Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW?

This is from another discussion:


Could you please provide examples of this?


The passage says:

Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and doubt, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {EW 149.2}

I don’t think this shows that the plan of salvation was established after the fall of man. What I see here is that (1) it was communicated to the angels after the fall of men, and (2) the moment of its implementation was a very difficult one, particularly for the Father.

I agree with Rosangela.

Here is a short and succinct answer only in regards to the Plan of Salvation (EW 149.2). (I’ll post some of the others later). Key, indicative words highlighted:


All of this are not expression of an eternally thought of and established/settled plan. But current, conception, debative plannings and implementation.

I discuss this also on my blog. See e.g., this comment.

And why the great Divine reluctance, if it was known as a fact, and that from eternity, that this plan would ‘surely most triumphantly succeed’??

NJK,

Making a decision and carrying it out are two different things - even for God. When man sinned God had to reiterate the decision He had made in eternity. The same is true about the cross.

The awful moment had come--that moment which was to decide the destiny of the world. The fate of humanity trembled in the balance. Christ might even now refuse to drink the cup apportioned to guilty man. It was not yet too late. He might wipe the bloody sweat from His brow, and leave man to perish in his iniquity. He might say, Let the transgressor receive the penalty of his sin, and I will go back to My Father. Will the Son of God drink the bitter cup of humiliation and agony? Will the innocent suffer the consequences of the curse of sin, to save the guilty? The words fall tremblingly from the pale lips of Jesus, "O My Father, if this cup may not pass away from Me, except I drink it, Thy will be done." Three times has He uttered that prayer. Three times has humanity shrunk from the last, crowning sacrifice. But now the history of the human race comes up before the world's Redeemer. He sees that the transgressors of the law, if left to themselves, must perish. He sees the helplessness of man. He sees the power of sin. The woes and lamentations of a doomed world rise before Him. He beholds its impending fate, and His decision is made. He will save man at any cost to Himself. He accepts His baptism of blood, that through Him perishing millions may gain everlasting life. He has left the courts of heaven, where all is purity, happiness, and glory, to save the one lost sheep, the one world that has fallen by transgression. And He will not turn from His mission. He will become the propitiation of a race that has willed to sin (DA 692, 693).

NJK, do we know why Jesus pleaded with the Father three times? What were they discussing? I am convinced beyond doubt the Father and Son were both equally determined to save and redeem the human race. The Son wasn't more determined than the Father. And neither were they considering allowing A&E to die.

Roseangela and Mountain Man, perhaps we should first deal with this episode before moving on to others. However do see Alden Thompson, Inspiration, pp. 290-295ff (Review and Herald Publishing).

Roseangela, I think we need to deal with the immediate text itself here. What happened ca. 4000 years later with the incarnate Christ is not actually definitive, if even indicative of what had transpire in Heaven. From the plain read of EW 149, God and Christ ‘made the decision’ to save man at that point: “a way of escape had been made” and that decision was “carry out” 4000 years later at the Cross, as you cited from DA. Notwithstanding, I validl do see however that in both cases of, to decide and then to carry out this Plan of Redemption, there were a similar amount of ‘agitation’, “perplexity” ‘troubling doubt’, hesitancy reluctancy, etc, three times to decide, etc. So if indicative of any thing, that may be similar to what had reversedly occurred in Heaven where both sides greatly pondered this decision, with the Father then acting as Christ did in Gethsemane. (See in my response to Mountain Man below for more on this.)

Of course Mountain Man, we don’t know exactly why Jesus was pleaded with the Father and why He made three appearance to do this pleading but it can be logically inferred.

First of all. I have the foundational exegetical approach that God does not “play act”. So I believe that all that was being done here was candid and genuine. That personally utilized approach has been repeatedly attested as valid in my scholarly studies over now 13 years as it has served to unlock and obtain many Biblical specificity and truths that even much more “experienced” even formally educated, Bible scholars, had just settled for ambivalent conclusions. (This approach also applies to most statements made in the Bible when the context does not suggest that some form of scheming or “hypocrisy” is being used. (The historico-political full meaning of what was being warned about in Ezra 4:16 comes to mind where that foundational approach revealed that if Judah did indeed rebel, that warning, as resultingly properly translated, would indeed fully come true as stated by these Samaritans.) All this to say that I do not see God or Christ acting “hypocritically here.

