Could Christ have sinned.

Posted By: Rick H

Could Christ have sinned. - 10/31/09 11:54 AM



I came across some people that said that Christians (Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist...) do not believe that Christ could have sinned and failed in his mission on earth. Well then how could he be 'tempted in the desert?' Where does this idea come from?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 10/31/09 06:44 PM

Jesus was capable of being tempted and sinning. He added that ability when He became human. As God, before His incarnation, He was incapable of being tempted and sinning. Theoretically, therefore, Jesus could have sinned. In reality, though, He didn't. There was never any doubt in God's mind about it. He knew Jesus was going to succeed in His mission. That's an advantage of foreknowledge. If God had foreseen Jesus failing, He would not have consented to the plan of salvation. For that matter, He would not have consented to creating FMAs. Their options were 1) create FMAs and deal with the GC, or 2) not create them and not deal with the GC.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 10/31/09 11:30 PM

Quote:
MM:If God had foreseen Jesus failing, He would not have consented to the plan of salvation.


This is completely untrue. God is not selfish like we are.

Quote:
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. (DA 131)


Quote:
Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul.(COL 196)


Quote:
Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. (DA 49)


Quote:
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them.(EW 127)


These statements don't make sense if we accept the idea that God would not have given Christ if a risk were involved.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/01/09 08:04 PM

Tom, it's not matter of selfishness. If God had foreseen FMAs sinning and Jesus failing to redeem them, it would have been cruel to go through with it. He would have had to wipe out everyone. The reason God created FMAs is precisely because He knew Jesus would succeed at redeeming them.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/01/09 09:23 PM

God foresaw the *possibility* of FMA's sinning, as well as the *possibility* of Christ's failure. That God foresaw the possibility of Christ's failure is made clear by such statement as

1.God permitted Christ to meet life's peril in Satan's dominion at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
2.All heaven was imperiled.

Clearly if things were as you are suggesting, heaven was never in any peril.

In regards to your point that it would have been cruel for God to have created FMA's if He knew Christ would fail, by the same token it would have been cruel for God to have created FMA's in the first place, if He knew they would sin.

In particular, why possible reason could there have been for God to have created Lucifer knowing he would become Satan? If the future were fixed, as per your concept, God would have simply created a covering cherub whom He foresaw wouldn't sin.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/02/09 06:53 PM

Tom, if God did not know with absolute certainty Jesus would succeed, why, then, did He communicate throughout the Bible that Jesus would succeed. Not once in the Bible does it even hint at the possibility of Jesus failing. Obviously Ellen's insight does not contradict the Bible.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 06:10 AM

Quote:
Tom, if God did not know with absolute certainty Jesus would succeed, why, then, did He communicate throughout the Bible that Jesus would succeed. Not once in the Bible does it even hint at the possibility of Jesus failing.


Not once does the Bible even hint that Nineveh wouldn't be destroyed. Yet it wasn't, because the Ninevites repented.

Prophecy is conditional when free will is involved. That's always the case. This is explicitly explained in Jeremiah 18.

Quote:
Obviously Ellen's insight does not contradict the Bible.


Indeed it doesn't! The Bible no more teaches that Jesus could not have sinned than Ellen White does. Indeed, Ellen White could hardly have made it any more clear.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 06:58 AM

FMA's ??
Females, males and animals?
Fish, mammals, angels?
Federal Management Agency?
First Mission Agreement?
Financial Management Analysis?

Well, it took awhile but I finally came to the conclusion it supposed to stand for -- free moral agents?
Posted By: dedication

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 07:43 AM

There's a big difference between
1)Christ could have sinned. (Yes, He could have!) and
2)The foreknowledge of God that Christ won't sin even though the battle would be severe.

When the prophet Daniel says concerning the dream in chapter 2--

---"the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure."--
He's not speaking of "conditional" promises.
(it is sure, it is certain) IT WILL HAPPEN as predicted.

"the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: ... and it shall stand for ever."

How could God reveal this to Daniel as "sure, certain" if it was just a "probablity"?



Foreknowledge and "fixed" isn't the same thing.

By creating beings that could reason and choose, sooner or later one of them would choose to rebel. Yes, God knew it would be Lucifer, but had He not created Lucifer, some other free moral being would have done it.
There was only one way to win the love and loyality of all and insure that sin would never again raise it's ugly head in the endless future ages and that was by allowing sin to show itself for what it was and for God to reveal His unselfish love in redeeming mankind from sin.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 08:18 AM

Yes! "FMA" = "Free Moral Agent." MM invented this TLA (three letter acronym), which is quite useful.

Quote:
There's a big difference between
1)Christ could have sinned. (Yes, He could have!) and
2)The foreknowledge of God that Christ won't sin even though the battle would be severe.


"Could have" can mean to different things. One is "theoretically, but not in actuality." Another is, "in actuality." According to the first idea, yes, Christ could have sinned, but not under the second, unless you wish to allow for the possibility that something God has foreseen is certain to happen won't.

Quote:
When the prophet Daniel says concerning the dream in chapter 2--

---"the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure."--
He's not speaking of "conditional" promises.


This means that Daniel correctly told what the dream was and correctly interpreted it. It doesn't mean the prophecy wasn't conditional. Israel could have accepted Christ. Jeremiah 18 explains the principle.

Quote:
(it is sure, it is certain) IT WILL HAPPEN as predicted.


That's not what was said, nor what was meant.

Quote:
"the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: ... and it shall stand for ever."

How could God reveal this to Daniel as "sure, certain" if it was just a "probablity"?


Because God foresaw it happening. That doesn't mean it might not have happened. God didn't make it happen. Men with free will made it happen. Again, Jer. 18 explains the principle. I'll quote it at the end of the post.


Quote:
Foreknowledge and "fixed" isn't the same thing.


Yes, of course, but God can only foreknow the future as fixed if it really is fixed, because God foresees things as they are, not as they are not.

Quote:
By creating beings that could reason and choose, sooner or later one of them would choose to rebel.


Only if there was something wrong with the way God created them. For example, consider Gabriel. Would he have rebelled if he were the only creature created? Suppose there were two created just like him. Or a billion. Would one of them have rebelled?

There's absolutely nothing in inspiration which suggests that by creating beings that could reason and choose, sooner or later of one them would choose to rebel. You are asserting, in other words, that sin was inevitable, once God chose to create free will beings. What inspiration says is that sin is a mystery for which no explanation can be given, and if one could be given, it would cease to be sin. Yet here an explanation is being given for it!: "Sooner or later one of them would choose to rebel."

