone who is following Christ sincerely, who is not a hypocrite. If you fall in this category, please tell me if you are settled into truth, or when someone is settled into truth, or if everyone who dies is either settled into truth or lost. I just want to understand your view.


Sure. But we know, for instance, that the lives of some unsaved people are miraculously spared, after which they have the opportunity to accept Christ, while some unsaved people die prematurely. If God doesn't know the future of these people, this is unfair, isn't it?

Regarding things being fair, I think things are unfair because we live in a world which has been marred by sin. Just being born in such a world is unfair.

Your question seems to be predicated on the assumption that if a person would have chosen to accept Christ had they lived at some point in the future then it would be unfair for God to allow them to die without having accepted Christ. Is that correct?

We know there are slaves who were not given the opportunity to accept Christ because of being treated like brutes their whole life. They will not be resurrected. Their masters will be held responsible. Applying the same logic, wouldn't it have been unfair of God to have allowed this to happen? Surely if the slaves had not been enslaved, some of them would have accepted Christ and obtained eternal life. These didn't even have the opportunity to have eternal life. That's not fair.

Similarly there are children of unsaved parents who die who won't be taken to heaven. Surely some of these would have accepted Christ and received eternal life. That's not fair. Or is it your belief that God would not allow this to happen? (i.e. no child of unsaved parents who will not be in heaven would have accepted Christ had they lived).

Anyway, in answer to your question as to whether it fair or unfair, I do think that it's unfair, but not because of whether the future is single-threaded or open, nor because of any action of God.

To answer your original question, using your definition of a sincere child of God being someone who is not a hypocrite, I would say not every sincere child of God is settled into the truth. Peter jumps to mind as an example of this.

People who don’t have the mental capacity to accept Christ (whether children or slaves treated like brutes) won’t have to face the judgment and the lake of fire. Although they were in disadvantage, anyone can see that God will deal justly with them. In fact, God will deal justly with everybody. Even pagans who have never known Christ can be saved. What I believe is that God chooses the best moment for every person to die. I don’t believe God judges anyone on the basis of His foreknowledge of what would be the future choices of that person, but I do believe that God uses His foreknowledge to ensure that that person will have, within the limitations of his/her circumstances, the best opportunities to respond to the Holy Spirit’s work. Even sometimes sparing his/her life because He knows he/she will accept Him in the future.

I created a new topic out of Tom's response to Rosangela's post.

Thanks.

bump for Daryl

Daryl, What does "heaven itself was imperiled" mean? Under the perspective you are suggesting, which is, I understand it, that there is only one possible future which God knows see like a T.V. rerun, how could heaven be in any danger?

Heaven was in danger in the same way that the truth about God's character was in danger and Christ's sinlessness was in danger. If Christ couldn't sin then there was no struggle, there was no battle against Satan, and His temptations were a farce.

I was hoping Daryl would answer.



I'm not seeing at all the ideas of which you are speaking, Rosangela, in what she wrote. She is talking about risk here, not ability to sin. She says "heaven itself was imperiled." This is going beyond the physical ability to sin. Was it possible for Christ to fail in His task? Could He have actually (not just physically) sinned?

In the T.V. rerun future view of things, how could it be said that heaven was in any danger whatsoever? Since God was 100% certain Christ wouldn't sin, and everything God is certain about happens just the way He knows it will, then wouldn't heaven have been in as much danger as it is now? (which is to say, none).

Again, He could have sinned, but God foreknew He would be victorious. Whenever Ellen White speaks of risk, she is obviously referring to the temptations of Christ and to the issue of the great controversy, and neither was a farce.

"The issues at stake were beyond the comprehension of men, and the temptations that assailed Christ were as much more intense and subtle than those which assail man as His character was purer and more exalted than is the character of man in his moral and physical defilement. In His conflict with the prince of darkness in this atom of a world, Christ had to meet the whole confederacy of evil, the united forces of the adversary of God and man; but at every point He met the tempter, and put him to flight. Christ was conqueror over the powers of darkness, and took the infinite risk of consenting to war with the enemy, that He might conquer him in our behalf." {ST, January 5, 1915 par. 4}

"Remember that Christ risked all; 'tempted like as we are,' he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Jesus would have yielded up his life, we may estimate the value of a soul." {GCB, December 1, 1895 par. 22}

Here is the quote again:

“God suffered him to fall under the power of Satan, the dominion of death, and hid him in the grave from those who were constantly drawing him from the truth. Moses erred as he was about to enter the Promised Land. So also, I saw that William Miller erred as he was soon to enter the heavenly Canaan, in suffering his influence to go against the truth. Others led him to this; others must account for it. But angels watch the precious dust of this servant of God, and he will come forth at the sound of the last trump.”

Why did God hide him in the grave?

In what way did he err?

Did he repent before he was laid to rest in the grave?

Again, here are the inspired quotes:

DA 22
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. {DA 22.2}

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

Do disagree that God knew ahead of time that Lucifer and mankind would sin?

If it wasn't a farce, and Christ could actually have sinned, then God must have foreknown that possibility. You've got a hopeless contradiction going here. If God foreknew that Christ would be victorious, He couldn't simultaneously foreknow that Christ could fail. Either He foreknew that Christ would be victorious, in which case Christ's probability of failure was 0, or He foreknew that Christ might fail, in which case His possibility of failure was greater than 0.

So let's ask the question this way; was Christ's possibility of failure 0, or greater than 0?

MM, from the context, it seems clear that God hid Miller in the grave so that his influence would not continue to go against the truth. He erred in "suffering his influence to go against the truth."

When he asked if he repented, I assume you mean in terms of suffering his influence to go against the truth. I don't see the sense of this question. He wasn't aware of what he was doing, was he? How could he repent of something he wasn't aware of? Why are you asking this?

MM, you didn't address my question. Here it is again:



The quotes you are presenting, to be in harmony with *all* Ellen White has written on the subject, need to be interpreted differently than what you are suggesting. The way you are suggesting contradicts her statements that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, and that heaven itself was imperiled.

Also, it doesn't fit with God's character. Why would God prefer a world of sin to a world without sin? Because of your perspective, you have no answer to this question. I do have an answer. Here's my answer.

Because of the nature of love, it is not possible to create beings who are capable of loving and being loved without their being a possibility of love being spurned. It was no more or less possible for Lucifer to sin than Gabriel. God could not have avoided the possibility of sin by simply not creating Lucifer. God had no reason to expect Lucifer to sin, because Lucifer was created perfect, just as Gabriel was.

And yet, God forenew that Lucifer would sin, just as He foreknew that Judas would betray Him.

Daryl, why do you say, "and yet"? You're simply avoiding the point of my post. I'm asking IF the future is as you are suggesting, then WHY would God have created Lucifer knowing he would (not might) sin? You can't reasonably answer a question like this with "any yet ..." A reasonable answer would begin, "This is why God preferred a world with sin over a world without sin" (then provide the answer).

You're just re-asserting the very thing I'm questioning. That's not helpful.

Also I've asked you for almost a month now how, under your view of the future, heaven could be in danger. Of particular interest to me is why you've decided not to answer my question. Surely you've noticed me asking it, since I asked you it probably a dozen times.

Do you think this is a reasonable way to carry on a dialog? When you ask me questions, I answer them. When you make points, I respond. But I cannot carry on a dialog with you, because you won't respond to my points, or answer my questions.

Again, by asking this you are concerned with the final result, while Ellen White was concerned with the threat posed to Christ. If the conflict was real, the threat was real.

That Christ foresaw His victory she says clearly:

“Ages before His incarnation, Christ distinctly chose His position. He foresaw His life of humiliation, His rejection and crucifixion, His victory over satanic agencies, His victory over death and the grave. He saw the world flooded with light and life, and heard the song of triumph sung by the millions rescued from the hold of Satan.” {1NL 41.7}

What's the answer to the question? Before the fact, say 1000 B.C., what was the probability that Christ would fail? Was it 0? Or was it greater than 0?

I can't tell from reading your post what your answer to this question is.

Tom, the quotes I posted clearly say God knew ahead of time that Lucifer and Adam and Eve would sin.

The reason why God chose to create them, in spite of the fact He knew they would sin, is also clearly stated in the quotes I posted. He knew they would sin, but it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose. That is, knowing they would sin did not stop Him from creating them.

Here is the reason given: "But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

AG 129
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {AG 129.2}

I don't think you've gotten the question. Please try to get it! I'm interested in your thoughts on it.

God did not have to create Lucifer. God not only foresaw what would happen had he created Lucifer, but foresaw what would have happened had he created a different angel in the place of Lucifer, which we can call Lucifer II. Now there were an unlimited number of possibilities for God in creating Lucifer. We'll arbitrarily say there were a trillion. Let's say that of these trillion that 5 would choose to sin, and the other 999,999,999,995 would not. Why would God choose to create a model that would sin over one that would not?

A key thing to bear in mind is that God was in no way compelled to create the Lucifer model which sinned. Since Lucifer I did not exist, God was in no way violating his free will. Lucifer II (a model which would not have sinned), had just as much "right" to exist as Lucifer I, which did sin.

The statements you quoted tell us that God was able to further His purposes in spite of sin; that is, God would not permit sin to prevent Him from carrying out His purposes. However, it does not address why God would prefer having sin in the universe over not having it.

So, in conclusion, to repeat the question, why would God choose a universe which has sin in it over one that does not?

TE: ... why would God choose a universe which has sin in it over one that does not?

MM: Your question assumes there were other options which did not involve sin and death. I disagree that such options existed. For if such options existed surely God would have pursued them. The fact He did not pursue them is evidence such options did not exist. Since God is infinitely perfect, other "options" are not viable; perfection is the only viable option. The way God did it is the only way, the only right way. All other "options" are, therefore, inferior, and as such not viable.

TE: ... why would God choose a universe which has sin in it over one that does not?

MM: Your question assumes there were other options which did not involve sin and death. I disagree that such options existed.

Unless you wish to assert that the mere creation of angels necessitated sin coming about, there was the option available to create angels in such a way that sin would not happen. Why would God choose to create angels in such a way that sin would happen as opposed to it not happening?

Or do you wish to assert that it was impossible for God to create angels without sin happening?

Surely there was an option available for God to create angels (or other creatures) in such a way that sin would not happen - it was creating them without free will.


Well, if you take as a basis God's foreknowledge, I think we could say it was 0, since God sees the end from the beginning; if you take as a basis the threat posed to Christ, I think we could say it was the maximum possible for a human being (I don't know how to calculate it).
When you ask about a concrete past event rather than a potential or theoretical event, the "probabilities" are always exactly one, or 100% (meaning that it happened) or exactly zero (meaning that it didn't). But the person asking the question usually means to ask "what were the chances of that?" — an entirely different question.
A post-hoc or posterior probability and a prior probability are two different things. God has a posterior probabability, because He sees future events as past. Take God's foreknowledge out of the picture, and you will have the real probability.
Take a look at this article and at the example given of the woman who got pregnant: http://www.jeremymiles.co.uk/learningstats/2006/07/what-is-probability.html

Rosangela and Mountain Man are both doing a good job in answering your question, therefore, I do not really have anything else to add except for the fact that God wants all of His creation, which includes Heaven itself, to be inhabited by those who have the freedom of choice. Other names for this are those who have freewill, those who are free moral agents. God doesn't want His creation to be inhabited by those who are robotic in their response to God's will. This is why, even though He foresaw the entrance of sin in one of His angels, and the entrance of sin in one of His inhabited planets, He went ahead and created Lucifer and Adam and Eve. The fact that God also foresaw the solution to sin through the Plan of Salvation through His Son, is another reason why He permitted it all to happen as it happened, even to this very day.