I quote your elsewhere quoted SOP statements in confirmation of this foundational approach:





I also this being fully applicable to especially such direct, “I was shown” types of SOP accounts/statements.

Secondly, in EW 151.3 EGW relates that the angel said:



Continuing to keep thing real here, that insight combined with the first part of EW 149.2:



shows that it was Jesus who, out of now “sympathy and sorrow ” initiated this meeting and “ offered to give His life a ransom” for Man (EW 149.2). The logical and “sequitur” sequence in the full phrase: “He told them that (1) He had been pleading with His Father, and (2) had offered to give His life a ransom,” straightforwardly indicates that the pleading was directly related with this offering up of His life. It also even suggests that the pleading first occurred and then the offer. So it apparently was that Jesus first went to the Father and “pleaded” that man be forgiven and when/as that was shown to be impossible “he offered” up His life to meet the element that was making this impossible or even as an outrightly, just conjured up substitute solution/alternative. It could instead have said ‘Jesus had offered His life and then pleaded for the Father to accept. SO the Father may, at that initial solution outrightly and categorically said no, even dismissing Jesus or Jesus leaving having been convinced that the risk was too great. Then Jesus either thought of a better way to do this and/or meet all of the Will of God for this, or simply even take up the pleading again, and return a second time, and then a third time to plead this. By that third time, it is clear that all the “kinks/hitches” in this plan had been ironed/worked out and satisfactorily resolved both for the priorly, opposite of: “calm” (without losing self-possession; make steady; steadiness of mind under stress) ‘agitated’ (= exert oneself continuously, vigorously, or obtrusively to gain an end or engage in a crusade for a certain cause or person; be an advocate for; move or cause to move back and forth; move very slightly); “perplexed” (full of difficulty or confusion or bewilderment; be a mystery; made more complicated) “troubled”(1SP 45.1) (move deeply; to cause inconvenience or discomfort to; disturb in mind or make uneasy or cause to be worried or alarmed; characterized by or indicative of distress or affliction or danger or need; characterized by unrest or disorder or insubordination)/‘doubt-ful’ (the state of being unsure of something; consider unlikely; lack confidence in). Christ, no doubt candidly correspondingly/mirroringly expressive of the Father’s emotions then. “He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made (vs. the “no way” a short time before) for lost man.”

(Also, are the expressed emotions of ‘agitation’, “perplexity”, ‘troubling doubt’, distinctly indicative, at the very least of, the outcome and emotions involved in each of the three conversing with the Father??! Perhaps, in such a “distinct sense.)

Again, like the episodes with Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7) and Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17), the direct revelation from God, and when understood, trump any personal, even Theological assumptions that a prophet can make. And it is self-manifest that EGW did not fully grasp the meaning here, indeed just like she continued to eat meats, and even unclean meats, long after her 1863 health reform vision yet the direct revelation of God, also capable of being found in the written revelation of the Bible had always said otherwise.

Exactly. If God and/or Jesus knew the future as "already played out", then it can only be concluded these three times was an act, a pretending, a farce.

However, I don't agree completely with your pleading part.

Joh 16:26 "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you;
27 "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God.

Pleading could mean something more than God is wanting to kill us, but Jesus steps in and convinces Him of something different. Pleading could mean pleading together as a cohesive unit for a solution to pardon man.

I also agree the Godhead does not play act for the benefit of uninformed FMAs. However, they do sometimes role play. For example, Jesus isn't literally the Son of the Father. But they use such terms for our benefit.

I also agree the Son didn't plead 3 times with the Father to persuade Him not to "let guilty man perish" as if the Father was less inclined, determined to save and redeem mankind. I believe the Father was torn between His love for Jesus and His love for mankind. He loved them equally and could not bear the thought of losing either one. This does not, however, imply neither the Father nor the Son knew with certainty the outcome. That is, they both knew with absolute certainty Jesus would most surely succeed on the cross.

Is that to "role play" so that we can feel he made an effort or hard decision? Because, if they both knew with absolute certainty, then neither could be torn nor at risk for failure. But you did say "most surely" as if there were some doubt.?