Quote:
Yes, God knew it would be Lucifer, but had He not created Lucifer, some other free moral being would have done it.


There's no reason to think this is so. It's not so. Some other being *might* have done it, but perhaps no other being would have done it. There's certainly no reason a being should do it. There's no rational reason that perfectly created beings, who loved God and were created to love God and be loved by Him, should use their free will to choose to rebel. Why would they? Just because they could? That doesn't follow. If it did, then if God created only one being, say Gabriel, you could just as well argue that Gabriel would have eventually rebelled.

Quote:
There was only one way to win the love and loyality of all and insure that sin would never again raise it's ugly head in the endless future ages and that was by allowing sin to show itself for what it was and for God to reveal His unselfish love in redeeming mankind from sin.


Another way, assuming the future were fixed (which assuming God foreknows a fixed future does assume) would have been for God simply not to have created beings He foresaw would sin. That wouldn't have impinged upon their freedom any, since they didn't exist, nor upon the beings that would exist, since sin doesn't increase freedom, but decreases it.

Here's the principle I mentioned from Jer. 18

Quote:
7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18;NRSV)


The Israelites were arguing, like you are suggesting, that since Jeremiah had prophesied of Israel's doom, there was nothing that could be done about it, as it must happen, since it's prophecy. But Jeremiah explained (or rather, God explained, through Jeremiah) that this wasn't the case. If the nation upon whom God had foretold evil turned its way, the evil which God had foreseen need not occur. Similarly, in Jer. 18, God explains that if God foretells a blessing, the blessing is conditional upon obedience.

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 02:09 PM

Originally Posted By: dedication
There's a big difference between
1)Christ could have sinned. (Yes, He could have!) and
2)The foreknowledge of God that Christ won't sin even though the battle would be severe.

When the prophet Daniel says concerning the dream in chapter 2--

---"the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure."--
He's not speaking of "conditional" promises.
(it is sure, it is certain) IT WILL HAPPEN as predicted.

"the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: ... and it shall stand for ever."

How could God reveal this to Daniel as "sure, certain" if it was just a "probablity"?



Foreknowledge and "fixed" isn't the same thing.

By creating beings that could reason and choose, sooner or later one of them would choose to rebel. Yes, God knew it would be Lucifer, but had He not created Lucifer, some other free moral being would have done it.
There was only one way to win the love and loyality of all and insure that sin would never again raise it's ugly head in the endless future ages and that was by allowing sin to show itself for what it was and for God to reveal His unselfish love in redeeming mankind from sin.

Dedication,

On this point we are in agreement. When God gave time prophecies, and other "unconditional" prophecies, they were "sure" to happen as predicted. There are choices that can be made by FMAs, but said FMAs are powerless to change God's prophecy, or to keep it from reaching fulfillment.

This is precisely why I like to challenge atheists to prove God does not exist by going and living in Babylon. It's as simple as that. God said it would never again be inhabited...and it has not been! They say people in the area are afraid to even be near it at night time. If God does not exist, and/or if an FMA wished to "choose" to invalidate God's prophecy--let him/her just TRY! to live in Babylon! I take the view that they cannot. God will ensure that the prophecy does not fail.

Here's a quote from an old book which can be found online regarding how one man tried to break God's prophecies in order to destroy Christianity.
Quote:
“There lived a learned man about A. D. 300 who read the words of Jesus in Luke 21:24: ‘Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.’ He had once been a Christian, so he knew the predictions. He made up his mind that Jerusalem should be trodden underfoot by the Israelites instead of by the Gentiles.

“This man also knew that the Bible foretold the utter destruction of the Jewish Temple and its services, that the Jews were to be scattered to all nations of the earth, and that Christianity was to go to ‘every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.’

“He was determined to overthrow Christianity, not by killing its adherents, which had been tried by his predecessors for 250 years and had served only to increase its followers, but by the more effective method of shattering the prophecies. Thus he would prove Jesus a liar. And he had the power, if anyone ever had, for he was Julian, emperor of Rome, with an immense army and the wealth and power of the civilized world at his command.”

...
“That he intended to stage a contest between himself and God, that he consciously planned to disprove prophecy, is stated by a writer as infidelic as Julian himself — Edward Gibbon, the world’s accepted authority on that period, in chapter 23 of his famous history. Rather than paraphrase, I will read Gibbon’s account:

“Julian ‘embraced the extraordinary design of rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. In a public epistle to the nation or community of the Jews, dispersed through the provinces, he pities their misfortunes, condemns their oppressors, praises their constancy, declares himself their gracious protector. . . . They deserved the friendship of Julian by their implacable hatred of the Christian name. . . .

“ ‘After the final destruction of the temple by the arms of Titus and Hadrian, a ploughshare was drawn over the consecrated ground, as a sign of perpetual interdiction. . . .

“ ‘The vain and ambitious mind of Julian might aspire to restore the ancient glory of the temple of Jerusalem. As the Christians were firmly persuaded that a sentence of everlasting destruction had been pronounced against the whole fabric of the Mosaic law, the imperial sophist would have converted the success of his undertaking into a specious argument against the faith of prophecy and the truth of revelation. . . .

“ ‘He resolved to erect, without delay, on the commanding eminence of Moriah, a stately temple, . . . and to invite a numerous colony of Jews, whose stern fanaticism would be always prepared to second, and even to anticipate, the hostile measures of the pagan government.

“ ‘Among the friends of the emperor . . .the first place was assigned, by Julian himself, to the virtuous and learned Alypius. . . .This minister . . .received an extraordinary commission to restore, in its pristine beauty, the temple of Jerusalem. The desire for rebuilding the temple has in every age been the ruling passion of the children of Israel. . . . Every purse was opened in liberal contributions, every hand claimed a share in the pious labour, and the commands of a great monarch were executed by the enthusiasm of a whole people.

“’Yet, on this occasion, the joint efforts of power and enthusiasm were unsuccessful; and the ground of the Jewish temple, which is now covered by a Mahometan mosque, still continued to exhibit the same edifying spectacle of ruin and desolation. . . .

“ ‘The Christians entertained a natural and pious expectation that, in this memorable contest, the honour of religion would be vindicated by some signal miracle.