I hope this finally answers the questions you were requesting of me.

Tom, inferior options are not viable for a perfect God. Because God is infinitely wise and perfect the only option was the only right one. The fact He did what He did is evidence it was the only viable option available to Him. To assume there were other viable options flies in the face of God's infinite wisdom and perfection.

God created perfect beings in keeping with the one and only wise and perfect plan. The only other viable option to God was not to create FMAs. But, again, the fact God chose to create them is evidence not creating them was not truly a viable option. God did what He did because it was the only right thing to do. This includes knowing ahead of time that one-third of the angels and a majority of mankind would die in the lake of fire, and that Jesus would risk all volunteering to save us.

MM, either it was possible for God to create angels that wouldn't sin, or it wasn't. Which do you believe to be the case?

Rosangela and Mountain Man are both doing a good job in answering your question, therefore, I do not really have anything else to add except for the fact that God wants all of His creation, which includes Heaven itself, to be inhabited by those who have the freedom of choice. Other names for this are those who have freewill, those who are free moral agents. God doesn't want His creation to be inhabited by those who are robotic in their response to God's will. This is why, even though He foresaw the entrance of sin in one of His angels, and the entrance of sin in one of His inhabited planets, He went ahead and created Lucifer and Adam and Eve. The fact that God also foresaw the solution to sin through the Plan of Salvation through His Son, is another reason why He permitted it all to happen as it happened, even to this very day.

I hope this finally answers the questions you were requesting of me.

No, it doesn't answer my question. My question is how, according to the view of the future you hold, heaven could ever have been in any danger. I asked you that for almost three weeks before Rosangela suggested an answer. MM never answered this question, so you can hardly assert that they were doing a good job in answering my question.

Anyway, there's nothing in your response that deals with how it could be said that heaven was in any danger. You just pointed out that God wants His creation, which includes heaven, to be inhabited by creatures with free will. This is no doubt true, but what danger was heaven in? When Ellen White wrote that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption, what did she mean? How could heaven have been lost?

I am actually questioning the aspect of everybody being lost in the "What If Christ Failed" thread, therefore, until my question is answered there, I can't really yet answer your question here.

Surely there was an option available for God to create angels (or other creatures) in such a way that sin would not happen - it was creating them without free will.

God could not create angels capable of loving Him and of being loved without free will. Since the ability of loving and being loved is a quality of angels, this is not an available option.

Quote:
What's the answer to the question? Before the fact, say 1000 B.C., what was the probability that Christ would fail? Was it 0? Or was it greater than 0?

Well, if you take as a basis God's foreknowledge, I think we could say it was 0, since God sees the end from the beginning; if you take as a basis the threat posed to Christ, I think we could say it was the maximum possible for a human being (I don't know how to calculate it).

When you ask about a concrete past event rather than a potential or theoretical event, the "probabilities" are always exactly one, or 100% (meaning that it happened) or exactly zero (meaning that it didn't). But the person asking the question usually means to ask "what were the chances of that?" — an entirely different question.

A post-hoc or posterior probability and a prior probability are two different things. God has a posterior probability, because He sees future events as past. Take God's foreknowledge out of the picture, and you will have the real probability.
Take a look at this article and at the example given of the woman who got pregnant: http://www.jeremymiles.co.uk/learningstats/2006/07/what-is-probability.html

My question was carefully phrased. It was what was the probability before the fact (you will note that I stipulated "before the fact") that Christ would fail. The answer to this question is not dependent upon God's foreknowledge nor upon Christ's humanity. It's a question of the probability of an event occurring. It's not an after the fact question either (as it states "before the fact"). It's a simple question, like the following:

a)What's the probability that when I flip a fair coin that it will turn up heads?

or, like the following

b)What's the probability that Brazil will win the next World Cup?

These are events which have associated probabilities. In the case of a), we can say with certainty that the probability is 50%. In the case of b), we don't know what it is, but we can say with certainty that it is greater than 0.

So in the case of Christ, as of 1000 B.C., what would the answer to the question, "What is the probability that Christ will fail" have been? Would it have been a probability greater than 0, or would it have been 0?

I think, from your answer, that you would say that the "real probability" is greater than 0, but the probability from God's perspective would be 0. Is that correct?

For example, if someone asked you, "What's the probability that a fair coin will come up heads?" your answer would be: "The real probability is 50%. The probability from God's perspective is 0, or 100, depending upon whether God knows it will be heads or tails." Is that correct?

I agree with your (implied) point there, which is that there's no reason why the unfallen worlds should have been lost if Christ had not been crucified.

However, my question has to do with how heaven could be said to be in any danger, given your view of the future. Specifically, given that (from your perspective) God has known for all eternity that heaven itself would never, ever be in any danger whatsoever, why would Ellen White write that it was imperiled?

TE: MM, either it was possible for God to create angels that wouldn't sin, or it wasn't. Which do you believe to be the case?

MM: Tom, you are totally ignoring my point. Please address it. Thank you.

PS - My point is: God is infinitely wise and perfect, therefore, whatever He does is the only right thing to do. All other ways or "options" are by default wrong, and are, consequently, not viable. Your question, therefore, misses the point.

TE: However, my question has to do with how heaven could be said to be in any danger, given your view of the future. Specifically, given that (from your perspective) God has known for all eternity that heaven itself would never, ever be in any danger whatsoever, why would Ellen White write that it was imperiled?

MM: Tom, how would heaven have been imperiled if Jesus had failed to save us?

TE: MM, either it was possible for God to create angels that wouldn't sin, or it wasn't. Which do you believe to be the case?

MM: Tom, you are totally ignoring my point. Please address it. Thank you.

PS - My point is: God is infinitely wise and perfect, therefore, whatever He does is the only right thing to do. All other ways or "options" are by default wrong, and are, consequently, not viable. Your question, therefore, misses the point.

My question is a yes or no question. Either it was possible for God to create angels that wouldn't sin, or it wasn't. Please answer my question.

Regarding you point, what I notice is that you are assuming that there could only have been a single best option available to God. However, this is by no means necessarily the case. There could have been several options available, or many, which were equal in value, and God chose one of these equal options. There is no reason to assume that there was only one viable option available, or that because God chooses to do something that He couldn't have chosen to do something equally as good.

What we can assert is that there is no choice available which would have been better than the choice that God made.

TE: However, my question has to do with how heaven could be said to be in any danger, given your view of the future. Specifically, given that (from your perspective) God has known for all eternity that heaven itself would never, ever be in any danger whatsoever, why would Ellen White write that it was imperiled?

MM: Tom, how would heaven have been imperiled if Jesus had failed to save us?

I'm wanting Daryl to answer this question. I'll comment later.

Correct.

I think you're using "real probability" a bit oddly. I would say the "real probability" in the case of the risk to Christ was 0, and the "perceived probability by fallible beings" is greater than 0. But the "real" probability should correspond to reality, not to what is imagined, shouldn't it?

That is, we, because of our ignorance, would perceive that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, hence we would, in our ignorance, assign a probability of greater than 0 to that event. However God, according to His greater knowledge of the situation than we have, would assign a probability of 0. Since God's perception of reality is the truth, and ours is flawed, that "real" or "true" probability that Christ was fail, as of 1000 B.C., was 0.

To put it another way, disregarding how we would view the situation, the actual chance that Christ would fail when He would come around 1000 years later, as of 1000 B.C., was 0.

TE: My question is a yes or no question. Either it was possible for God to create angels that wouldn't sin, or it wasn't. Please answer my question.

MM: No.

TE: What we can assert is that there is no choice available which would have been better than the choice that God made.

MM: This implies there were other equally as good options available to God. But I disagree. But even if it were true it means sin and death were equally inevitable. God did not purposely avoid choosing an option that would not have included sin and death.

If Jesus had failed to save us, heaven would have been imperiled in several ways: 1) Jesus would not have been allowed to return to heaven, 2) Satan's accusations would not have been disproven, 3) the last link of sympathy in the hearts of loyal angels toward Satan would not have been eliminated, 4) the seed of rebellion would have infected the rest of God's FMAs, and 5) God would have been forced to eliminate all FMAs.

Tom, God's ability to know the future like He knows the past does not in least diminish the risk Jesus took. In the same way, just because the 144,000 know they will not die it does not diminish the risk or the threat of death they experience during the time of trouble.

TE: My question is a yes or no question. Either it was possible for God to create angels that wouldn't sin, or it wasn't. Please answer my question.

MM: No.

If it's not possible to create angels that wouldn't sin, doesn't that suggest a design flaw? Why should sin be the inevitable result of creating angels? That doesn't make any sense to me. Even if this were the case, why wouldn't God simply have refrained from creating angels, and just stick with the millions of other world, including trillions of beings that wouldn't sin?

TE: What we can assert is that there is no choice available which would have been better than the choice that God made.

MM: This implies there were other equally as good options available to God.

No, it doesn't imply this. It implies there MIGHT be other options which were as good.

But I disagree.

There's no reason to assume there weren't other options equally as good. There could have been. How would you know?

But even if it were true it means sin and death were equally inevitable. God did not purposely avoid choosing an option that would not have included sin and death.

Wow, that's like a triple negative. God did not avoid choosing an option that would not have included sin and death. That's quite a sentence.

You are asserting that God had no option which would not include sin and death. What about simply not creating Lucifer? Or not creating angels? Why should that have resulted in sin and death? (I'm expecting a circular answer to be forthcoming).

I'll ask you the same question I've been asking Rosangela. As of 1000 B.C., what was the probability that Christ would fail? Was it 0? Or greater than 0?

Wrong. What were the chances for that woman to get pregnant? 100% or less than 5%? If you say that they were 100% you are implying that something extremely easy, instead of something extremely difficult, happened.
As the author says, "If I say I have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6 on a fair die, and every time it happens, you say 'Haha, see, you were wrong, the chance was 100%', and then you ignore the 5 times in 6 that it does happen, well, I'm just not going to be your friend any more."
The threat to Christ was real - therefore the risk was real.

Tom:That is, we, because of our ignorance, would perceive that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, hence we would, in our ignorance, assign a probability of greater than 0 to that event.

Wrong. What were the chances for that woman to get pregnant? 100% or less than 5%? If you say that they were 100% you are implying that something extremely easy, instead of something extremely difficult, happened.

As the author says, "If I say I have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6 on a fair die, and every time it happens, you say 'Haha, see, you were wrong, the chance was 100%', and then you ignore the 5 times in 6 that it does happen, well, I'm just not going to be your friend any more."

The threat to Christ was real - therefore the risk was real.

You're confusing concepts here. The post hoc probability is based on a fallacy of reasoning, which has to do with confusing something which has already happened with something about to happen, and after the fact attempting to assign a probability to that event. In discussing the possibility of Christ's failure or success, we are not discussing anything after the fact, but before the fact, so the post hoc fallacy does not apply. I am not saying that because Christ did succeed He had to succeed. This would be the fallacy you are referring to.

What I am arguing is that given that everything that God knows with certain will happen, will indeed happen, if God knew Christ would succeed, then there is no chance Christ would fail.