Also from what I Theologically know and understand on this topic I rather say: ‘if the even actually existed.’ God’s plan of the future is what a computerized 3D simulation model is to the actual construction when it will be built.

I actually did not want to involve this Theological issue here as I do not see it as crucial to the understanding here. This direct SOP revelation is enough. Indeed I only see that this only speaks against the classical view of foreknowledge and that vision is what actually sealed the understandings that I was getting from the Bible about the Foreplanning view.



I did not say, nor mean, that ‘God wanted to kill us.’ He, knowing of the great risk here, without any certainty of success, much more preferred to let man die than risk Christ. Just think of the great risk in needing a sinless life as also 100% man living 4000 years after the Fall. Indeed, as it transpired in history, how many people believed in Christ at the Cross. Barely a handful and apparently on John from his own disciples. God knew here that the faith based method that were shown in Christ incarnate life and ministry would be indispensably necessary for this atonement to be acceptable. As the angel said God’s weighed choices were “whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His beloved Son to die for him.” (EW 153.1)



I think EGW would have expressed that distinct notion. E.g., ‘and they were pleading together to accomplish this...’ No need to “plead” in such a common endeavor as there would be not opposition. If they both wanted to do this would would, especially in that enclosed seclusion be telling them otherwise.

Indeed the word “plead” also has its pointed, one sided meanings of: ‘appeal or request earnestly; Offer as an excuse or as a humble request for help from someone in authority; an answer (by the accused party) indicating why a legal matter should be dismissed. [In this case Christ was pleading why the sin of man should be given this opportunity to be atoned for.

Also the statement by the angel asking: “Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? The word “yield” pointedly means: “end resistance, as under pressure or force; give over; surrender or relinquish to the physical control of another; give in, as to influence or pressure; move in order to make room for someone for something; cause to happen or be responsible for (by giving in); be willing to concede; be (fatally) overwhelmed; be flexible under stress of physical force; cease opposition; stop fighting; consent reluctantly.. These are all notions of even two equal sides having one side give in to the other. So that all unequivocally says to me that there were two opposing, and equally matched, views here. That is then seen with Jesus twice leaving and then returning to continue to “plead.” Seems to me that God was showing Jesus how incredibly risky this was going to be and momentarily convincing him.

Furthermore, as stated in the SOP, there was an eternal cost whether successful or not to this plan:

Maybe they are indeed not “acting”, nor “role playing” anything. That is, Jesus in now His physical incarnate form became a Son of God by becoming a Son of Man. Humans are also called Son of God, even unfallen ones. So by that tangible position that He took Jesus also became just like a Son of God, at least in material form.

Also show me in the Bible/SOP where Jesus, before his incarnation is called the “Son of God” (of course outside of prophecies) In the OT, I see that He is called Michael and “the Angel of the Lord”.



As explained above to kland, I do not see, especially the words, “yield” and “plead” to be two sided with Jesus’ offer being opposed by God.



That is Theo-logically and logically self contradictory. I don’t see Biblical support for the Future-knowledge certainty assumption/belief. (It’s telling to me that you only state maxims and truism and not Scripture for your view.)

The (as I understand from an 8 B.C. birth) 38 years of Jesus’s Life before the Cross were also a great risk.

I do not believe the Father and Son were role playing when they met three times to discuss implementing the plan of salvation, the redemption of mankind. Knowing the outcome does not in the least lessen or eliminate the emotional and physical stress. As I assisted my wife with the birth of our 3 children, knowing the pain they were experiencing would eventually end did not in the least lessen their pain or my emotional stress.

NJK, we do not see eye to eye as it relates to God's knowledge of the future.

It seem that you are implicitly contradicting you previous views, Mountain Man, without any explanation! I.e.:



When in this SOP vision were they ‘role playing’ then, as implied by that comment made here?

It also is comical to me, as repeatedly and patently done before in my various discussions, that whenever someone argument is countered and defeated with a Biblical response, the default reaction is vexatiously indifferent silence!?? (cf. e.g., Matt 22:46; Luke 20:26 - especially considering that it was you al who started this thread to question/challenge my view here!? Or should I just assume Luke 20:39, 40). Yet ‘a dense forest is still being seen and claimed’?!?