“ ‘Whilst Alypius, assisted by the governor of the province, urged, with vigour and diligence, the execution of the work, horrible balls of fire breaking out near the foundations, with frequent and reiterated attacks, rendered the place, from time to time, inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen; and the victorious element continuing in this manner obstinately and resolutely bent, as it were, to drive them to a distance, the undertaking was abandoned.’

“Julian could have rebuilt a whole city with his wealth and power, but he could not rebuild a single temple. He began his work with a great flourish of trumpets, advertised to the whole world his purpose, and the reason for it; he was going to disprove the Bible prophecies and so destroy Christianity.

“Account for it as you please, two facts remain: First, Julian boasted he was going to disprove Bible prophecy by doing what the Bible had said would not be done; second, with all the wealth and power of the world at his command, he failed.”


Christ was certainly a free moral agent. Perhaps God would not have sent fireballs to Jesus' rescue. I think Jesus could have sinned. However, God's foreknowledge of what would happen could in no wise be broken, and Jesus never had any leanings toward sin as we have.

Originally Posted By: dedication
Yes, God knew it would be Lucifer, but had He not created Lucifer, some other free moral being would have done it.


The same principle might apply to Jacob and Esau. God had said Jacob would receive the birthright. However, he did not trust God, and went about to receive it through deceit. Had he not done so, God would certainly have worked in another way to keep His promise to Jacob.

In other words, FMAs are limited in their ability to disrupt God's plans. Not every prophecy/promise is a "conditional" one.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 06:08 PM

Tom, I agree with Dedication. God knows the end from the beginning. Not only what can be - but also what will be. Do you agree the GC will play precisely the way it is described in the Bible? Or, do you suspect some details might play out differently or not at all? For example, do you think it is possible the USA will not legislate and enforce the MOB, that instead she will continue to defend liberty of conscience?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 06:14 PM

GC, I believe the future for God is like watching a rerun. The reason no one can alter what God has shared with us through the prophets is for the simple reason He is explaining what has already happened from His eternal perspective.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 06:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
On this point we are in agreement. When God gave time prophecies, and other "unconditional" prophecies, they were "sure" to happen as predicted. There are choices that can be made by FMAs, but said FMAs are powerless to change God's prophecy, or to keep it from reaching fulfillment.


This is from Jeremiah:

Quote:
7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18;NRSV)


The context of Jeremiah 18 is rather interesting. The Israelites were saying essentially the same thing you are saying. God explained that this is not the case; the fact that He has prophesied something does NOT mean the thing must come to pass.

Nineveh is an example of this. Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. He didn't say, "If you do not repent, Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days," but simply "Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days." Yet it did not happen.

Quote:
Yes, God knew it would be Lucifer, but had He not created Lucifer, some other free moral being would have done it.

The same principle might apply to Jacob and Esau. God had said Jacob would receive the birthright. However, he did not trust God, and went about to receive it through deceit. Had he not done so, God would certainly have worked in another way to keep His promise to Jacob.

In other words, FMAs are limited in their ability to disrupt God's plans. Not every prophecy/promise is a "conditional" one.


This seems to be implying that God's plan was that there would be sin, and if Lucifer thwarted this plan of God's, then God would have accomplished it by some other FMA. Otherwise it's hard to follow the example here of Jacob and Esau, and the point that God would have accomplished what He had promised by some other means. Actually, since God hadn't made any promise that sin would exist, it's a bit difficult to see what the connection is here.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
The context of Jeremiah 18 is rather interesting. The Israelites were saying essentially the same thing you are saying. God explained that this is not the case; the fact that He has prophesied something does NOT mean the thing must come to pass.
For someone opposed to an "arbitrary" God, you sure sound like you think He is fickle.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 07:28 PM

Quote:
Tom, I agree with Dedication.


That's no surprise.

Quote:
God knows the end from the beginning.


I agree with this; God knows the end of the road chosen from the beginning.

Quote:
Not only what can be - but also what will be.


That's only possible if the future is fixed, or determined, before it happens.

Quote:
Do you agree the GC will play precisely the way it is described in the Bible? Or, do you suspect some details might play out differently or not at all? For example, do you think it is possible the USA will not legislate and enforce the MOB, that instead she will continue to defend liberty of conscience?


I think things will play out as they've been described.

Quote:
GC, I believe the future for God is like watching a rerun. The reason no one can alter what God has shared with us through the prophets is for the simple reason He is explaining what has already happened from His eternal perspective.


If things play out like a re-run, then there can be no risk. That should be easy to see.

But the SOP has a number of statements which describe risk, such as that God allowed His Son to come at the risk of failure and eternal loss, and that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. Neither of these statements makes sense if God is looking at things like a re-run.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/03/09 07:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
T:The context of Jeremiah 18 is rather interesting. The Israelites were saying essentially the same thing you are saying. God explained that this is not the case; the fact that He has prophesied something does NOT mean the thing must come to pass.

GC:For someone opposed to an "arbitrary" God, you sure sound like you think He is fickle.


This sounds complete backwards to me. If God blessed or cursed someone without respect to their choice, *that* would be arbitrary. If God says that those who obey will be blessed, while those who don't won't be, why would *that* be fickle? That's the opposite of fickle.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/04/09 06:03 AM

Very interesting bit of history, Green Cochoa--- Emperor Julian seeking to rebuild the temple for the Jews.

Yes, there are several such stories.

Another one is the prediction of the curse placed on the rebuilding of Jericho. Joshua announced this prophecy from the Lord shortly after the fall of this wicked city:



"Cursed before the LORD is the man who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho:
"At the cost of his firstborn son
will he lay its foundations;
at the cost of his youngest
will he set up its gates."

(Joshua 6:26)

In Ahab's time, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, in accordance with the word of the LORD spoken by Joshua son of Nun. (1 Kings 16:34).
Posted By: dedication

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/04/09 06:31 AM

Tom: "This seems to be implying that God's plan was that there would be sin, and if Lucifer thwarted this plan of God's, then God would have accomplished it by some other FMA."

D: No, no -- it was not God's plan that there would be sin. This whole sin experiment is terribly painful for God. But God in His foreknowledge KNEW that by creating FMA that there WOULD be sin.

You are right that there is no logical reason WHY perfect beings should sin. Sin has no excuse! To give a reason why perfect beings would sin, would be to excuse sin. There is no reason except that freedom to chose will eventual result in making a wrong choice -- not knowing what sin actually is, some FM being would try it.
God knew that if He created Free moral agents there would be sin.
He knew if he didn't create Lucifer, another would try it.

