Old Tom: What I have been addressing is the question as to what the future is really like. I assert that the future is exactly how God perceives it to be, REGARDLESS of whether your view of things is correct or mine (or some other view, for that matter). Do you agree with this assertion?

MM: If we divorce God from the equation then the future is open and unknown to us, except, of course, what we know about it from the prophecies.

Tom: This is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. You are addressing knowledge of the context of the future. I am addressing the reality of the nature of the future.

I'll try again:

I assert that the future is exactly how God perceives it to be, REGARDLESS of whether your view of things is correct or mine (or some other view, for that matter). Do you agree with this assertion?


Old Tom: "Risk" implies more than one outcome. God foresaw all the possible outcomes. Some outcomes resulted in success, and others in failure. If none of the options God foresaw ended in failure, then there would have been no risk, right?

MM: Right! But that still doesn’t answer my question, does it?

Tom: Well, it makes my point. Which is that if God only foresaw that Christ would succeed, then there would have been no risk, right?

MM: Also, according to the prophecies, how different outcomes are portrayed?

Tom: Do you mean like the prophesy that God would destroy Ninevah in 40 days? In that one, there was only one. It didn't happen, however. In the prophesies regarding the cursings and blessing of Israel, two were given.

Generally speaking, the prophesies foretell a given outcome provided a certain premise occurs, which premise is sometimes stated, sometimes implied.

Old Tom:I assert that the future is exactly how God perceives it to be, REGARDLESS of whether your view of things is correct or mine (or some other view, for that matter). Do you agree with this assertion?

MM:Yes. However, the word “perceives” isn’t as definitive as the word “knows”. The future will unfold exactly as God knows it will.

Tom: "Knows" is fine. It's the same thing I meant by "perceive." The point is that the future really is fixed, according to your idea. We perceive it not to be fixed, but we are wrong. It is not as we perceive it to be, which is not fixed, but in reality fixed. Hopefully you agree with these statements, as I'm just reiterating what you just said.

Old Tom: Well, it makes my point. Which is that if God only foresaw that Christ would succeed, then there would have been no risk, right?

MM: Right! And that’s my point.

Tom: Yes, but that's not Sister White's point, which is my point.

MM: God knew Jesus would succeed on the cross. Therefore, the “risk” that Sister White wrote about in no way implies God didn’t know if Jesus would save us on the cross.

Tom: With this kind of logic, it will be impossible to prove anything whatsoever to you. Because if you believe, say, white is black, and Sister White says white is white you will respond, "White is black. Therefore when Sister White says white is white, it doesn't imply white is white."

At least I do not perceive any difference between your reasoning and what I just wrote. If there is a difference, perhaps you could point it out.

MM: All the various possible options and outcomes available to Jesus, as it pertains to our salvation, boil down to two basic endings – salvation or damnation.

Tom: This is irrelevant to the discussion.

MM: And, since the messianic prophecies outline only one way for Jesus to save us it is obvious, to me, that only one of the many different options and outcomes available to Him would result in making salvation available to us.

Tom: There are many different paths that could have been taken which could still have led to Jesus saving us. The only way He could fail was by sinning, but there were many ways He could have not sinned.

MM: There weren’t many different ways for Jesus to save us. Just one.

Tom: No, this is incorrect. There was certain defined instances in Christ's life when a specific decision had to be made at a specific time, but there were many times when Christ made decisions which were not of that character.

MM: “He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.” (Mat 26:42) If there had been any other way to save us God would have made it available to Jesus. Obviously, therefore, there was no other way to save us.

“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." (DA 690)

“To save the race from eternal death, the Son of God volunteered to bear the punishment of disobedience. Only by the humiliation of the Prince of heaven could the dishonor be removed, justice be satisfied, and man be restored to that which he had forfeited by disobedience. There was no other way. For an angel to come to this earth, to pass over the ground where Adam stumbled and fell, would not have sufficed. This could not have removed one stain of sin, or brought to man one hour of probation.” (1SM 308)

Again, of all the different options and outcomes available to Jesus only one of them would result in making salvation available to us. Consequently, all of the other ones would only result in damnation and eternal loss. Again, all of the various options and outcomes boil down to just two – salvation and damnation. As such, none of them involved “risk” in the sense that God didn’t know how the different outcomes would play out.

Tom: This whole line of logic is off because in talking about the future being fixed, it is not sufficient to establish that there was *a* point in time in which a specific decision had to be made, but you would have to establish that *every* point in time had a specific decision which had to be made.

MM: I realize you believe the “risk” God took was in not knowing if Jesus would choose the one option which would result in making salvation available to us.

Tom: You agreed with my analysis. You just disagree that God took a risk.

MM: I also realize you believe the word “risk” means that God would lose Jesus for all eternity if He failed.

Tom: Sister White's statement said, "at the risk of failure and eternal loss." She didn't go into detail about what that meant, and I have not speculated. I have stuck to her exact words in communicating what I believe. You may do so as well when you refer to what I believe (i.e., please stick to her exact words, as I have).

MM: But on this we disagree. I believe God knew all along that Jesus would choose the one and only option which involved no “risk” of Jesus failing to save us on the cross.

Tom: Right. We disagree. I think Sister White was correct; God really did take a risk. So did Christ.

Old Tom: I assert that the future is exactly how God perceives it to be, REGARDLESS of whether your view of things is correct or mine (or some other view, for that matter). Do you agree with this assertion?

Old MM: Yes. However, the word “perceives” isn’t as definitive as the word “knows”. The future will unfold exactly as God knows it will.

Old Tom: You agreed with my analysis.

MM: No. I agreed, for the sake of argument, with your assumption.

Tom: I thought by "yes" you meant "yes". But now you're telling me you really meant "no"? Well I'm confused Do you mean "yes" or "no"? I can't read your mind. If you mean "no", please say "no".

Here's my question again:

I assert that the future is exactly how God perceives it to be, REGARDLESS of whether your view of things is correct or mine (or some other view, for that matter). Do you agree with this assertion?

If this is your last post on this thread, what would it do for me to respond? I've been trying for dozens of posts to get you to answer a simple question which is fundamental to our whole discussion, and you finally did. But you immediately took it back. You claim you do not understand what I believe, but it's so simple a child could understand it.

I believe that God's perception, or knowledge if you prefer that word, corresponds to reality. Whatever God perceives, or knows, about a thing is how that thing really is.

What's difficult about understanding this?

Well if you're not going to respond to this thread any more, then I should do a good job with the last word.

God is in control of things in the sense that nothing happens that He does not permit. Also in the sense that in the end, He will proven to be the wonderful, gracious, kind, self-sacrificing God He really is, a God who is uncapable of doing anything but good; who does not destroy or condemn, but forgives and heals.

Satan is control in the sense that he has control of those over whom God gives him control, which are those who persistently resist the promptings of His Spirit. Also in the sense that all evil comes from him.