Given that the “innate and most passionate” wrath/anger of God for sin had to be inflicted on Christ in this Sacrifice, but as that God Himself revealed:



It is clear to me that the suffering that God would have to inflict on Jesus was not the issue, since He was ‘(passionately) pleased/delighted’ to do it. Using your example, that would be as self-contradictory and irrational as you expressing to your wife and your friends that you are pleased/delighted to make your wife suffer in her delivery and indeed doing so. As the Bible also says: ‘God does not need to ‘put on a disguise [#08132], (=in order to ‘put on an act’)’’. (Mal 3:6) I.e., especially in such a “planning” application, He says what He (always) means, and meant, for that Wise (Prophetic) Plan.

In your Classical Foreknowledge view, to say here that ‘He was/will be pleased/delighted’ which He always knew He would be makes it’s a hypocritical lie to say/express/play act at anytime in the past that ‘He was not pleased/delighted in this.

Perhaps Jesus, when made aware of these necessary detailed became e.g., ‘troubled’. By this process of Biblical elimination, it then seems to me that it was instead the great risk involved leading up to, and through the cross that was the issue at hand. (Cf. my blog post on this).

This is actually not a matter of seeing ‘eye to eye’. I have yet to see any Scriptural and Direct SOP Revelations support for your view, but indeed simply “maxims and (supposed) truisms”. Your view most logically, outrightly and innately stands against what you are claiming for this SOP Direct Revelation.

The passage doesn't merely indicate that the implementation was very difficult, but points out that the decision itself had not been made. This is clear by a couple of things.

First of all, the angel points out the decision was a struggle. It could only have been a struggle if God was seriously considering an alternative, indicating that His mind hadn't been made up about it.

Secondly, the way the scene is itself related makes this clear. Jesus Christ went in three times to see the Father, at first His (Christ's) countenance showing distress and agitation. After the third time, His countenance changed. This indicates that something had happened to cause His countenance to change, and the thing that happened was that the Father decided to go through with the plan.

I disagree.

Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.


No, it was a struggle because, although the decision had already been made, it could have been reversed.

I've seen what happens when someone tries to discuss opposing views with you. You are convinced beyond doubt you are right. You are also convinced beyond doubt I am wrong. I see no value in continuing this discussion with you.

I find it hard to believe that you, of all people, would even entertain the idea that Jesus was more determined to save and redeem mankind than was the Father. Don't you think the Father and the Son were equally determined to save and redeem mankind? How would the GC have played out if the loyal angels believed the Father argued against implementing the plan of salvation? Satan would have had a heyday with it.

Ohhh... keep the blame yourself Mountain Man. Do you not recall what happen in another discussion when I first believed that the resurrected saints or Christ could not have remained on earth for forty day. I strongly believed I was right until conclusive SOP evidence, harmonizable with the Bible was brought forth. You just need to likewise to the same here. So don’t try to blame me if you can’t/won’t and just prefer to expressed your philosophical opinions.

And for ascertaining reasons, and just for the transparent record, what other conversation are your referring to??

An exegetically clarifying point here. The word translated here as “before” (Gr. pro #4253), is syntactically understood to also have the “spatial” meaning of at in this genitive case. (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, 379). So it would thus have the general (prior) meaning of : ‘(priorly, even) at the foundation of the world’. Thus from the time when the plan of salvation was implemented.

Perhaps Paul did not know exactly when that establishment took place, thus the general “at” sense. And that understanding was directly, prophetically specified in e.g., Rev 13:8 which specifies that ‘the Lamb was typologically slain “away from” (Gr. “apo”) the foundation of the world.’ I.e., from the time that Adam and Eve sinned and a typifying Lamb had to be sacrificed. (Cf. Rev 17:8 which also uses the same “apo” preposition to speak of the book of life which includes the names of all those who have been inscribed in it having chosen God’s Salvation going back to that time when it was first implemented. (No Lamb’s Book of Life needed for this Planet before the Fall of Man.)*

Indeed if the Lamb’s Book of Life only became a reality after the Fall, how could Christian be chosen in Chirst (i.e., by God having established Christ as an Atonement) before the Fall, and thus the need for a Sacrificial Lamb, had occurred!