God's choices were:
1)Create Free Moral Beings -- and go through the sin/redemption plan.

2)Create pre-programed beings that could not sin, but also could not worship and love from free choice.

3) not create at all.

Quote:
"God and Christ knew from the beginning, of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam through the deceptive power of the apostate. The plan of salvation was designed to redeem the fallen race, to give them another trial. Christ was appointed to the office of Mediator from the creation of God, set up from everlasting to be our substitute and surety."{1SM 250.1}

Rev. 13:8..."he Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
1 Peter 1:19-20 "with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.





Tom: Otherwise it's hard to follow the example here of Jacob and Esau, and the point that God would have accomplished what He had promised by some other means.

D; God had declared that Jacob should receive the birthright, and His word would have been fulfilled in His own time had they waited in faith for Him to work for them. However, God also foreknew they won't wait, and He had to work to bring Jacob through his self inflicted detour to get him back on track.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/04/09 06:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
The context of Jeremiah 18 is rather interesting. The Israelites were saying essentially the same thing you are saying. God explained that this is not the case; the fact that He has prophesied something does NOT mean the thing must come to pass.

Nineveh is an example of this. Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. He didn't say, "If you do not repent, Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days," but simply "Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days." Yet it did not happen.

Citing conditional prophecies to prove unconditional prophecies may or may not play out as described seems strange to me.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/04/09 06:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Tom, I agree with Dedication.

T: That's no surprise.

I stated it for the benefit of those who might not know it.

Quote:
M: God knows the end from the beginning.

T: I agree with this; God knows the end of the road chosen from the beginning.

Do you agree we do not agree on what this statement means?

Quote:
M: Not only what can be - but also what will be.

T: That's only possible if the future is fixed, or determined, before it happens.

Why do you limit God?

Quote:
M: Do you agree the GC will play precisely the way it is described in the Bible? Or, do you suspect some details might play out differently or not at all? For example, do you think it is possible the USA will not legislate and enforce the MOB, that instead she will continue to defend liberty of conscience?

T: I think things will play out as they've been described.

Why?

Quote:
M: GC, I believe the future for God is like watching a rerun. The reason no one can alter what God has shared with us through the prophets is for the simple reason He is explaining what has already happened from His eternal perspective.

T: If things play out like a re-run, then there can be no risk. That should be easy to see. But the SOP has a number of statements which describe risk, such as that God allowed His Son to come at the risk of failure and eternal loss, and that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. Neither of these statements makes sense if God is looking at things like a re-run.

Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed?" I've asked this before but don't recall the passages you cited.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/04/09 06:54 PM

"The fall of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent. Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created. . . . {TMK 18.2}

"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}

"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}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/04/09 06:56 PM

"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."

Why did God create FMAs in spite of knowing they would sin and die and require redemption at the expense of Jesus' life and death? Why? - "For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/04/09 07:46 PM

Quote:
Tom: "This seems to be implying that God's plan was that there would be sin, and if Lucifer thwarted this plan of God's, then God would have accomplished it by some other FMA."

D: No, no -- it was not God's plan that there would be sin. This whole sin experiment is terribly painful for God. But God in His foreknowledge KNEW that by creating FMA that there WOULD be sin.

You are right that there is no logical reason WHY perfect beings should sin. Sin has no excuse! To give a reason why perfect beings would sin, would be to excuse sin. There is no reason except that freedom to chose will eventual result in making a wrong choice -- not knowing what sin actually is, some FM being would try it.

God knew that if He created Free moral agents there would be sin.
He knew if he didn't create Lucifer, another would try it.

God's choices were:
1)Create Free Moral Beings -- and go through the sin/redemption plan.

2)Create pre-programed beings that could not sin, but also could not worship and love from free choice.

3) not create at all.


You're not mentioning the simplest and obvious alternative, which is simply to create free moral agents (FMAs) who wouldn't sin.

You appear to suggesting the idea that creating an FMA means that the FMA must sin. But this is obviously false, since not even 1 in a million of them do (if you consider all created beings; the millions of worlds God created, of which, only one fell, humans and fallen angels are a mere drop in the bucket).

So God could simply have chosen not to create those 1 in a million FMA's that would sin. That wouldn't be infringing upon their free will, since a being who does not exist has no free will, and it wouldn't be infringing upon the free will of any of the other FMA's that wouldn't choose to sin.

You're saying that if God saw that one FMA wouldn't sin, say Lucifer, and God didn't create him, some other one would. But God, with the future being fixed and His perfect foreknowledge, would see that, and simply not create that one either. So unless you wish to assert that *any* FMA would sin, given an eternity in which to do so, your assertion here is easily seen to be false.

This is why I asked you the question regarding Gabriel. If God had only created one being in the universe, Gabriel, would it be inevitable that he would have sinned? This is the logical conclusion of your idea; any FMA would sin.

Are you familiar with proof by induction? This is essentially what I laid out in my previous post, if you are.

Regarding 1SM 250, that's one quote to consider, but there are others, namely DA 49, DA 131, COL 196, and EW 125-127 which make it clear that the no risk idea of the future isn't correct. That is, if the future is fixed, given God's perfect foreknowledge, there can be no risk for God. Risk means uncertainty. Fixed future = no uncertainty. These are mutually exclusive concepts.

Regarding Rev. 13:8, 1 Pet. 1:19-20, these aren't implying the future is fixed either, but are simply referring to God's Plan of Salvation, which would be put into effect IF necessary. It wasn't inevitable, because Lucifer could have chosen to repent, and Adam/Eve could have chosen not to sin as well.

I should make clear that where we differ is not in regards to whether or not God has perfect foreknowledge, but as to the nature of what He foresees. I also believe that God perfectly sees the future. I just don't believe the future consists of events that must occur (i.e., at any given time in the future, only one thing will happen) but consists of the union of all possible events. Since this is what the future consists of, this is what God foresees.


Quote:
Tom: Otherwise it's hard to follow the example here of Jacob and Esau, and the point that God would have accomplished what He had promised by some other means.

D; God had declared that Jacob should receive the birthright, and His word would have been fulfilled in His own time had they waited in faith for Him to work for them. However, God also foreknew they won't wait, and He had to work to bring Jacob through his self inflicted detour to get him back on track.


I don't see what this has to do with sin coming into existence.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/04/09 08:10 PM

Quote:
M: God knows the end from the beginning.

T: I agree with this; God knows the end of the road chosen from the beginning.