We can apply this to the case of the woman getting pregnant. Given that God knew the woman would become pregnant, the chance is 100% that the woman would become pregnant. This is exactly what happened with the Virgin Mary, Elizabeth, and Sarah. Here we have not only cases where it was difficult for a woman to become pregnant, but impossible (apart from divine intervention). Yet the chance was 100% it would happen. One could state with certainty that these women would become pregnant.

Here's another example. Let's say there's a movie you haven't seen, but someone else has. In the movie is a game of some sort between two teams. From your perspective, there is some probability that one team or the other would win, say 50/50. However, someone who had already seen the movie could tell you 100% who would win. The chance that the other team would win is 0. You don't know this because of your ignorance. Your assignment of a 50/50 probability is based on that ignorance. The true, or real, probability was 100%.

As of 1000 B.C. there was some probability that Christ would succeed or fail in His mission. If God saw in the future that Christ would certainly succeed, and He sees the future like a T.V. rerun, then there is as much chance that Christ would fail as that the other team in the movie example I gave would win, which is to say none at all. As a person unfamiliar with the movie would not know how to properly assign the probability of an event that is really 0 or 100, so we could improperly assign probabilities to events that in reality have a probability of 0 or 100%.

In fact, given the way you perceive the future to be, every event has either a 0 or 100% probability, and God could could tell you what that probability was, for every event. For God, from your perspective, there are no events which are uncertain; something is either certain to occur, or to not occur. The concept of risk, in reference to God, from this standpoint is nonsensical. It makes no sense to say "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" under this scenario, given that God knew Christ would succeed and there was no chance Christ would fail.

Here's another way to look at it. Let's suppose that there really was a chance the Christ would fail. If that were the case, say as of 1000 B.C., then God, as of 1000 B.C., would certainly have foreseen that possibility.

When we take away the idea the future is like a T.V. rerun, consisting only of one given certainty, the logical problems here go away. We can speak of God's sending His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, because there really was a risk of failure and eternal loss, which God knew and foresaw. God foresaw the risk, but agreed to send His Son anyway, which is to God's everlasting glory.

TE: If it's not possible to create angels that wouldn't sin, doesn't that suggest a design flaw? Why should sin be the inevitable result of creating angels? That doesn't make any sense to me.

MM: No, it doesn't suggest a design flaw. The fact two-thirds of the angels choose not to sin and rebel is proof.

TE: Even if this were the case, why wouldn't God simply have refrained from creating angels, and just stick with the millions of other world, including trillions of beings that wouldn't sin?

MM: We could also ask, Why did He create humans on the same planet He banished the evil angles?

......................

TE: You are asserting that God had no option which would not include sin and death. What about simply not creating Lucifer? Or not creating angels? Why should that have resulted in sin and death? (I'm expecting a circular answer to be forthcoming).

MM: No other option could be better than the one Jesus employed, and I assume one that did not include sin and death would be better.

Zero.

Tom, I also agree with this.

Tom, God's ability to know the future like He knows the past does not in least diminish the risk Jesus took.


I'll ask you the same question I've been asking Rosangela. As of 1000 B.C., what was the probability that Christ would fail? Was it 0? Or greater than 0?

Zero.

If the probability was 0 that Christ would fail, then Ellen White was wrong when she wrote the following:



I believe Ellen White was correct.

TE: If it's not possible to create angels that wouldn't sin, doesn't that suggest a design flaw? Why should sin be the inevitable result of creating angels? That doesn't make any sense to me.

MM: No, it doesn't suggest a design flaw. The fact two-thirds of the angels choose not to sin and rebel is proof.

It's proof that your assertion that God couldn't create angels that wouldn't sin is false, right?

TE: Even if this were the case, why wouldn't God simply have refrained from creating angels, and just stick with the millions of other world, including trillions of beings that wouldn't sin?

MM: We could also ask, Why did He create humans on the same planet He banished the evil angles?

What?

......................

TE: You are asserting that God had no option which would not include sin and death. What about simply not creating Lucifer? Or not creating angels? Why should that have resulted in sin and death? (I'm expecting a circular answer to be forthcoming).

MM: No other option could be better than the one Jesus employed, and I assume one that did not include sin and death would be better.

Yup! There it is!

I simply disagree with your definition of probability. Knowing the outcome either before or after the event doesn’t change the probability index. Even if I knew beforehand that the woman mentioned in the article would get pregnant, I wouldn’t say her chance of getting pregnant was of 100%. I would say, “Her chance of getting pregnant is of less than 5%, but she will get pregnant.” All the factors will contribute for her 5% of chance to occur. In 20 months, she can get pregnant in 1, and this is the month in which she can get pregnant. 100% of chance would imply that in 20 months she can get pregnant in all of them, which is patently false. Saying that the probability was of 100% just because you know the outcome beforehand is using post hoc probability and, as you yourself said, is based on a fallacy of reasoning.
I would never say that Mary’s chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was of 100%, even if God had revealed to me in a dream that she would get pregnant. I would say that her chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was zero – that’s why what happened was a miracle.
In the same way, there was a chance for Christ to sin – that’s why there was a risk.

We can apply this to the case of the woman getting pregnant. Given that God knew the woman would become pregnant, the chance is 100% that the woman would become pregnant. This is exactly what happened with the Virgin Mary, Elizabeth, and Sarah. Here we have not only cases where it was difficult for a woman to become pregnant, but impossible (apart from divine intervention). Yet the chance was 100% it would happen. One could state with certainty that these women would become pregnant.

I simply disagree with your definition of probability.

I haven't suggested any private definition of probability. I'm sure the dictionary definition is fine.



This is fine.

Knowing the outcome either before or after the event doesn’t change the probability index.

Yes it does. If you know the outcome of an event before it happens, then the probability is either 0 or 1. The fact that you would make such a statement makes it clear that you have no understanding of probability.

Even if I knew beforehand that the woman mentioned in the article would get pregnant, I wouldn’t say her chance of getting pregnant was of 100%. I would say, “Her chance of getting pregnant is of less than 5%, but she will get pregnant.”

I'd suggest you speak to someone who understands the subject matter you're dealing with. You obviously have no background in this, and I know that you are biased against anything I would say. If you live near a university, you could speak to a math professor.

I studied for a phd in Mathematics. I have worked in the actuarial field. I have a strong background in probability and statistics. I know what I'm talking about, but I strongly doubt you would listen to me.

What you're saying here is just wrong, and anyone who understands this subject will tell you that.

All the factors will contribute for her 5% of chance to occur. In 20 months, she can get pregnant in 1, and this is the month in which she can get pregnant. 100% of chance would imply that in 20 months she can get pregnant in all of them, which is patently false. Saying that the probability was of 100% just because you know the outcome beforehand is using post hoc probability and, as you yourself said, is based on a fallacy of reasoning.

This is not what post hoc probability is about. If you know that outcome of an event beforehand, that affects the probability that you would assign to it. I can't imagine why you would think this wouldn't be the case.

I would never say that Mary’s chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was of 100%, even if God had revealed to me in a dream that she would get pregnant. I would say that her chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was zero – that’s why what happened was a miracle. In the same way, there was a chance for Christ to sin – that’s why there was a risk.

I was assuming you had more of a knowledge of probability than you do. I don't see how we can continue this conversation, until you learn something about probability.

Rosangela,

This last post has been bugging me all day. I really don't know what to do about it. I know it will come off as arrogant and negative. This is a frustrating thing about trying to converse on the internet.

I believe the points I'm making in the above post are true. No one who understands probability would make the assertion that "Knowing the outcome either before or after the event doesn’t change the probability index." The *only* way probability gets set is based on knowledge that you have about the event before it occurs. The more knowledge, the better one can set a probability.

For example, a die has six sides, a number from 1 to 6 on each side. With no more knowledge of the event than this, one would assume that the die would have a 1 in 6 chance of coming up with each given number from 1 to 6. If we knew the die were weighted, that would change the probability we would assign. If the die were weighted so that a 1 would come up 100% of the time, the probability of a 1 coming up would be 1. If we knew, before the fact, that a die would come up 1 with 100% certainty, regardless of the reason that we knew this to be the case, that knowledge would allow us to assign a probability to that event of 1.

Regarding the statement about being biased against me, I believe that is true as well. In 3 years, or whatever it has been, I can't recall a single time that you have admitted that I was right about anything. So that is pretty strong evidence of bias.

It is human nature not to want to admit error to someone with whom one is carrying on an argument. It is for this reason that I have suggested discussing the subject with someone who understands it, but towards whom you have no feelings one way or the other.

Regarding the last statement that I don't see how we can carry on this conversation until you learn something about probability, I don't like the way that sounds. I should have written it better. Or perhaps leaving it out entirely would have been better. I was pretty amazed about what you wrote. It really does demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the subject matter. However, I feel that my tone was very uncharitable, and would like to apologize for that. I still don't know how I could better have expressed what I wrote, but I could have done better than I did I'm quite sure with more effort and time. I did spend over an hour on it, but that wasn't enough. I could have waited a day, and thought it over, and come up with something better.

At any rate, I apologize for anything I wrote which comes off as offensive or abrasive or arrogant or anything like that.


Tom

Tom,

You evidently did not understand my argument. The difference is in perspective. You are concerned just with the final result, while I'm concerned with the whole process. Could you please address the following argument?



If I say that her chance of getting pregnant is 100% just because I know the outcome beforehand, I have to make clear I'm concerned just with the final result, because if I say this to someone who is concerned with the whole process, I'm implying the second set of circumstances, not the first one.

I'm sorry, but you're not stating your point precisely enough for me to comment on it. Would you please state it mathematically?

You made the comment that "knowing the outcome either before or after the event doesn’t change the probability." (you added the word "index", which is not needed). It's true that knowing the outcome after an event has occurred doesn't change the probability of what it was before the event occurred. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to speak of things in these terms. Probability is, by definition, concerned with the likelihood of an event which is to occur. So taking out the "after" part, we have:

"Knowing the outcome either before the event doesn’t change the probability."

This is incorrect. Determining the probability of an event is done by considering everything that is known about the event in question. I gave the example of a weighted die to illustrate this. If you know a certain event will occur, then the probability of that event occurring is 1. The definition of an event's having a probability of occurring of 1 means there is a 100% chance that it will happen. Conversely, if there is a 100% chance of an event occurring, it has a probability of 1. To say you know the outcome of an event is to say you know it have a probability of 1 of occurring.

Here's another example. The reason insider trading is illegal is because the trader has knowledge related to an event which is supposed to have uncertainty attached to it. This is the same idea.



The participation (or lack thereof) of a male is irrelevant. The probability of Mary's getting pregnant was exactly 1 (once she agreed; of course, God would not have forced her to become pregnant against her will).

*How* you know what the outcome of an event will be is irrelevant. *That* you know the outcome of the event is the salient point.

In this case, it wouldn’t make sense either to speak of probability in relation to something you know with 100% certainty will happen for, according to Webster, probable is something “that can reasonably but not certainly be expected.”


My argument doesn’t have to do with mathematical calculations. I’ll try to explain it more clearly with some examples.
God knows the future and revealed some facts of it to us in His Word, therefore we know beforehand that these things will happen. So, according to you, the probability of these things happening is 100%.

What was the probability of Mary getting pregnant?
For a non-Bible student – 0 (pregnancy without a male)
For a Bible student – 1, or 100%
When, instead of saying “0, but it did happen,” you say “100%,” you are just focusing on the final result – getting pregnant or not, and ignoring the difficulty involved in this.