So with all of these applicable internal Biblical specification, it can be concluded that the syntactical rendering of the (genitive case) “pro” in Eph 1:4 should be according to its possible, general, “Spatial” sense.

This syntactical choice, as I have seen many be, is confirmed by what was straightforwardly shown to have transpired in Heaven in this direct revelation in the SOP. I.e., “no way of escape had been made before the Fall of Man.”

It is also significant that EGW speaks of the plan of Redemption after the Fall. Why, as it would chronologically be due, not before if it had been established long before. And furthermore when she does relate it here, it is with all of these expression of ‘agitation, perplexity, troubling-doubt, reluctance, unyeilding, struggle, among the other points raised above depicting this uncertainty and/or refusals to permit.)

*(The extent of the names in that book in the end time context in Rev 17:8 is to include anyone to whom it can be applicable. So e.g., it does not say, any not written there in the past 50 years, as a 60 year old person would be exempt from that judgement. Revelation’s Babylon is indeed the ultimate opposing entity to God on Earth. That is why it was derived from Satan emulating, (probably directly inspired in order to have an earthly power to completely defeat God’s Israel) actions of real king of Babylon (Isa 13:1ff, 14:12-14; 15ff). Satan probably saw by now that if he wanted to oppose God, he needed such a powerful kingdom such as Babylon, that he probably noticed that God was favorably working with for prophetic intents (cf. Dan 2), to innate hate God. So he here sought to inspire it to think that it was above the God of Heaven, or at least plant that seed in them. Indeed Babylon, unlike the Medo-Persian Empire, had a most religious intolerant stance. Even e.g., renaming captured people according to their gods. Medo-Persia let peoples under them freely worship their own Gods, as would also the Greek and the Romans.)

In a way, Tom, so do I, given that in our other discussion you say that Christ fully revealed the Father’s Character. I too would like to hear your beliefs here.

I see that God did love* the world however, He just did not see then that the chances of failure were worth the risk. So in the end, Jesus talked Him into yielding and only by having a love for the world was that even possible to occur. One cannot be convinced without threats to do something which they hate, even if there is much risk involved. Love for Jesus, seeing how this greatly saddened Him probably also served to win Him out.

*By the way, pertinent to this discussion. John 3:16 does not, as commonly rendered ‘“Soooo (much)” Loved the world...’, but “so” as in the sense of: “in this similar way” (Gr. Adverb houto #3779) and this all is making a retrospective comparison to what God had done in the wilderness with the Salvific snake of Moses (John 3:14, 15).

The fact that it is also that: “Jesus was communing with His Father” {EW 149.2} implies to me, its definition of: “Communicate intimately with; be in a state of heightened, intimate receptivity” that: (a) this conversation was indeed of a first, non-previously discussed, instance and (b) that it was Jesus who was having to come “in tune” with the Father’s concern here (e.g., a person communing with nature), though Jesus was ‘yielded to’ in the end. It instead could have been said that ‘The Father and Jesus were communing with each other’. That ‘Jesus’ receptivity’ notion here is corroborated by the related three attempts before the Father’s mercy-filled ‘yielding’ occurred.

And the non-related reciprocal communing, though the Father did yield to Jesus, further indicates to me that it was indeed entirely an act of undeserved mercy towards fallen man. The Father really did not have to yield His position, indeed by Himself seeming to have become receptive, while He manifestly simply okayed Jesus’ request. Indeed it was not said that the Father had summoned Jesus to discuss this, as it should have been if that mercy option was His deemed best choice, but that Jesus went to the Father to discuss this.

Pleading 'three' times cannot be compared to birthing 'three' children, which I hope you weren't trying to say. Experiencing emotional stress knowing the full outcome would not require pleading three times. How could pleading three times not be considered role playing if they knew full well how it would turn out. And why would it be a 'struggle'? While there might be stress, if knowing how it would turn out, it wouldn't be a struggle.

Interesting thought: If God did know the future as already played out, then wouldn't He also know that He would agree, then therefore would not need three times and surely it not be a 'struggle'? Or was He unable to change the three times of pleading since it had, already played out?