M:Do you agree we do not agree on what this statement means?


Yes. You understand this to mean that God sees the future like a re-run, implying it is fixed, or determined, or single-threaded, or like a movie, to use your analogy.

Quote:

M: Not only what can be - but also what will be.

T: That's only possible if the future is fixed, or determined, before it happens.

M:Why do you limit God?


Why do *you* limit God? My view of God requires far more intelligence than yours. Under yours, God has nothing to manage. Things simply occur as God has always known they will. Under the Open View, God must manage events as possibilities become realities.

We can see exactly this occurring in EW 126-127:

Quote:
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then 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 we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right.

Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others.

Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them.


This description doesn't make sense from the standpoint you are suggesting. It depicts God's reacting to a crisis. You can see that in the three meetings Christ had with the Father. Under the scenario you are suggesting, this doesn't make sense. There would have been no crisis to manage, but simply the unfolding of an unfortunate event that God was certain was about to happen.

If things were as you are suggesting, it would make sense for God to have responded, "Don't worry. I was certain this would happen, and here's what we're going to do about it." There certainly wouldn't be any need for meetings with Christ to discuss what to do. Nor would it make any sense to depict what God was going through as a "struggle." Your viewpoint doesn't allow for this. God was struggling whether to do this or that. You can't have this in a re-run world. In a re-run world God simply does what He has foreseen He will do.

You've never come to terms with this logical inconsistency.

Quote:

M: Do you agree the GC will play precisely the way it is described in the Bible? Or, do you suspect some details might play out differently or not at all? For example, do you think it is possible the USA will not legislate and enforce the MOB, that instead she will continue to defend liberty of conscience?

T: I think things will play out as they've been described.

M:Why?


God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved. It makes perfect sense to me that God can describe what would happen. God is (however I state this will be understated) incredibly intelligent, so there's no reason to think He would be unable to do so.

Quote:

M: GC, I believe the future for God is like watching a rerun. The reason no one can alter what God has shared with us through the prophets is for the simple reason He is explaining what has already happened from His eternal perspective.

T: If things play out like a re-run, then there can be no risk. That should be easy to see. But the SOP has a number of statements which describe risk, such as that God allowed His Son to come at the risk of failure and eternal loss, and that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. Neither of these statements makes sense if God is looking at things like a re-run.

M:Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed?" I've asked this before but don't recall the passages you cited.


There are many things in inspiration which depict risk. That's all that needs to be established to make the re-run view logically impossible.

For example, all heaven was imperiled for our redemption (COL 196). This makes no sense in a re-run world. Neither does EW 126-127. Nor DA 49, nor DA 131.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/04/09 08:17 PM

Originally Posted By: MountainMan
"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."

Why did God create FMAs in spite of knowing they would sin and die and require redemption at the expense of Jesus' life and death? Why? - "For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."


You're misreading her statement. She wrote:

Quote:
and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness.


This means that, in spite of the fact that sin should occur, this would not deter the Lord from establishing His throne in righteousness. It does not mean, as you appear to be suggesting, that God created FMA's He was certain would sin for the purpose of establishing His throne in righteousness.

The Plan of Redemption is like the following:

Quote:
God's healing power runs all through nature. If a tree is cut, if a human being is wounded or breaks a bone, nature begins at once to repair the injury. Even before the need exists, the healing agencies are in readiness; and as soon as a part is wounded, every energy is bent to the work of restoration. So it is in the spiritual realm. Before sin created the need, God had provided the remedy. Every soul that yields to temptation is wounded, bruised, by the adversary; but whenever there is sin, there is the Saviour. It is Christ's work "to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, . . . to set at liberty them that are bruised." Luke 4:18. (Ed 113)


As our bodies are ready to go to work healing if we are injured, so God was read to deal with sin, should it occur. But it was not part of God's plan that it should occur, nor was it inevitable, or certain, that it should occur.

Quote:
It was the will of God that Adam and Eve should not know evil. (Ed 23)


It was not God's will that sin should occur. Sin occurred contrary to His will.

You're suggesting something was certain to happen which was contrary to God's will.

Again, EW 126-127 demonstrate that the sin of man was not an inevitability.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/05/09 05:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
"The fall of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent. Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created. . . . {TMK 18.2}

"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}

"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}


Good quotes above!

""God and Christ knew from the beginning, of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam through the deceptive power of the apostate. The plan of salvation was designed to redeem the fallen race, to give them another trial. Christ was appointed to the office of Mediator from the creation of God, set up from everlasting to be our substitute and surety."{1SM 250.1}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/05/09 06:20 AM

These are good quotes too!

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

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


Quote:
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. (DA 131)


Quote:
Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul.(COL 196)


Quote:
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then 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 we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right.

Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others. Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. (EW 126, 127)


Why was giving Christ for man a struggle? Because of the risk involved.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/05/09 06:44 AM

quote=Tom
You're not mentioning the simplest and obvious alternative, which is simply to create free moral agents (FMAs) who wouldn't sin.


D: If God created them so they could not sin they would not be Free Moral Agents.


quote=Tom
You appear to suggesting the idea that creating an FMA means that the FMA must sin. But this is obviously false,since not even 1 in a million of them do


D: That is pushing this too far. No, a free moral agent does NOT have to sin. Of course they don't. And true multitudes didn't. But all it takes is one.
And sooner or later one would, and did.



quote=Tom
You're saying that if God saw that one FMA wouldn't sin, say Lucifer, and God didn't create him, some other one would. But God, with the future being fixed and His perfect foreknowledge, would see that, and simply not create that one either. So unless you wish to assert that *any* FMA would sin, given an eternity in which to do so, your assertion here is easily seen to be false.


This is where I disagree with your premise.
The future of a free moral agent IS NOT FIXED -- to be a free moral agent means the CHOICE is yours!
This is where it seems there is a block in communication between us.
Yes, ANY Free moral agent COULD have sinned, this doesn't mean he had to sin, or even that he would sin, but any free moral agent COULD sin.


quote=Tom
This is why I asked you the question regarding Gabriel. If God had only created one being in the universe, Gabriel, would it be inevitable that he would have sinned? This is the logical conclusion of your idea; any FMA would sin.


D: correction --
any FMA COULD sin, not "would sin".

Quite possible if God had created only one, sin would not have raised its ugly head. But I don't think God wanted to create just one -- he wants to fill the universe with intelligent beings who love and worship Him from free choice.