What was the probability of Sarah getting pregnant?
For a non-Bible student – 0 (pregnancy after menopause)
For a Bible student* - 1, or 100% (*no Bible at that time, just God's oral promise)
When, instead of saying “0, but it did happen,” you say “100%,” you are just focusing on the final result – getting pregnant or not, and ignoring the difficulty involved in this.

What was the probability of Christ fulfilling just 8 of the many OT prophecies about Him?
For a non-Bible student – 0.00000000000000001 (as someone calculated it)
For a Bible student - 1, or 100%
When, instead of saying “0.00000000000000001, but it did happen,” you say “100%”, you are just focusing on the final result – fulfilling the prophecies or not, and ignoring the difficulty involved in this.

100% may be true in a sense (the final result), but it ignores the difficulties involved in the process.

Yes, as I see and understand it, the imperilment of Heaven, whatever that actually means, as Rosangela stated it, was in relation to the process not in relation to the product, or final result.

EGW spoke to us in the sense of process, rather than in the sense of the final product. When she wrote this, she wrote it after the final product, or after the fact, yet, she still wrote it that from the perspective of the process. There was risk in the process. Of course, there can't be risk in the final product, especially when the final product is known, and, as I and others have been stating, God sees the final product, but conveyed to EGW the risk in the process, which she wrote from that perspective.

Whereas, EGW wrote in the sense of the process, in which she presented the risk involved in that process, irrespective of the final result, which was again known to her at the time she wrote what she wrote, the Bible prophets wrote in the sense of the product, or the final result. In all the prophecies relating to the 1st coming of Christ, Daniel wrote in the sense of the result, rather than in the sense of the process. This is why there wasn't any risk factor stated by Daniel.

I had better stop, as I am rambling on and obviously repeating myself.

You have a number of misconceptions regarding probabilty. I think I'll start by addressing these, so at least we can have some basis for discussing things. Then we can come back and look at a few of the arguments you've made.



The definition of “probable” you’ve given has to do with its use in general speech. It’s not a mathematical definition. Here’s a mathematical definition of probability:



An event *can* have a probability of 1. There’s no problem with that.

A fundamental principle, which really needs to be understood, is that it does make sense to speak of an event having a probability of 1 of occurring, or, to state the same thing in another way, that an event is certain to occur.

The following equation explains how to calculated the probability of an event occurring.

P(A) = The Number Of Ways Event A Can Occur /The Total Number Of Possible Outcomes.

When an event is certain to occurr, the numerator will equal the denominator, and P(A) will be 1.

Finally you've written things which suggest these is a subjective element to probability. Like this:



If we're dealing with a theological question, then, of course, things are subjective. For example, you may state that when God is looking at the future, He is looking at things which, to Him, have already occurred, and I could dispute that. Or I could state that when God looks into the future, He sees not a certain thing that will happen, but all the possible things which can happen, and you may dispute that.

However, probability is a branch of mathematics, which is a hard science. The things I'm telling you about probability are not matters of opinion. They are not "my" definitions or opinions.

If I state that 5 is an integer, it is not reasonable for you to say, "I don't agree with your definition of integer." This isn't a subject which is open to debate. Integers have a precise mathematical definition, and so does probability.

Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree. “Probability provides a mathematical description of randomness. A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain. However, random phenomena often follow recognizable patterns. This long-run regularity of random phenomena can be described mathematically. The mathematical study of randomness is called probability theory.” (http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node51.html)
About the concept of posterior probability or post-hoc probability, it does exist, and is calculated by a formula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_probability


Which means we cannot use the frequentist interpretation in this area, but the Bayesian interpretation.


I’m not disagreeing with the concepts, but with the way they are being applied.

An event *can* have a probability of 1. There’s no problem with that.

Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree.

It’s not “sometimes” used; it’s always used. I provided the formula for you; P(A) = The Number Of Ways Event A Can Occur /The Total Number Of Possible Outcomes. For example, what’s the probability of a die coming up with a number between 1 and 6? It’s 1.
This isn’t a “concept” that you can disagree with. What you are asserting is something like the following “While the concept that 5 is an integer is sometimes used, I disagree.”

“Probability provides a mathematical description of randomness. A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain. However, random phenomena often follow recognizable patterns. This long-run regularity of random phenomena can be described mathematically. The mathematical study of randomness is called probability theory.” (http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node51.html)
About the concept of posterior probability or post-hoc probability, it does exist, and is calculated by a formula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_probability

We're not dealing with post hoc probability. Before trying to run, let's learn how to walk.

Quote:
If we're dealing with a theological question, then, of course, things are subjective.

Which means we cannot use the frequentist interpretation in this area, but the Bayesian interpretation.

Since we’re not dealing with post-hoc probability, Bayesian statistics isn’t applicable.

Quote:
If I state that 5 is an integer, it is not reasonable for you to say, "I don't agree with your definition of integer." This isn't a subject which is open to debate. Integers have a precise mathematical definition, and so does probability.

I’m not disagreeing with the concepts, but with the way they are applied.

Until you understand the concepts involved, you have no basis to disagree with how they are being applied. Someone with even a rudamentory understanding of probability would not assert the things you are asserting.

For example, take what you wrote above regarding whether en event can have a probability of 1. This isn’t open to debate. In the study of probability, it simply is the case that an event can have a probability of one. For example, if there are three marbles in a hat, all of them blue, and you draw a marble out of the hat, what is the probability that the marble you draw out is blue? It’s 1. That an event can have a probability of 1 is something you would learn in the very beginning of day 1 of a course in probability.

Imagine you are just starting to study English, and I tell you that “a” is the first letter of the alphabet. Suppose you say, “I disagree with your definition of ‘alphabet’”. I explain that the alphabet is not something I defined. It has a standard definition. "A" is the first letter of the alphabet. You respond that you disagree with how I am applying the concept. This is what is happening in our dialog when you assert that you disagree with the statement that an event can have a probability of 1.

I mentioned three things in my previous post to this. The first is what the definition of probability is. The second is how the probability of an event is calculated. The third is that these definitions are not open to debate. They are not based on personal interpretations of mine. If you disagree with any of these assertions, I suggest you find a math professor, who will confirm these things are true.

Once you understand and accept these principles, I can go back to certain things you have written which display a misunderstanding of the underlying concepts, (for example, your pregnancy arguments, and your assertion that knowing the outcome of an event before it happens does not affect the probability of that event occurring), but I cannot address these things meaningfully until we have a foundation to start with.

Let's try to apply this to some specific example. Say, regarding to a game of hockey, I make the assertion, "There was risk of the goaltender not getting a shutout." The final process would be a game in which the opposing team scored one or more goals. So to assert there is no risk in the final product would be to assert there is no chance the opposing team will score a goal. It is certain the goaltender will obtain a shutout.

Now let's discuss the risk in the process. What is the process? It is the game itself. To assert that there is a risk in the process is to assert that it IS possible for the opposing team to score a goal during the game. The shutout is in doubt.

You're asserting something, Daryl, which is mutually exclusive. If the process is in doubt, so is the final product.

The numbers 0 and 1 are used for theoretical purposes, but if you know without a shadow of a doubt that something will happen (or not), rigorously speaking there is not a probability, but a certainty. This is what I mean:

“The concepts of PROBABILITY and CERTAINTY are used, or implied, in all estimates and predictions. A single prediction of an outcome of an event assumes that it is CERTAIN; i.e. the prediction has a probability of 1.0. Ref: Ang and Tang.
“If two or more different predictions are made for the outcome of the same event then the probability of each should be estimated. i.e. What is the probability that each one will describe the outcome correctly.”
(http://www.unb.ca/web/transpo/mynet/mtq4.htm)


Aren’t we using post-hoc probability? Since God knows the end from the beginning, He is using post-hoc probability (from our point of view), and He is informing us the post-hoc probability beforehand.


Go ahead. Like everybody else, I’ve studied statistics and probability theory in high school, so I’m not completely ignorant in the matter.

Her comment refers to Jesus' ability to sin. It does not imply that God did not know ahead of time if Jesus fail or succeed. If that is what she had intended for us to get our of her comment she would have plainly said so. She would not have left it up to us to figure it out on our own. It doesn't work that way; especially not when God repeatedly said Jesus would succeed. Your idea that the fact God didn't express His doubts doesn't mean He didn't have them isn't supported by the facts.

That's not what I meant. There are certain things God will not do. And there are certain things that God can theoretically do, but that He will never do because it would be wrong, it wouldn't be perfect. For example, God would have never considered creating angels differently than He did, because it would have been wrong, it wouldn't have been perfect. God cannot do anything wrong or less than perfect. Therefore, He couldn't have created angels that were by design incapable of sinning.


You are asking, Why didn't God just simply choose not to create angels since He knew one-third of them would end up sinning, since there were already plenty of other FMAs that He knew were never going to choose to sin. I asked essentially the same question. Why did God choose to create humans knowing they were going to sin? Why did He create them on the same planet He banished evil angels? Why? Sister White answers it this way:

AG 129
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {AG 129.2}


Not so. You are assuming there was such an option. But the fact God did not employ it is evidence it does not exist. Otherwise, you are implying God purposely chose to ignore it, to insist on one that He knew included sin and death. Or, you are insisting He was ignorant of it until after the option He employed went south. Neither one is flattering.

R: Aren’t we using post-hoc probability? Since God knows the end from the beginning, He is using post-hoc probability (from our point of view), and He is informing us the post-hoc probability beforehand.

MM: Tom, I agree with Rosangela. All of your examples ignore the fact God knows the future like He knows the past, like a rerun. Thus, probability per se has nothing to do with it. The risk Jesus took in saving us was real. But the outcome was known and certain. None of the risk related quotes you like to post say God did not know the outcome ahead of time. That is how we can know if a prophecy is unconditional or not.

It’s not “sometimes” used; it’s always used. ... This isn’t a “concept” that you can disagree with.

Rosangela:The numbers 0 and 1 are used for theoretical purposes, but if you know without a shadow of a doubt that something will happen (or not), rigorously speaking there is not a probability, but a certainty. This is what I mean:

“The concepts of PROBABILITY and CERTAINTY are used, or implied, in all estimates and predictions. A single prediction of an outcome of an event assumes that it is CERTAIN; i.e. the prediction has a probability of 1.0. Ref: Ang and Tang.
“If two or more different predictions are made for the outcome of the same event then the probability of each should be estimated. i.e. What is the probability that each one will describe the outcome correctly.”
(http://www.unb.ca/web/transpo/mynet/mtq4.htm)

Rigourously speaking, probabilities range from 0 to 1. There is no other definition in the study of probability than this. Typical problems are stated like this: There are 5 marbles in a hat, 3 of them blue, 1 red, 1 white. If you draw two marbles, what is the probability both of them are blue? Often a probability will be 0 or 1. For example, if two marbles were drawn, one white and one read, and the question were asked, what is the probability of drawing a blue marble (the third one drawn), the answer would be 1.
That a probability can be 0 or 1 is something you would learn at the beginning of the first class in a probability course.

Quote:
Since we’re not dealing with post-hoc probability, Bayesian statistics isn’t applicable.

Aren’t we using post-hoc probability?

No! My question *specifically stated* “before the fact,” so the answer is unequivocally “no.” We are NOT dealing with post-hoc probability. I simply asked the question, “What is the probability, as of the time 1000 B.C., that Christ would fail”?

Since God knows the end from the beginning, He is using post-hoc probability (from our point of view), and He is informing us the post-hoc probability beforehand.