Yes, I do recall you changing your mind about the forty days. Thank you for reminding me. I had in mind your discussions with Tom on this thread. I believe the following passages provide inspired support for the view I've been advocating:

Of the Godhead, Jesus said, "The Lord our God is one Lord." "They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one." {8T 269.4} It is difficult to imagine the Father and Son having opposing views regarding implementing the plan of salvation. It is also difficult to imagine the Son initially having better or more complete ideas and insights about it than the Father.

God's knowledge of the future includes the part He played. But such knowledge does not alter what He does as things play out. Knowing the outcome does not lessen the emotional stress.

Great!! Notwithstanding the extra stress and effort on my part to have to defend myself.



You need to point this out because I do not see that I have had any sharp discussions/disagreements with Tom on “this thread”.


Let’s exegetically see!



As I see it EGW bases that entire view and exposition on Rom 16:25, and manifestly not on any direct revelation, I have examined that verse and found that the word “eternal” in the R.V. is a mistranslation. The Greek word is chronos which means: “a period of time.” The word translated “eternal” is the Greek “aionios” and is in the plural form. However, as SDA know, as the same plural form of that word occurs in e.g., Jon 2:6 where Jonah says: “The earth with its bars was around me forever” when it was only 3 days, shows that it does not necessarily have to mean “eternity” or “eternal ages”

So indeed, that “period of time” does not have to be “eternity”, but it can, and indeed is, as I understand it, the different periods of time in the Old Testament when God, through the implementation of the Plan of Salvation with the Sacrifices of Lambs and other Animals, was typify the Gospel. That was all made more concrete during the period of time of the Covenant with Israel.

As also part of typical Gospels of Christ, Paul Gospel included the free admittance of Gentiles into God’s Israel, which Christ had revealed to him (e.g., Acts 9:15), and which Christ had also slightly hinted at during His ministry until the full time for its implementation came (cf. Acts 1:8) and in the OT, though repeatedly also hinted at (e.g., Isa 56:6) and could be done under strict probationary limitations (i.e., the joining of Gentiles to Israel), was for the most part a “hidden/veiled truth” (= “mystery”).

Paul’s Gospel also included the complete non-observance, or in some parts, optional observance of OT ceremonial law and feasts. This was a source of sharp conflict with Him and even Jewish Christians. Indeed I do not see that early Jewish Christians ceased from observing feasts such as Passover.

So it was to all of these Gospel truths that had been veiled/hidden during various times periods in the past, even before the time of the Old Covenant with Israel, that constituted Paul’s ‘(various) ancient time periods’. So it was not the to an ‘eternal past times, and that solely for the establishment of the Plan of Salvation’ as EGW assumed/understood, and went on to make her additional claims.

Also, as it was shown earlier, EGW has the wrong (‘so much”) understanding of the “so in John 3:16 vs. the exgetically actual: ‘in like manner’, i.e., ‘just as a Serpent had been raised in the desert.’ (John 3:14, 15)



The bold quote above is from Acts 15:18 KJV/NKJV. However only these tow version have that statement. So it may be a manuscript addition. At best it is saying “from long ago” which does not necessarily mean “eternity.” That Acts 15;17 passage is quoting Isa 45:21 which is not saying ‘from eternity’, nor ‘from the beginning’ or ‘before the beginning of the world.’

Also EGW wrongly reads Isa 46:9 as “knows” vs. the actual word “declare”.

As she uses these to make her “therefore” conclusion, it can transparently be seen that her inaccurate exegesis led her to make a wrong conclusion here.

So as none of her Biblical references were based on (unequivocally) accurate Biblical understanding (including PP 63.3 which was similarly based on an inaccurate understanding of Rev 13:8), and were manifestly the basis for her non-direct, but “supposedly” Bible-derived statements, I rather defer to what was directly revealed to her in her vision in this 1SG/EW vision.

In fact I believe that she was making such statement elsewhere seeking to find, though exegetically not successfully, Biblical support in order to dampen the contradicting revelation from that vision.

Are you saying His knowledge cannot alter what He does?