And yes, -- sooner or later amongst so many free moral agents one of them would want to try something apart from God -- thinking his way was better than God's way.

God's full character and righteous ways were not fully appreciated when the opposite was not known.





quote=Tom
Regarding 1SM 250, that's one quote to consider, but there are others, namely DA 49, DA 131, COL 196, and EW 125-127 which make it clear that the no risk idea of the future isn't correct. That is, if the future is fixed, given God's perfect foreknowledge, there can be no risk for God. Risk means uncertainty. Fixed future = no uncertainty. These are mutually exclusive concepts.


Again, you seem to have this fixation of "fixed".

I don't know how to try to explain - many have tried as this debate seems to go on for months on end -- so it's rather pointless to think I could add anything to change the "fixed" concepts held.

Somehow the whole emotional element is missing -- yes, God knew the plan of redemption would be successful. But He still has to experience every bit of the process to reach that end. It's not just a "fast forward" the events, painless leap into the perfect eternity.
When Christ was on earth, it was a REAL battle against Satan. He spent hours in prayer for strength to remain in God's will. It was REAL pain, REAL temptations, real opportunities to fail. When Christ was on earth, the "foreknowledge" sometimes grew very dim and He could barely see beyond the immediate conflict with sin.
It's this reality of battle to make victory secure that seems to be dismissed in your interpretation of what I mean when we say God knew Christ would be victorious.





[i]quote=Tom
It wasn't inevitable, because Lucifer could have chosen to repent, and Adam/Eve could have chosen not to sin as well.[i]

Yes, they could have -- but they didn't.
And God foreknew they wouldn't, though He wished they would.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/05/09 07:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: God knows the end from the beginning.

T: I agree with this; God knows the end of the road chosen from the beginning.

M: Do you agree we do not agree on what this statement means?

T: Yes. You understand this to mean that God sees the future like a re-run, implying it is fixed, or determined, or single-threaded, or like a movie, to use your analogy.

Who or what fixes history? It is what it is. The future for God is like history. He knows everything past, present, and future. He knows the end from the beginning, and the beginning to the end. There is nothing single-threaded about it. In the same way knowing history doesn’t alter its reality, so too, knowing the future like history in no way alters its reality. We are, after all, talking about God. It’s not like He can change the outcome by doing something different. Why not? Because history is what it is. All the choices and outcomes have played out. There’s no going back and changing things.

Quote:
M: Not only what can be - but also what will be.

T: That's only possible if the future is fixed, or determined, before it happens.

M: Why do you limit God?

T: Why do *you* limit God? My view of God requires far more intelligence than yours. Under yours, God has nothing to manage. Things simply occur as God has always known they will. Under the Open View, God must manage events as possibilities become realities. We can see exactly this occurring in EW 126-127:

Quote:
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then 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 we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right.

Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others.

Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them.

This description doesn't make sense from the standpoint you are suggesting. It depicts God's reacting to a crisis. You can see that in the three meetings Christ had with the Father. Under the scenario you are suggesting, this doesn't make sense. There would have been no crisis to manage, but simply the unfolding of an unfortunate event that God was certain was about to happen.

If things were as you are suggesting, it would make sense for God to have responded, "Don't worry. I was certain this would happen, and here's what we're going to do about it." There certainly wouldn't be any need for meetings with Christ to discuss what to do. Nor would it make any sense to depict what God was going through as a "struggle." Your viewpoint doesn't allow for this. God was struggling whether to do this or that. You can't have this in a re-run world. In a re-run world God simply does what He has foreseen He will do. You've never come to terms with this logical inconsistency.

Knowing the future like history includes knowing how He managed everything. It includes knowing every single minute detail regarding the zillions of choices and outcomes of billions of people acting simultaneously. I’m surprised you perceive this as requiring less intelligence on the part of God. Even from your point of view God does not find Himself scrambling to deal with unforeseen choices and outcomes. He is not winging it as things unfold.

You believe God knows all the possible ways all the choices can play out, which means you believe God knew, in advance, exactly how He was going to act when forced to decide whether or not to implement the plan of salvation. It’s not like He was surprised to find Himself responding the way He was. He foresaw, from eternity past, the whole scenario play out exactly the way it was playing out. So, the only difference between our views, so far as this point is concerned, is I believe God has known for eternity precisely which scenario is going to play out.

I’m glad we agree God must work to manage the outcome of the zillions of choices billions of beings make every minute of every day. God does not, of course, prevent them from choosing as they please, but He does, for the good of all, manage the outcome of their choices. We manage the choices, God manages the consequences. Nothing is left to fate or chance. Everything plays out according to God’s master plan. He orchestrates everything perfectly. Which, of course, does not mean God wants us to sin.

Quote:
M: Do you agree the GC will play precisely the way it is described in the Bible? Or, do you suspect some details might play out differently or not at all? For example, do you think it is possible the USA will not legislate and enforce the MOB, that instead she will continue to defend liberty of conscience?

T: I think things will play out as they've been described.

M: Why?

T: God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved. It makes perfect sense to me that God can describe what would happen. God is (however I state this will be understated) incredibly intelligent, so there's no reason to think He would be unable to do so.

How can He know, thousands of years in advance, the exact choices and the precise outcomes before people are born? If, according to you, God does not know in advance precisely which scenario will play out, how can He know with absolute certainty the USA will legislate and enforce the MOB?

And, why do you think God can know such things without violating their ability and freedom to choose as they please?

Quote:
M: GC, I believe the future for God is like watching a rerun. The reason no one can alter what God has shared with us through the prophets is for the simple reason He is explaining what has already happened from His eternal perspective.

T: If things play out like a re-run, then there can be no risk. That should be easy to see. But the SOP has a number of statements which describe risk, such as that God allowed His Son to come at the risk of failure and eternal loss, and that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. Neither of these statements makes sense if God is looking at things like a re-run.

M: Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed?" I've asked this before but don't recall the passages you cited.

T: There are many things in inspiration which depict risk. That's all that needs to be established to make the re-run view logically impossible. For example, all heaven was imperiled for our redemption (COL 196). This makes no sense in a re-run world. Neither does EW 126-127. Nor DA 49, nor DA 131.

Tom, you didn’t cite a Bible reference. Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed"?

Quote:
"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."