If this were true, why wouldn’t He have said that He sent His Son at the certainty of success rather than at the risk of failure and eternal loss? Post-hoc, the probability of success would be 1.

Quote:
Once you understand and accept these principles, I can go back to certain things you have written which display a misunderstanding of the underlying concepts, (for example, your pregnancy arguments, and your assertion that knowing the outcome of an event before it happens does not affect the probability of that event occurring), but I cannot address these things meaningfully until we have a foundation to start with.

Rosangela:Go ahead. Like everybody else, I’ve studied statistics and probability theory in high school, so I’m not completely ignorant in the matter.

That’s not a subject studied in High Schools here in the states. So they teach that in Brazilian High Schools? That’s interesting.

If you’ve studied the subject, I do not understand why you are asserting certain things you are asserting. For example:

1) When I wrote, “An event *can* have a probability of 1. There’s no problem with that.” You responded, “Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree.”
2) Knowing the outcome before the event doesn’t change the probability.

No one with even a cursory understanding of probability would assert these things.

R: Aren’t we using post-hoc probability? Since God knows the end from the beginning, He is using post-hoc probability (from our point of view), and He is informing us the post-hoc probability beforehand.

MM: Tom, I agree with Rosangela. All of your examples ignore the fact God knows the future like He knows the past, like a rerun. Thus, probability per se has nothing to do with it.

My question was just a simple probability question. Like, what's the odds that a coin to be flipped will be heads. Could you answer a question like this? Or would you point out that this question ignores the fact that God knows the future like He knows the past?

The risk Jesus took in saving us was real. But the outcome was known and certain.

Black is white. Black is black.

None of the risk related quotes you like to post say God did not know the outcome ahead of time.

Not without an understanding of logic.

That is how we can know if a prophecy is unconditional or not.

What is?

Her comment refers to Jesus' ability to sin.

No, it doesn’t! When Waggoner argued that Christ could not sin because He had perfect faith, Ellen White corrected him. Waggoner was not arguing that because of Christ’s perfect faith, He did not have the physical ability to sin. That wouldn’t make any sense. He argued that it wasn’t possible for Christ to sin.

No one doubts Christ had the physical ability to sin. This was never an issue. You don’t correct an issue that doesn’t exist.

It does not imply that God did not know ahead of time if Jesus fail or succeed.

If God knew with 100% certainty that Christ would succeed, then it could not be said that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. I discussed this with a couple of friends of mine who aren’t Adventists, and they saw this right away. Really, it’s obvious. I think only having a preconceived idea about how God sees things would enable one not to see this.

If that is what she had intended for us to get our of her comment she would have plainly said so.

That’s not true. There are many things that one can infer that she didn’t plainly say. We can reason things that she didn’t say from things she did.

She would not have left it up to us to figure it out on our own. It doesn't work that way;

Sure it does! We have brains. God doesn’t have to spoon feed us everything. There are many things God leaves us to reason out. He *wants* us to reason things out. There are many EGW statements which bring this out.

especially not when God repeatedly said Jesus would succeed. Your idea that the fact God didn't express His doubts doesn't mean He didn't have them isn't supported by the facts.

What idea? I never said anything about God’s not expressing doubts not meaning He didn’t have them.

TE: If it's not possible to create angels that wouldn't sin, doesn't that suggest a design flaw? Why should sin be the inevitable result of creating angels? That doesn't make any sense to me.

MM: No, it doesn't suggest a design flaw. The fact two-thirds of the angels choose not to sin and rebel is proof.

It's proof that your assertion that God couldn't create angels that wouldn't sin is false, right?

That's not what I meant. There are certain things God will not do. And there are certain things that God can theoretically do, but that He will never do because it would be wrong, it wouldn't be perfect. For example, God would have never considered creating angels differently than He did, because it would have been wrong, it wouldn't have been perfect. God cannot do anything wrong or less than perfect. Therefore, He couldn't have created angels that were by design incapable of sinning.
So God was not capable of creating angels that wouldn’t sin, right? That’s what you are asserting.
Quote:
TE: Even if this were the case, why wouldn't God simply have refrained from creating angels, and just stick with the millions of other world, including trillions of beings that wouldn't sin?

MM: We could also ask, Why did He create humans on the same planet He banished the evil angles?

What?

You are asking, Why didn't God just simply choose not to create angels since He knew one-third of them would end up sinning, since there were already plenty of other FMAs that He knew were never going to choose to sin.
He could have chosen not to create the angels that would sin. He could have gone ahead and created the ones that wouldn’t. Actually simply not creating Lucifer would have been enough.
I asked essentially the same question. Why did God choose to create humans knowing they were going to sin?
He didn’t.
Why did He create them on the same planet He banished evil angels? Why? Sister White answers it this way:
She is not saying that it was certain that man would sin. Instead of cherry picking quotes, you should consider all she wrote on a subject. For example, she likened the plan of redemption, set into effect, for man to be like a wound that has the ability of being healed before the would even happens. She never took the fatalistic position that sin was inevitable, either for men or angels. If you look at “The Origin of Evil” in “The Great Controversy,” you can see this.

AG 129
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {AG 129.2}
Quote:
TE: You are asserting that God had no option which would not include sin and death. What about simply not creating Lucifer? Or not creating angels? Why should that have resulted in sin and death? (I'm expecting a circular answer to be forthcoming).

MM: No other option could be better than the one Jesus employed, and I assume one that did not include sin and death would be better.

Yup! There it is!

Not so. You are assuming there was such an option. But the fact God did not employ it is evidence it does not exist.

This is just as circular as the other.

Here’s what your doing. You are asserting “God did A.” I ask you why God didn’t to B instead of A, since B would have led to a better result. Your response is that this would not have led to a better result because if it would have, then God would have done that. That’s just arguing in a circle. You could defend any assertion with this lack of reasoning.

Otherwise, you are implying God purposely chose to ignore it, to insist on one that He knew included sin and death. Or, you are insisting He was ignorant of it until after the option He employed went south. Neither one is flattering.

The unflattering result comes from *your* assumptions. Certainly it was an option for God not create Lucifer. Why didn’t He do this? Since God knew Lucifer would sin, according to your view of things, God must have preferred that sin come about than that it not. This is just simple logic.

This thread is not about flipping coins, Tom. Why do you keep citing examples that have nothing to do with the thread? It serves no purpose.


Again, Tom, this thread has nothing to do with the colors black or white.


But your logic, so far, ignores or rejects the fact God knows the future like He knows the past, like a rerun.


When God tells us the future based on the fact He knows the future like He knows the past, like rerun.

Tom,

What you are really saying is that God could have avoided sin and rebellion by not creating Lucifer, therefore, by creating Lucifer, you are saying that God planned for sin and rebellion through Lucifer, and consequently, by creating Adam and Eve, whom God also knew would sin, you are also saying that God planned for sin and rebellion on this planet????

Notice that I am asking the above in the form of a question in an attempt to understand whether or not this is what you are saying.

Daryl, it was Sister White who wrote:

DA 22
The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}

AG 129
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {AG 129.2}

Tom, you’ll have to substantiate this way of reading her comment, because I’m not seeing it. The way it reads in 5BC 1128, 1129 the burden of her message is: “Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption.” “Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances.”


Did you also explain to your non-Adventist friends that nowhere in the Bible does God admit He only revealed what He hoped would happen, that the inspired record does not reflect God doubting the outcome?


Exactly. Based on the fact 1) she never once said God doubted the outcome, and that 2) everything she wrote about it reflects God knew Jesus would succeed - we have positive proof that He knew Jesus would succeed.


I’m not talking about “everything” else or something God has purposely left vague or unclear. I’m talking about what God has plainly told us, namely, that He knew Jesus would succeed.


Elsewhere you wrote, “God can see every possibility, including what would happen if Jesus succeeded. This is the only possibility we need to know about.” Here is the context:


When I asked, "Why is it that He never once expressed doubt or uncertainty about it?" You answered, "Why would He?" Your answer, coupled with your first answer (i.e., The possibility that Jesus would succeed "is the only possibility we need to know about") implies that God did indeed doubt it, but that He simply chose not to reveal it.

“Not capable” is misleading. It would be more accurate to say, God created angels “capable of appreciating the wisdom and benevolence of His character and the justice of His requirements, and with full liberty to yield or to withhold obedience.” Making them any other way was not an option.


Such an option was, obviously, not viable. Why? Because otherwise God would have done it that way. The fact He chose to do it the way He did is positive proof it was the only right way. God doesn’t make mistakes.


Here is how Sister White put it:

DA 22
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. {DA 22.2}

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

Nothing about these quotes, or anything else she wrote, implies God did not know ahead of time if mankind would obey or sin. The SOP “risk” quotes were never intended to mean such a thing. You are trying to force them to mean something they do not address. Your conclusions are unnatural, and unbiblical. Again, nowhere in the Bible is such an idea advocated or intimated, and it is clear the SOP never contradicts the Bible.


Tom, there is nothing circular about it. The fact is, “B” would not have “led to a better [or equal] result”. There was no such option. Why? Because God would have employed it instead. Again, this isn’t based on circular reasoning. It is based on a knowledge of God’s love and character. You seem to be implying that there was a “better” option available to God, but that He chose not employ it. This idea implicates God.


“Certainly it was an option for God not create Lucifer.” Please post an inspired statement that supports your assertion. Since you and I both know that no such statement exists, it is clear you cannot back it up with anything other than your home spun logic, which doesn’t cut it on MSDAOL. The fact God did things the way He did clearly implies it was the one and only right way to do it. Why? Because God is infinitely wise and perfect. He does not make mistakes.

“Since God knew Lucifer would sin, according to your view of things, God must have preferred that sin come about than that it not. This is just simple logic.” Perhaps too simple, as in, lacking sound logic. Consider the following observations:

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

The words “but” and “yet” and “for” in this quote clearly mean God knew ahead of time that man would sin. They cannot mean the opposite. It would make no sense. And yet in spite of knowing it in advance, God chose to go through it. Why? The answer is short and sweet – “…for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness.”

Again, this is for theoretical purposes. A probability of 0 or 1 doesn’t need to be estimated. It is a certainty.


We ARE, and this is the whole point of our discussion. The fact that God knew that Jesus wouldn’t sin is post-hoc probability. You are saying that the prior probability is 1 because we know the final result (the post-hoc probability), and you are saying I’m wrong when I affirm that the post-hoc probability (even if known beforehand) doesn’t affect the prior probability.
Anyway, I had not suggested we had to use the Bayesian interpretation because we were using post-hoc probability, but because I’m not sure that in the case of Christ we are dealing with events (since frequentists attribute probabilities only to events).


Because Ellen White was speaking of the prior probability, which reflects not the final result, but the process and the difficulties involved in it.
Let’s suppose the United States wins the next World Cup. After we know the final result (the post-hoc probability), this doesn't affect the fact that the probability of the United States winning the World Cup was of just 0.01 (this is just an arbitrary number), which reflects the difficulties involved in the process and the situation of the US team in relation to the other teams.

TE: If this were true, why wouldn’t He have said that He sent His Son at the certainty of success rather than at the risk of failure and eternal loss?

MM: He did! Dozens of times throughout the OT and the NT God repeatedly described in minute detail precisely how Jesus would succeed.

That a probability can be 0 or 1 is something you would learn at the beginning of the first class in a probability course.

Again, this is for theoretical purposes. A probability of 0 or 1 doesn’t need to be estimated. It is a certainty.