You wrote, "As I see it . . . EGW wrongly reads . . . her inaccurate exegesis led her to make a wrong conclusion." As I see it, on the other hand, I believe she arrived at the correct conclusion. However, I do not feel compelled to "defend myself". Ellen also wrote:


There has never been any doubt in God's mind. He has always known Jesus would succeed at saving and redeeming mankind thus magnifying the law and the character and kingdom of God.

His knowledge of the future reflects what He did (as opposed to what He will do). If His knowledge of the future motivated Him to do something different, then His knowledge of the future would be wrong and imperfect. However, God is perfect, therefore, there is no reason for Him to do anything different. To change what He did, which was right and perfect, would result in Him doing something wrong and imperfect.

The preposition pro is clearly used in a temporal sense, not in a spacial sense, for "the foundation of the world" is obviously a point in time, and not a physical place. There is no question about that.

Under such a view nothing EGW wrote is reliable, and what she wrote can be even misleading.

I don’t see any logic towards understanding especially this issue by circularly quoting EGW’s comments and merely citing philosophical maxim and theories. We could circularly be here for weeks doing that. My foundation is first the Bible and direct SOP Revelation. The rest fall into line with this and the clear evidence it provides. The various words and expression in EGW’s vision, which as 1SP 45 shows she could have altered is she was at revelatory liberty to do so, are too clear and straightforward to see otherwise.

Strictly speaking “spatial” indeed refers to a physical space. However if you would not be sure of, in this case, exactly when men fell during this period of the ‘foundation of the world’, which generally could refer to the earliest moments (e.g., 2 months), I see that it can be “spatially” used as ‘seeking to find some point during that foundational time to, figuratively, settle in.’ Combined with the clear message in that direct EGW vision, that ‘no way of escape was made before the Fall, even after Creation” then I see that this ‘unsettled floating point’ in that tangibly “space” of time as being applicable. I don’t see another Greek preposition being capable of expressing this manifest reality of” ‘an unknown date, in an also prioritorily prior, known space of time’.

Using “apo” as the preposition (away from/since) here instead (as in Rev 13:8 & 17:8) would come to mean that these NT believers had been “elected” since then. However that may pointedly not be what Paul wanted to convey, instead showing, as I (expansively) understanding: ‘it had become possible for them to be elected in Christ’s establishment priorly at a time during the period foundation of the world, (whenever that had occurred)’.

Doing a syntactical search and analysis, including in the Greek OT and Classical Greek, to confirm this is not feasible for me right now, however I personally see that I have adequate corroborating support for that view. I will later however.

My point was, if the Bible versions she used were mistranslated and/or had manuscript text errors, as these texts she used to based her conclusions on exegetically were, then it is not wrong to see that her conclusion would be tainted by that.

Indeed in e.g., Christ’s statement to Mary in John 20:16, EGW for years just quote her KJV Bible which said: “Touch me not” until something, perhaps her vision on this, revealed to her that is should (at least) instead be “Do not detain me”.

Again Biblical exegesis (also with direct SOP revelations) and then EGW’s own comments.

Relatedly, as I have seen it from this other discussion on the 2 Ascensions of Christ, EGW can sometimes seemingly disregardingly, wrongly apply her direct visions, which in this case would explain why the direct revelations in this Plan of Redemption vision were not given its proper weight, probably to defend what she believed was a Truth in regards to the Classical View of Foreknowledge.

With the direct vision of EGW in EW 149-153 one does not have to “imagine” this. By “yielding” to Christ then the Father and the Son became united in the purpose of redeeming fallen Man or not... and it took three struggling attempts!

Such emphatic comments force me to choose between your understanding of the Bible and Ellen's understanding of the Bible. I do not feel enlightened enough to reject her understanding in favor of yours or mine or anyone else. There was no doubt in her mind there was no doubt in God's mind. Both the Father and the Son knew with absolute certainty Jesus would succeed on the cross saving and redeeming mankind. Such a God I can trust. The god you're advocating does not appeal to me. There is no way I could trust such a god. I realize you believe you are right and Ellen is wrong and that's where we'll have to leave it for now.