M: Why did God create FMAs in spite of knowing they would sin and die and require redemption at the expense of Jesus' life and death? Why? - "For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

T: You're misreading her statement. This means that, in spite of the fact that sin should occur, this would not deter the Lord from establishing His throne in righteousness. It does not mean, as you appear to be suggesting, that God created FMA's He was certain would sin for the purpose of establishing His throne in righteousness.

What is His “eternal purpose”? The following passages make it clear that His “eternal purpose” is to redeem sinners and to restore them to righteous and true holiness in Paradise Lost. “The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity.” “Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created.” Why? "For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

Quote:
The exaltation of the redeemed will be an eternal testimony to God's mercy. "In the ages to come," He will "show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." "To the intent that . . . unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known . . . the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." Eph. 2:7; 3:10, 11, R. V. {DA 26.1}

Of special value to God's church on earth today--the keepers of His vineyard--are the messages of counsel and admonition given through the prophets who have made plain His eternal purpose in behalf of mankind. In the teachings of the prophets His love for the lost race and His plan for their salvation are clearly revealed. {ML 40.7}

During the years that were to follow the rending of the kingdom, Elijah and Elisha were to live and labor, and the tender appeals of Hosea and Amos and Obadiah were to be heard in the land. Never was the kingdom of Israel to be left without noble witnesses to the mighty power of God to save from sin. Even in the darkest hours some would remain true to their divine Ruler and in the midst of idolatry would live blameless in the sight of a holy God. These faithful ones were numbered among the goodly remnant through whom the eternal purpose of Jehovah was finally to be fulfilled. {PK 108.1}

The prophet's absolute faith in God's eternal purpose to bring order out of confusion, and to demonstrate to the nations of earth and to the entire universe His attributes of justice and love, now led him to plead confidently in behalf of those who might turn from evil to righteousness. {PK 461.1}

Through Jeremiah in Jerusalem, through Daniel in the court of Babylon, through Ezekiel on the banks of the Chebar, the Lord in mercy made clear His eternal purpose and gave assurance of His willingness to fulfill to His chosen people the promises recorded in the writings of Moses. That which He had said He would do for those who should prove true to Him, He would surely bring to pass. "The word of God . . . liveth and abideth forever." 1 Peter 1:23. {PK 464.1}

If the remnant people of God will walk before Him in humility and faith, He will carry out through them His eternal purpose, enabling them to work harmoniously in giving to the world the truth as it is in Jesus. He will use all --men, women, and children--in making the light shine forth to the world and calling out a people that will be true to His commandments. Through the faith that His people exercise in Him, God will make known to the world that He is the true God, the God of Israel. {9T 274.1}

The fall of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent. Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created. {TMK 18.2}

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}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/06/09 01:46 AM

Quote:
T:You're not mentioning the simplest and obvious alternative, which is simply to create free moral agents (FMAs) who wouldn't sin.

D: If God created them so they could not sin they would not be Free Moral Agents.


Not who couldn't sin, but who He foresaw wouldn't sin. They could still sin if they wanted to, just like now. There's no difference.

Quote:
T:You appear to suggesting the idea that creating an FMA means that the FMA must sin. But this is obviously false,since not even 1 in a million of them do.

D: That is pushing this too far. No, a free moral agent does NOT have to sin. Of course they don't. And true multitudes didn't. But all it takes is one.
And sooner or later one would, and did.


If sooner or later one would sin, with certainty, then I'm not pushing this too far.

Quote:
T:You're saying that if God saw that one FMA wouldn't sin, say Lucifer, and God didn't create him, some other one would. But God, with the future being fixed and His perfect foreknowledge, would see that, and simply not create that one either. So unless you wish to assert that *any* FMA would sin, given an eternity in which to do so, your assertion here is easily seen to be false.

D:This is where I disagree with your premise.
The future of a free moral agent IS NOT FIXED -- to be a free moral agent means the CHOICE is yours!


It's logically impossible to determine a future that's already been determined (or fixed). If God sees the future as determined (or fixed), then it must be so. But the fact that the FMA really does make the choice (we agree on this point), means the future has NOT been determined, which means that God must see the future as not determined, but open. This is what I've been asserting, that God sees an open future.

Quote:
D:This is where it seems there is a block in communication between us.


I've had this conversation many times. I understand exactly where you're coming from. It's difficult for me to explain the logical problem from what some have called the "blueprint" perspective, but I'm doing the best I can.

What usually happens is people confuse the concept of logical impossibility with causation. That is, the fact that God knows what will happen does not cause one to choose what He has foreseen. But this isn't the problem.

To put it another way, the problem is not epistemological but ontological. Iow, it's not about the knowledge (or vision) of the future, but the nature (essential essence, character) of the future.

If God sees the future as single-threaded, then His knowledge of the future is such that the future must be single-threaded. This means at any moment of time, it's only logically possible for a given FMA to be doing exactly one thing, which is the thing which God has foreseen. Therefore it's logically impossible for that being to be doing some other thing. This means the FMA cannot logically do more than one thing, which contradicts the incompatibilistic definition of free will, which is our tradition as Armianists.

Compatibilitistic free will defines free will in a way that is compatible with determinism, which means there is no logical contradiction between a deterministic view of the future and free will. The compatibilistic definition of free will is that a person is free to do what he chooses to do (i.e., the person is not forced to do something against his will). The incompatibilistic defition is broader, saying that it must actually be possible, at a given point in time, to effect different options. So if a person is at a cross road, it's not simply the case that he chooses Road A because that's what he wants to do, but he could choose Road A or choose Road B.

What you are suggesting (at least, what I'm hearing) is logically inconsistent, as it has a determined future (this is what God sees; not the possibility of an action, but the certainty of it) with the incompatibilistic idea of free will (the person really could choose between the two options, one God sees being chosen, and one God sees not being chosen.)

A simple way to see the logical inconsistency is simply to ask the question if it's logically possible to do something which God has seen with certainty will not happen.

Quote:
Yes, ANY Free moral agent COULD have sinned, this doesn't mean he had to sin, or even that he would sin, but any free moral agent COULD sin.


I understood that you were asserting it was certain that some moral agent WOULD sin.

Quote:
T:This is why I asked you the question regarding Gabriel. If God had only created one being in the universe, Gabriel, would it be inevitable that he would have sinned? This is the logical conclusion of your idea; any FMA would sin.

D: correction --
any FMA COULD sin, not "would sin".


No, not could, but would. This is what you said. If not Lucifer, some other FMA would have sinned.

Quote:
Quite possible if God had created only one, sin would not have raised its ugly head. But I don't think God wanted to create just one -- he wants to fill the universe with intelligent beings who love and worship Him from free choice.