You seem to be confusing statistics with probability. The type of questions I’ve been providing are probability questions. Like the probability of drawing a marble from a hat. If there are three marbles in a hat, all of them blue, the probability of drawing a blue marble is 1. These sorts of problems are very common. There’s no need for estimating. That’s a statistical function.

Quote:
We are NOT dealing with post-hoc probability.

We ARE, and this is the whole point of our discussion.

No, we’re not. My question was, what was the probability before the fact, as of 1000 B.C., that Christ would fail. This is not an after the fact probability question.

The fact that God knew that Jesus wouldn’t sin is post-hoc probability.

No, it’s not. Post-hoc is after the fact, not before the fact.

You are saying that the prior probability is 1 because we know the final result (the post-hoc probability), and you are saying I’m wrong when I affirm that the post-hoc probability (even if known beforehand) doesn’t affect the prior probability.

No, this isn’t what I’m saying. If you know the outcome of an event before it happens, there is some reason for that. For example, perhaps you know that the top card of a deck of cards is the Ace of Spades, so the probability of that card being dealt first is 1, not 1 in 52. Or perhaps you know that a die will come up 1 before it happens, based on the angle of the die, and the way it’s rolled, and so forth. These underlying realities allow the probability to be accurately determined, before the event has occurred. These underlying realities exist independent of one’s foreknowledge. To judge these respective probabilities as 1 in 52, or 1 in 6, is based on ignorance of the facts.

Anyway, I had not suggested we had to use the Bayesian interpretation because we were using post-hoc probability, but because I’m not sure that in the case of Christ we are dealing with events (since frequentists attribute probabilities only to events).

The event is that Christ would pass through life without failing. The word “event” is a mathematical term.

Quote:
If this were true, why wouldn’t He have said that He sent His Son at the certainty of success rather than at the risk of failure and eternal loss? Post-hoc, the probability of success would be 1.

Because Ellen White was speaking of the prior probability, which reflects not the final result, but the process and the difficulties involved in it.
Let’s suppose the United States wins the next World Cup. After we know the final result (the post-hoc probability), this doesn't affect the fact that the probability of the United States winning the World Cup was of just 0.01 (this is just an arbitrary number), which reflects the difficulties involved in the process and the situation of the US team in relation to the other teams.

If the process has risk, then the final result has risk. Similarly, if there is no risk in the final result, there is no risk in the process.

For example, if one speaks of the risk that a goaltender will give up a goal, if there is no risk of a goal being scored during the game (the process), then there is no risk in the final result. Conversely, if one can assert that the final result would end up with a goal being scored by the other team, then there was no risk in the game itself that a goal would be scored.

TE: If this were true, why wouldn’t He have said that He sent His Son at the certainty of success rather than at the risk of failure and eternal loss?

MM: He did! Dozens of times throughout the OT and the NT God repeatedly described in minute detail precisely how Jesus would succeed.

It's ironic that one who uses Ellen White so much would be so quick to set her aside in favor of Scripture when she doesn't serve the desired purpose. Usually you just cite here, and it's "end of story."

Tom, just because I see it differently than you do it does not mean I am setting aside the SOP. That is an unfair characterization.

Tom, you’ll have to substantiate this way of reading her comment, because I’m not seeing it. The way it reads in 5BC 1128, 1129 the burden of her message is: “Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption.” “Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances.”


Did you also explain to your non-Adventist friends that nowhere in the Bible does God admit He only revealed what He hoped would happen, that the inspired record does not reflect God doubting the outcome?


Exactly. Based on the fact 1) she never once said God doubted the outcome, and that 2) everything she wrote about it reflects God knew Jesus would succeed - we have positive proof that He knew Jesus would succeed.


I’m not talking about “everything” else or something God has purposely left vague or unclear. I’m talking about what God has plainly told us, namely, that He knew Jesus would succeed.


Elsewhere you wrote, “God can see every possibility, including what would happen if Jesus succeeded. This is the only possibility we need to know about.” Here is the context:


When I asked, "Why is it that He never once expressed doubt or uncertainty about it?" You answered, "Why would He?" Your answer, coupled with your first answer (i.e., The possibility that Jesus would succeed "is the only possibility we need to know about") implies that God did indeed doubt it, but that He simply chose not to reveal it.

According to the view I am defending yes, it would be post-hoc, since God sees future events as past.


The problem is trying to apply probability, which is a human concept, to spiritual truths. If the prior probability of something happening is 0 (like, for instance, in the case of pregnancy without a masculine cell), there is no formula I know of in the probability theory which could give 100% chance of the event happening, even if you know the outcome beforehand.


This can be very tricky. You have to distinguish between the risks involved in the process (the process itself may be risky) and the risk involved in the outcome. Living is dangerous. Provided that you don’t live in the last generation, what is the risk that you will die? 100%. And what is the risk in relation to the outcome? 0.
If you know the outcome beforehand, this means that there is no risk that the final result will change (since you already know it), but this does not prevent the process from being risky.
In the case of Christ, what was the risk involved in the process? Facing all the threats posed to Him. What was the risk involved in the final result? None, because God foresaw that He would overcome all the threats.

Speaking of the temptations, it is interesting to note that Ellen White speaks of Christ as “capable of yielding to temptations”, and she speaks about “the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations.” Webster says that “liable implies exposure or susceptibility to something undesirable.” Christ was susceptible to temptations and capable of yielding to them, like all other human beings.

“Our Lord's trial and test and proving shows that He could yield to these temptations, else the battle was all a farce. ... As God, Christ could not be tempted any more than He was not tempted from His allegiance in heaven. But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. A human body, a human mind, with all the peculiar properties, He was bone, brain, and muscle. A man of our flesh, He was compassed with the weakness of humanity. The circumstances of His life were of that character that He was exposed to all the inconveniences that belong to men, not in wealth, not in ease, but in poverty and want and humiliation. ... Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. ... But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. ... To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.” {16MR 181, 182}

Tom, did you overlook this post?

Quote:
R:The fact that God knew that Jesus wouldn’t sin is post-hoc probability.

T: No, it’s not. Post-hoc is after the fact, not before the fact.

According to the view I am defending yes, it would be post-hoc, since God sees future events as past.

That doesn’t matter in regards to my question. I just asked, what is the probability Christ would fail before the fact? By your logic, if I asked the question, what is the probability of a fair coin coming up heads, you would respond that this is a post-hoc probability problem, since God sees future events as past. In fact, there would be no such thing as a probability problem which isn’t post-hoc.
Again, my question was simply, as of 1000 B.C., before the fact, what was the probability that Christ would fail? Not post-hoc. Just like a coin flip question.

Quote:
If you know the outcome of an event before it happens, there is some reason for that.

The problem is trying to apply probability, which is a human concept, to spiritual truths.

The same thing could be said about logic. Logic is a human concept. But this is besides the point. We were discussing probability on its own terms, and you made several statements which are incorrect. Before getting to some of the more involved ones, I was trying to establish a foundation on which they could be discussed. Without a foundation, such as that an event can have a probability of between 0 and 1 of occurring, and an understanding of how probabilities are calculated, there’s no way I can even go through the pregnancy examples you gave.
The statement that if you know the outcome and event before it happens, doesn’t affect a probability of an event, is simply wrong. Probabilities are always set according to the knowledge that you have of the event. For example, if you know that the Ace of Spades is the top card of a deck of cards, you can assert that the next card dealt will be the Ace of Spades with probability 1. If you don’t have this knowledge, the probability is 1/52. One’s knowledge of an event affects the probability, and affects risk. It is because of this fact that insider trading is illegal.

If the prior probability of something happening is 0 (like, for instance, in the case of pregnancy without a masculine cell), there is no formula I know of in the probability theory which could give 100% chance of the event happening, even if you know the outcome beforehand.

Before I can discuss this with you intelligently, we need to have an agreement as to some basic things, which I lined out in a previous post. There were three that I mentioned. One is the definition of probability, two was how the probability of an event is calculated, and three is that these things are not private opinions that I hold. I am not presenting “my understanding” of probability, or “my interpretation” or “my definition.”

Quote:
If the process has risk, then the final result has risk. Similarly, if there is no risk in the final result, there is no risk in the process.

This can be very tricky. You have to distinguish between the risks involved in the process (the process itself may be risky) and the risk involved in the outcome.

I don’t believe you are analyzing this correctly. Apply this to the sports idea I gave. If there is risk of a shutout in the game, there is risk in the final result. Conversely, if the final result has no risk of shutout, there is no chance a goal could be scored during the game.

Pick any example you want, which has an event which can be clearly quantified, and you’ll see that what I asserted is correct. If the process has risk, so does the final result. If the final result has no risk, then neither did the process. Since the process determines the final result, there is no way to disconnect these. To assert risk in one, is to assert risk in the other.

Living is dangerous. Provided that you don’t live in the last generation, what is the risk that you will die? 100%.

If your name doesn’t start with “E”.

And what is the risk in relation to the outcome? 0.
If you know the outcome beforehand, this means that there is no risk that the final result will change (since you already know it), but this does not prevent the process from being risky.

Please take no offense, but this doesn’t make any sense. Apply this to some specific example. For example, what is the “risk” of drawing 5 aces in a normal deck of cards? It is 0. This is equivalent to asserting that there is no event which can result in a fifth Ace being dealt. Since there is no risk in the process (there is no “a fifth Ace is dealt” event), there is no risk in the final outcome (you can’t be dealt 5 aces from a fifth deck).

You are asserting that there is risk in the process (there is an “a fifth Ace is dealt” event), but not in the final result (you can be dealt 5 Aces). This isn’t logically consistent. If there is the risky event in the process, then the final result will exhibit that risk.

To translate this to Christ, if there is risk in the process, then there exists an event such that Christ fails. We’ll call this E. E is the event “Christ fails”. The final process is P, which is “Christ has failed.” If E exists, then so does P. You can’t logically assert that E exists, but P does not (which is what you are asserting), because E results in P.

In the case of Christ, what was the risk involved in the process? Facing all the threats posed to Him. What was the risk involved in the final result? None, because God foresaw that He would overcome all the threats.

This argument applies just as much to the process as to the final result. If you can assert there is no risk to the final process (No “P” as defined previously), then you can equally assert, by exactly the same logic, that there is no “E”. In other words, there is no risk in the process, because God foresaw that there was no “Christ fails” event.

Speaking of the temptations, it is interesting to note that Ellen White speaks of Christ as “capable of yielding to temptations”, and she speaks about “the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations.” Webster says that “liable implies exposure or susceptibility to something undesirable.” Christ was susceptible to temptations and capable of yielding to them, like all other human beings.

Or, to put it more simply, Christ was tempted in all points as we are.

“Our Lord's trial and test and proving shows that He could yield to these temptations, else the battle was all a farce. ... As God, Christ could not be tempted any more than He was not tempted from His allegiance in heaven. But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. A human body, a human mind, with all the peculiar properties, He was bone, brain, and muscle. A man of our flesh, He was compassed with the weakness of humanity. The circumstances of His life were of that character that He was exposed to all the inconveniences that belong to men, not in wealth, not in ease, but in poverty and want and humiliation. ... Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. ... But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. ... To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.” {16MR 181, 182}

My comment was not based on how you see things, but on what you are doing. I've never taken the tack you are taking. You prefer using the Spirit of Prophecy to discuss issues, so I have discussed things according to your preference. When things have been presented with which you disagree, you say that words mean something different than they normally mean, and ask, "Where in Scripture does it say such and such?"