The idea that Jesus had to work so hard to persuade the Father to implement the plan of salvation clearly implies the Father wasn't as determined to save and redeem us as was Jesus. It also implies the Father and Son are not coequal, that the Father has more authority and say so than Jesus, that Jesus is subservient to the Father. It also implies the Father and Son were not united in mind and purpose prior to Jesus persuading the Father to consent to His wishes, which implies the Father was of a mind to let A&E perish, which implies the Father didn't or doesn't love us as much as Jesus does. Again, I could not love or trust such a god.

It’s not at all focused on me as you need it to be. My choice is based on EGW’s clear direct revelation, which she, quite possibly, as also seen elsewhere in her writings in regards to other direct revelations, as posted earlier, may just not have fully understood. As e.g, documented in Thomspen’s book cited before, EGW has corrected many things that she ‘had not doubt about before’ e.g., such as God’s attitude towards Satan’s fall.

And Biblical exegesis, which also includes the SOP, is "enlightening".



Your imposing of a little-g “god” to me does not begin to phase. I speak of what I know and I know in who I believe. I think the rules of this forum would require you to, at the very least, express this private opinion of yours neutrally as: ‘my view of God’.

That is all straightforwardly was the key words in that SOP vision pointedly related and conveyed. You have to ignore this to uphold your expressed and ‘subjectively preferred’, theological assumption/traditions.



Again this is not my view as you are trying to paint it. It is just precisely what I read/see throughout the Bible and SOP. The Son is always under the Father’s authority since the start, though of co-eternal and similar substance. Hence the need initial public exaltation of Christ before the Heavenly Host to make this known. (PP 36.2) Clearly the Angels were not aware of this. Being “One” does not mean being “equal in rank”. Jesus may even have voluntarily chosen to be subservient to the Father, even before the angels were created.



Voluntary self-abasement does not less the Divinity of Christ (Phil 2:5-11) Only through base human pride can one either see this and/or see that reject Jesus as God because of this is the only other alternative. (e.g., Matt 20:20-28; John 13:3-9).

Much more could be said on this Theological issue.

Then would it also follow that we cannot change how we act because it has already been played out or is it that we can change since we aren't "right and perfect"?

NJK, thank you for sharing your view. I have nothing further to add at this time.

God's knowledge of the future applies to us as well as to Himself. However, unless He chooses to inform us, we have no idea how the future played out (as opposed to how it might play out). Think of the times God did reveal the future choices and outcomes of people - Did they choose a different path? Of course not. But if they had, would it have proven God doesn't know with certainty how the future played out? And, since they didn't, does it prove God does know with certainty how the future played out (again, as opposed to how it might play out).

You're welcome. I'll be around if/when you do, particularly a Biblical-based one versus philosophical ones.

By the way, you may be interested in the book on this topic: Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views, with contributions by Boyd (Open-Theism); Hunt (Simple Foreknowledge); Lane (Middle-Knowledge); Helm (Augustinian-Calvanist) (InterVarsity Press, 2002). It contains plenty of philosophical arguments with responding comments by each of the three other views after each of these four views are presented. I loathing came to see the utter ambivalent and inconclusive pointlessness of approaching this topic from such underlying and/or overarching philosophical view points after having read it. The Biblical and SOP (direct) testimony is much more certain, determinative and authoritative for me.

I can think of times God revealed the future choices and outcomes of people and they did choose a different path. Can you? Would that negate your, "of course not"? And that's what Tom, I think NJK, and I have been saying.

Kland, I can't think of a time. Nineveh doesn't qualify. The times God got it right, was He just lucky?

You’ll need to transparently cite at least 5 of those examples. As I understand the Biblical Foreplanning View, God does not reveal choices, but states what He plans/wants to, or consequently (i.e., either as a promise or judgement) will, happen, (cf. e.g, Jer 18:1-10), and what is most likely, even surely, to happen, as in prophecies, as these are made upon key GC themes (e.g, Dan 9:26, 27) as He wisely foresee they can/will only play out to reach an end that both He and the Devil wants. (E.g., the Devil will surely want to corrupt God’s Triumphant New Covenant Church/Movement, hence Revelation’s Babylon - For the Devil will surely not go down without a fight.) So, in e.g., Ancient Israel’s case, most of the great plans promises that He had spoken about them, which were to be literally fulfilled, had to be postponed and to be fulfilled on/through a Spiritual Israel.