When you use the Spirit of Prophecy to quote something, you do so with the understanding that it is authoritative, and ends the discussion, proving the point. But when I do the same, you ask for more demonstration, something from Scripture.

What Ellen White writes is so clear, why do you need more? You accept her as an authoritative source. Your actions ring hollow. They would ring hollow even if you agreed with me.

It's that you disagree with me that I take issue with, but your means of proceeding with a discussion.

MM, this argument is completely circular. You make a circular argument, and then assert that it's not. You're asserting that it isn't doesn't make is any less circular.

God had to options, A and B. In option A, Lucifer is created, and sin results. In option B, Lucifer is not created, and sin does not result. I am asking you why God preferred option A to B. The implication is that God preferred a world with sin to one without sin. Why?

This is my question.

You, so far, have refused to even try to answer the question, instead you are saying that B wasn't an option, because if it were, then God would have done it. You have argued that A is better, because God chose it. This is circular!

Let's make the assumption that A and B are of equal value as options. That way God is not constrained to choose an inferior option, but to choose among equal options. Why would God create Lucifer, knowing He would sin, rather than refrain from doing so, and have a universe without sin?

Do you remember why you asked that?
You had said (post # 88056):



To which I replied:

“Again, He could have sinned, but God foreknew He would be victorious. Whenever Ellen White speaks of risk, she is obviously referring to the temptations of Christ and to the issue of the great controversy, and neither was a farce.”

To which you replied:



To which I replied:

“Again, by asking this you are concerned with the final result, while Ellen White was concerned with the threat posed to Christ. If the conflict was real, the threat was real.”

To which you replied:



So, before we proceed, we must make clear what we are going to discuss. Is it God’s foreknowledge, or what? Should we put God in the picture or take Him out of the picture? If you begin to discuss something, then change the focus of the discussion, we will simply be talking past each other.
What I said was that God was 100% certain that Christ wouldn't sin because He saw the event happen, which is post-hoc probability. But this doesn’t affect the prior probability. Is there something wrong in this reasoning?


No. What she is saying is that Christ was capable of being tempted, capable of sinning, liable or susceptible to temptation and sin, which of course suggests physical, mental and spiritual capability.

MM: Tom, there is nothing circular about it. The fact is, “B” would not have “led to a better [or equal] result”. There was no such option. Why? Because God would have employed it instead. Again, this isn’t based on circular reasoning. It is based on a knowledge of God’s love and character. You seem to be implying that there was a “better” option available to God, but that He chose not employ it. This idea implicates God.

TE: MM, this argument is completely circular. You make a circular argument, and then assert that it's not. You're asserting that it isn't doesn't make is any less circular.

MM: It would be circular except for the fact we’re talking about God, not humans who are imperfect.

TE: God had to options, A and B. In option A, Lucifer is created, and sin results. In option B, Lucifer is not created, and sin does not result. I am asking you why God preferred option A to B.

MM: Says who? Please post an inspired statement that supports your assumption. Where does it say, If God had chosen not to create Lucifer sin would not have arisen?

TE: The implication is that God preferred a world with sin to one without sin. Why? This is my question.

MM: Your question assumes too much to be a legitimate question. Again, please post an inspired statement to support your premise, your assumption. To answer your question is to entertain an illegitimate, unsubstantiated premise, an uninspired assumption.

To answer your question, though, I prefer to believe the truth about God: He did not prefer a world with sin over one without it. With this truth as a starting point, I am now prepared to explore why God chose to create Lucifer in spite of the fact He knew ahead of time that he would end up sinning and dying and influencing millions to do the same. The only inspired insight I have found so far that addresses the question is the following one:

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

TE: You, so far, have refused to even try to answer the question, instead you are saying that B wasn't an option, because if it were, then God would have done it. You have argued that A is better, because God chose it. This is circular!

MM: Knowing what I know about God, about how wise and perfect He is, about how kind and loving He is, I have no reason to believe He purposely chose not to go with an option that was “better” than the one He chose. There is nothing circular about that. I know God went with the one and only right way. Even if there were other legitimate options, as you assert, I know in my heart that God chose the best one.

1. Do you agree that of all the “options” that God chose to implement the best one?

2. Do really believe He did what He did not knowing if FMAs would sin or obey?

Please address these questions with your answers, not with why you think I am wrong or illogical or whatever. Thank you.

TE: Let's make the assumption that A and B are of equal value as options. That way God is not constrained to choose an inferior option, but to choose among equal options. Why would God create Lucifer, knowing He would sin, rather than refrain from doing so, and have a universe without sin?

MM: Again, what makes you think sin would not have arisen if God had chosen not to create Lucifer? This assumption requires too much speculation to entertain. However, I believe God’s options were two: 1) To create FMAs and deal with the sin problem, or 2) Not to create FMAs and not deal with the sin problem. Now, why did God chose to go with option number 1? Was it because He “preferred” a world with sin over one without it? The question is basically blasphemous, right! I believe the answer Sister White gave makes sense: “For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness.” Can you think of a better answer?

MM: Tom, there is nothing circular about it. The fact is, “B” would not have “led to a better [or equal] result”. There was no such option. Why? Because God would have employed it instead. Again, this isn’t based on circular reasoning. It is based on a knowledge of God’s love and character. You seem to be implying that there was a “better” option available to God, but that He chose not employ it. This idea implicates God.

TE: MM, this argument is completely circular. You make a circular argument, and then assert that it's not. You're asserting that it isn't doesn't make is any less circular.

MM: It would be circular except for the fact we’re talking about God, not humans who are imperfect.

What makes an argument circular is not dependent upon the subject being discussed, but upon the person making the argument. You can, and have, made a circular argument involving God just as well as one involving any other subject.

TE: God had two options, A and B. In option A, Lucifer is created, and sin results. In option B, Lucifer is not created, and sin does not result. I am asking you why God preferred option A to B.

MM: Says who?

Please post an inspired statement that supports your assumption. Where does it say, If God had chosen not to create Lucifer sin would not have arisen?

It doesn’t matter for the argument. Just assume God didn’t create any angels who would have sinned, and answer the question.

TE: The implication is that God preferred a world with sin to one without sin. Why? This is my question.

MM: Your question assumes too much to be a legitimate question. Again, please post an inspired statement to support your premise, your assumption. To answer your question is to entertain an illegitimate, unsubstantiated premise, an uninspired assumption.

To answer your question, though, I prefer to believe the truth about God: He did not prefer a world with sin over one without it.

Then why didn’t He simply choose not to create beings that would sin?

With this truth as a starting point, I am now prepared to explore why God chose to create Lucifer in spite of the fact He knew ahead of time that he would end up sinning and dying and influencing millions to do the same. The only inspired insight I have found so far that addresses the question is the following one:

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

This doesn’t answer the question as to why God preferred to create a being that would sin over not doing so. Was God dependent upon sin in order to carry out His eternal purpose?

TE: You, so far, have refused to even try to answer the question, instead you are saying that B wasn't an option, because if it were, then God would have done it. You have argued that A is better, because God chose it. This is circular!

MM: Knowing what I know about God, about how wise and perfect He is, about how kind and loving He is, I have no reason to believe He purposely chose not to go with an option that was “better” than the one He chose. There is nothing circular about that.

I didn’t say there was a better option. I’m using your assumptions here, regarding how reality is. I am asking why God would prefer to create Lucifer, knowing he was destined to sin.

I know God went with the one and only right way. Even if there were other legitimate options, as you assert, I know in my heart that God chose the best one.

Of course, God chose the best one. I am not arguing that God made a poor choice, but that you have assumptions which are not consistent with the choice that God make. I’m arguing that your assumptions are wrong, not God’s choice. You are being circular in maintaining your assumptions, and defending them, by stating that God must, by definition, have made the right choice. Therefore your assumptions are correct. This is how you are reasoning. This is what is circular.

1. Do you agree that of all the “options” that God chose to implement the best one?

I would assert there were no better options available.

2. Do really believe He did what He did not knowing if FMAs would sin or obey?

God never created any being knowing, or intending, or planning, or expecting that they would sin. The chapter “The Origin of Evil” speaks to this, in “The Great Controversy”. God created millions of worlds that never sinned. There is no reason why this one should have. There is no reason Lucifer should have. It wasn’t necessary. It wasn’t inevitable. That it happened is a mystery.

Please address these questions with your answers, not with why you think I am wrong or illogical or whatever. Thank you.

TE: Let's make the assumption that A and B are of equal value as options. That way God is not constrained to choose an inferior option, but to choose among equal options. Why would God create Lucifer, knowing He would sin, rather than refrain from doing so, and have a universe without sin?

MM: Again, what makes you think sin would not have arisen if God had chosen not to create Lucifer?

Again, it doesn’t matter to the question. Just stipulate that God had chosen not to create any angels that would sin.

This assumption requires too much speculation to entertain.

No, it doesn’t. It’s an entirely reasonable question that millions have asked for centuries. There’s even a term, “theodicy,” which deals with answers to this question.

However, I believe God’s options were two: 1) To create FMAs and deal with the sin problem, or 2) Not to create FMAs and not deal with the sin problem.

There’s a third option. Create FMA’s that wouldn’t sin. Then there would be no sin problem to deal with.

Now, why did God chose to go with option number 1? Was it because He “preferred” a world with sin over one without it? The question is basically blasphemous, right! I believe the answer Sister White gave makes sense: “For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness.” Can you think of a better answer?

Yes, I can give a better answer than what you are giving.

Tom,

Did you overlook my post (just above Mike's)?

So, before we proceed, we must make clear what we are going to discuss. Is it God’s foreknowledge, or what? Should we put God in the picture or take Him out of the picture?

Leave God out of the picture. Was the probability that Christ would fail, as of 1000 B.C. greater than 0? Or 0?

If you begin to discuss something, then change the focus of the discussion, we will simply be talking past each other.

What you are saying has logical problems. I'm trying to get you to see this. I'm proceeding on a point by point basis. We need to get agreement on some fundamental points. So we'll start with the above question, leaving God out of the question.

One other point I've been trying to make, and I need to know if you understand it, is that knowing the outcome of an event before it happens *does* impact the probability of the event. Do you understand this? If not, we should discuss this.

What I said was that God was 100% certain that Christ wouldn't sin because He saw the event happen, which is post-hoc probability. But this doesn’t affect the prior probability. Is there something wrong in this reasoning?

Yes. Foreknowledge is not post-hoc. Before the fact is not the same as after the fact. The future is fundamentally different from the past. The past cannot change. It is determined. The future is not determined (unless you wish to postulate this, in which case we could discuss it). It is the fact that the past is determined that makes post hoc probability what it is. Basically seeing an event that will happen is not the same as looking back at an event that already happened. The difference is not in the seeing of the event, but in the fact of the event itself having happened or not. But this is a bit of a different subject, which we could come back to if desired.

Quote:
Or, to put it more simply, Christ was tempted in all points as we are.

No. What she is saying is that Christ was capable of being tempted, capable of sinning, liable or susceptible to temptation and sin, which of course suggests physical, mental and spiritual capability.

He wasn't just capable of being tempted in all points as we are, but He actually was tempted in all points as we are. She makes that point (as does Paul, the reason he gives for why we can go to Him as our high priest with our problems). We can overcome our temptations because Christ overcame those same temptations. That’s a very common theme in her writings. This seems like it should be on another thread.

Leaving God out of the picture, of course the probability was greater than 0.


Yes, if you are concerned with the final result; but this *doesn’t* change the prior probability, which has to do with the process and with the group to which the individual belongs. Let’s see an example.

What is the prior probability of a woman having quadruplets? 1 in 704,969, that is, 0.0014. Suppose that that woman undergoes an ultrasound exam, and the ultrasound exam shows that she is pregnant of quadruplets. I understand that now you would have to calculate the posterior probability, which is a revised probability that takes into account new available information. To calculate it, you would have to use Bayes’ theorem, which would not give you 100% probability.

But, for practical purposes, let’s say that her chance of having quadruplets is now 100%, having in view this new information. This posterior probability in no way invalidates the prior probability, which shows the difficulty involved in the process – that is, in 704,969 women this particular woman was the only one to have quadruplets. The prior probability is always true. It’s the prior probability that characterizes the event as unusual or exceptional. For instance, in the case of pregnancy after menopause or pregnancy without a masculine cell, the prior probability is 0. If, because of your faith you consider the word of God as a relevant factor for your posterior probability (and that’s the reason why I thought the Bayesian interpretation should be used), this in no way changes the prior probability, which shows that these were extraordinary events.


I disagree. If God saw the future, it will not change, just like the past (which, however, is different from cannot change). But we have already discussed this, and there’s no need to start it all over again.


Therefore there was a real threat, a real danger, a real peril, a real risk.

Before you ask, let's discuss a bit this subject of risk. When we are speaking about the foreknowledge of God, of course there is no risk that what God foresaw won't happen. This has nothing to do with the process being risky or not.

Let's take the example of the woman who is pregnant of quadruplets. Let's say God foresees that she will give birth to four children, all of them alive. Is there any risk that this result will change? None whatsoever. But the process itself - pregnancy of quadruplets - is risky. Thus, all the children will be born with low weight, are liable to have sequelas, and may even die just after birth.

So, let it be clear that God's foreknowledge has to do with no risk that the result will change, not with the fact that the process is or is not risky.

Leave God out of the picture. Was the probability that Christ would fail, as of 1000 B.C. greater than 0? Or 0?

Leaving God out of the picture, of course the probability was greater than 0.

Why "of course"? There are many who disagree with this (the idea that Christ could have failed).

What does is mean to assert that the probability was greater than 0 that Christ would fail?

Quote:
One other point I've been trying to make, and I need to know if you understand it, is that knowing the outcome of an event before it happens *does* impact the probability of the event.

Yes, if you are concerned with the final result; but this *doesn’t* change the prior probability, which has to do with the process and with the group to which the individual belongs. Let’s see an example.

What is the prior probability of a woman having quadruplets? 1 in 704,969, that is, 0.0014. Suppose that that woman undergoes an ultrasound exam, and the ultrasound exam shows that she is pregnant of quadruplets. I understand that now you would have to calculate the posterior probability, which is a revised probability that takes into account new available information. To calculate it, you would have to use Bayes’ theorem, which would not give you 100% probability.

Bayes theorem has nothing to do with this. It’s much simpler than this. Before you knew anything about the woman’s condition, the probability was 1 in 704,969. After seeing she was pregnant with quadruplets, the probability was 1. It just like the question, what is the probability that a card dealt will be an Ace of Space? It is 1 in 52. But if you know that the Ace of Spades in on the top, then it’s one. If someone were to tell you that an Ace were on the top, but not which one, it would be 1 in 4. One’s knowledge of the outcome of an event affects the probability.

But, for practical purposes, let’s say that her chance of having quadruplets is now 100%, having in view this new information. This posterior probability in no way invalidates the prior probability, which shows the difficulty involved in the process – that is, in 704,969 women this particular woman was the only one to have quadruplets. The prior probability is always true. It’s the prior probability that characterizes the event as unusual or exceptional. For instance, in the case of pregnancy after menopause or pregnancy without a masculine cell, the prior probability is 0. If, because of your faith you consider the word of God as a relevant factor for your posterior probability (and that’s the reason why I thought the Bayesian interpretation should be used), this in no way changes the prior probability, which shows that these were extraordinary events.

Bayes has nothing to do with this. The prior probability is based on knowledge that one has of an event before the fact. If you have more knowledge, that changes the probability. If you know with certainty that an event will occur, the probability is 1.
Here’s a Bayes type question. Say there are two rooms of babies. One room (Room #1) has a baby that is a quadruplet, and three which aren’t, and the other (Room #2) has 2 quadruplets and 2 not. You go into a room at random and pick a baby at random. The baby you pick is a qradruplet. What are the chances that the baby came from Room #1?

Quote:
Foreknowledge is not post-hoc. Before the fact is not the same as after the fact. The future is fundamentally different from the past. The past cannot change. It is determined. The future is not determined (unless you wish to postulate this, in which case we could discuss it).

I disagree. If God saw the future, it will not change, just like the past (which, however, is different from cannot change).

If the future will not change, then it is determined, or fixed. This happens before we make any decisions. That means we do not have the ability to choose from multiple choices, because you stated “it will not change.” We only have the *perception* of being able to choose from different options, but not the ability. We have a “free” will which based on ignorance, not on reality.
Another simple way of putting this is that if the future, our future, will not change (which is the case before we come into existence and have made any choices), then the future is determined before we made any decision to determine it. Hence we are not self-determining creatures.

But we have already discussed this, and there’s no need to start it all over again.

It’s never been discussed very carefully. There are logical contradictions involved.

Quote:
He wasn't just capable of being tempted in all points as we are, but He actually was tempted in all points as we are.

Therefore there was a real threat, a real danger, a real peril, a real risk.

Only if He could, in reality, have fallen into temptation, and failed. However, God good knew with 100% certainty that He would not fail, and the future cannot change, then it was not possibility for Christ to actually fail. It’s like if I watch a movie with two teams playing, and offer to bet you which team will win. I “risk” a dollar, but there isn’t any risk involved, because I have seen the movie and know the result.

It cannot be said that “God sent His Son at the risk of failure” if God saw the movie where Christ succeeded. There’s no more risk for God in this instance than there is for my risk of the dollar in the movie I saw.

Here is a formal argument to demonstrate that what you are asserting is false (which is that the final result is certain, yet there is risk attached to the process).

Definition 1. Let B be the final result, that Christ would fail to overcome every temptation. To assert that there is no risk to the final result is to assert that P(B) = 0.

Assertion 1. There is no risk in the final result that Christ would fail to overcome every tempation.

Definition 2. To assert there is risk in the process means that there is some event A such that P(A) > 0, where A represents some failure in the process.

Let B be the event “Christ failed to overcome every temptation in His life.” Let A be the event “Christ failed to overcome _____” where ______ is any specific temptation, say the temptation in the wilderness, where Christ was tempted by Satan. Let us arbitrarily assign this event a probability of x. Can x be > 0?

Let’s assume it is. If x > 0, then P(B) > 0. This contradicts Assertion 1. Therefore, there is no event A such that P(A) > 0. From Definition 2, it follows that there is no risk in the process.

The prior probability is 1:704,969 and the posterior probability is 1 (theoretically; it should be calculated by Bayes’ theorem, taking into consideration also the accuracy of the exam). Did the posterior probability invalidate the prior probability? No. She is the only one among 704,969 women to have quadruplets.

See, for instance, a discussion about the probability of AIDS, and AIDS tests here: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/techInterview/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=2471


No, a fixed future is a future which cannot change – which is different from will not change. We’ve already discussed this and reached no agreement.


It was discussed in detail and we reached no agreement. It’s useless to discuss it again.


Betting is based exactly on the risk involved in the final result. There are no bets about results that are certain.


There must be something wrong in this reasoning. If P(B) = 1, there is no risk to the final result either.

Bayes theorem has nothing to do with this. It’s much simpler than this. Before you knew anything about the woman’s condition, the probability was 1 in 704,969. After seeing she was pregnant with quadruplets, the probability was 1.

The prior probability is 1:704,969 and the posterior probability is 1 (theoretically; it should be calculated by Bayes’ theorem, taking into consideration also the accuracy of the exam). Did the posterior probability invalidate the prior probability? No. She is the only one among 704,969 women to have quadruplets.

I gave you an example involving Bayes which involves quadruplets. What you are talking about above has nothing to do with Bayes.

See, for instance, a discussion about the probability of AIDS, and AIDS tests here: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/techInterview/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=2471

Quote:
If the future will not change, then it is determined, or fixed.

No, a fixed future is a future which cannot change – which is different from will not change. We’ve already discussed this and reached no agreement.

This is just semantical. “Will not” can be used in place of “cannot.” It doesn’t change anything. A fixed future is a future which does not change.

Quote:
It’s like if I watch a movie with two teams playing, and offer to bet you which team will win. I “risk” a dollar, but there isn’t any risk involved, because I have seen the movie and know the result.

Betting is based exactly on the risk involved in the final result. There are no bets about results that are certain.

Because there is no risk. Which is my point. If God's looking at the final result of Christ’s first coming was like watching a movie, there was no risk.

Quote:
Here is a formal argument to demonstrate that what you are asserting is false (which is that the final result is certain, yet there is risk attached to the process).
Definition 1. Let B be the final result, that Christ would fail to overcome every temptation.
To assert that there is no risk to the final result is to assert that P(B) = 0.

There must be something wrong in this reasoning. If P(B) = 1, there is no risk to the final result either.

There’s nothing wrong with the reasoning. How is your assertion here in any way pertinent to the argument? Also, I’m not sure if you’re clear about this, but to assert that P(B) = 1 is to assert that it is certain that Christ would fail.

In the link I provided, a question (from the book Game Theory At Work by James D. Miller) is proposed: You have just taken an AIDS test. You know a lot about how AIDS is transmitted, and, thankfully, you are almost certain that you don’t have the disease. Anything is possible, however, and you estimate that there is a 1/100,000 chance that you have AIDS. The test is 99 percent accurate. You get back your test results, and they are positive. How concerned should you be?

The reply of the author is: Your chance of actually having AIDS after getting the positive test results are only about 1/1,000. This result seems very paradoxical since the test is 99 percent accurate. After getting your tests results, however, you have two pieces of information: the test results and your initial belief that you almost certainly didn’t have AIDS. You don’t lose the second piece of information just because of the positive test results; rather the test results should be used to update your beliefs. These two pieces of information need to be combined. When you (sort of) average the 1/100,000 chance of having AIDS with the 99 percent chance of not having AIDS, you get an approximate 1/1,000 chance of having the disease.

The prevalence of AIDS among the low-risk population is the prior probability and the test results constitute the conditional probability. Both are combined through Bayes’ theorem, which gives the posterior probability. Someone shows the calculations in the last post of the page whose link I provided. But frequentists don’t have the concepts of prior and posterior probability. Perhaps that’s why you are having a problem with these concepts.


It does have implications because of the aspects involved in this. You had said: “If the future will not change, then it is determined, or fixed. This happens before we make any decisions. That means we do not have the ability to choose from multiple choices.”
The future is not determined before we make any decisions. It is determined after we have made the decisions, since God foresees them. The prophecy was made that one of the disciples would betray Christ. The fact is that Judas could have chosen otherwise, but God knew He wouldn’t do it.


That’s the point. If God had foreseen that Christ would fail, you would agree that there was risk attached to the process. Yet there would be no risk in relation to the final result. Like in the example I gave previously. If you aren’t living in the last generation and isn’t Enoch or Elijah, the probability that you will die is 1. I think you consider that dying is a risk. But what is the risk in relation to the final result? None.