OK, if it's possible for one not to sin, then it's possible for two not to sin. Similarly, it's possible for 10 trillion not to sin (or however many FMA's there are in the universe).

Out of the many trillions, or quadrillions, of FMA's there are, only a few billion have sinned. Had Lucifer not been created, it's quite possible none would have, perhaps even likely none would have.

Quote:
And yes, -- sooner or later amongst so many free moral agents one of them would want to try something apart from God -- thinking his way was better than God's way.


This seems like just an opinion, which, to me, doesn't seem logical. From a logical standpoint, you have beings who were created perfectly, to love God, and be loved by Him. Why would anyone choose to "try something apart from God"? They would have no motivation to do so.

Quote:
God's full character and righteous ways were not fully appreciated when the opposite was not known.


Are you saying that apart from sin, it's not possible to fully know and appreciate God's full character and righteous ways?

Quote:
T:Regarding 1SM 250, that's one quote to consider, but there are others, namely DA 49, DA 131, COL 196, and EW 125-127 which make it clear that the no risk idea of the future isn't correct. That is, if the future is fixed, given God's perfect foreknowledge, there can be no risk for God. Risk means uncertainty. Fixed future = no uncertainty. These are mutually exclusive concepts.

D:Again, you seem to have this fixation of "fixed".


Not at all. There are different words that can be used. I've tried three did ways of expressing the concept: "fixed", "determined" and "single-threaded." The concept is that the future consists of things which are certain to happen, the things which God has seen will happen, as opposed to being consisted of, say, a net, or web, of possible things that might happen, with God seeing all of the possibilities.

Quote:
I don't know how to try to explain - many have tried as this debate seems to go on for months on end -- so it's rather pointless to think I could add anything to change the "fixed" concepts held.


I'm saying that if the future is epistemologically fixed from God's perspective (i.e., God knows, or view, the future as fixed, meaning He knows, or views, exactly what will happen) then it is ontologically fixed. Why? Because God sees (or knows) things as they actually are.

Quote:
Somehow the whole emotional element is missing -- yes, God knew the plan of redemption would be successful.


He knew it would be if Christ succeeded. But He sent Christ at a risk, the "risk of failure and eternal loss."

Quote:
But He still has to experience every bit of the process to reach that end.


He would have experienced it all from the moment He decided to start creating things, as in His mind, it would already have been certain.

We experience things as possibilities turn into realities. That can happen earlier or later. It happens when we know the possibility has become a reality. In the case of God, under the scenario you are suggesting, the reality would have been from the beginning.

Quote:
It's not just a "fast forward" the events, painless leap into the perfect eternity.

When Christ was on earth, it was a REAL battle against Satan. He spent hours in prayer for strength to remain in God's will. It was REAL pain, REAL temptations, real opportunities to fail.


Under the scenario you are suggesting, it would have been a "real" battle with a certain outcome. So it's "real" in the sense that Christ actually had to exert Himself, but not "real" in the sense that there could have been any other outcome than what happened. There would have been no risk of failure, since it's not possible for something God is certain to happen not to happen.

Quote:
When Christ was on earth, the "foreknowledge" sometimes grew very dim and He could barely see beyond the immediate conflict with sin.


It was *God* who took a risk in sending His Son. It wasn't simply an apparent risk that Christ felt He was taking, because of His foreknowledge growing dim, but a very real risk that both took. This is how it's presenting in inspiration. COL 196 discusses it from Christ's standpoint, as well as DA 131, saying that Christ took a risk ("Christ risked all"). DA 49 puts it from God's perspective, God's permitting His Son to come at the risk of failure and eternal loss. COL 196 tells us that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. In order for this to be true, it cannot be the case that God was certain heaven was in no danger. Iow, there had to be a real risk involved. That is, it had to have been actually possible for Christ to have failed, in God's mind. If, in God's mind, there was no chance of Christ's failing, then there was no actual risk, only an apparent one.

Quote:
It's this reality of battle to make victory secure that seems to be dismissed in your interpretation of what I mean when we say God knew Christ would be victorious.


It's not the reality of the battle that's being dismissed, but the possibility of a different outcome.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/06/09 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
But the fact that the FMA really does make the choice (we agree on this point), means the future has NOT been determined, which means that God must see the future as not determined, but open. This is what I've been asserting, that God sees an open future.

You believe God knows all the possible choices and all the possible outcomes. Doesn't that mean our choices and outcomes are limited to the ones God foresees? How is this significantly different than believing God knows precisely which choices and outcomes will play out?

Also, if knowing the future for God is like knowing history, do you think it robs FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please? If knowing history doesn't rob them, why would knowing the future like history rob them?

PS - Please don't overlook my previous post to you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/06/09 09:10 PM

Quote:
You believe God knows all the possible choices and all the possible outcomes. Doesn't that mean our choices and outcomes are limited to the ones God foresees?


Yes. God sees everything that can possibly happen. We cannot do something which is impossible.

Quote:
How is this significantly different than believing God knows precisely which choices and outcomes will play out?


Because more than one option is possible.

Quote:
Also, if knowing the future for God is like knowing history, do you think it robs FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please?


In this case, the freedom FMAs have would be an illusion. One could not logically do anything different than what God has foreseen would happen, meaning that one cannot choose to do among different options. So this would contradict the incompatabilistic definition of free will. However, one could still do what one chooses to do, which is the compatibilistic definition, and it wouldn't contradict that.


Quote:
If knowing history doesn't rob them, why would knowing the future like history rob them?


The history has already happened, so it really is single-threaded. Knowing what you did doesn't impact your free choice because at the time you did what you did you were able to choose among different options. If it is known what you will do before you do it, then at the time you are choosing to do whatever you choose to do, there are not multiple options available that can actually be chosen, since you can't choose to do something different from that which is certain to happen. Only if it's not certain to happen can you logically choose among different options (in the sense of being able to effect one or the other of them).

Quote:
PS - Please don't overlook my previous post to you.


Ok.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/06/09 09:26 PM

Quote:
Who or what fixes history?


People and things.

Quote:
It is what it is.


It is what it is because people and things have done certain things. At the time it was happening, different things could happen, but after the fact, it cannot be changed.

Quote:
The future for God is like history.


No, it's not. Even God can't change the past. He can change the future, however, which is exactly what He says in Jeremiah 18:

Quote:
7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18:7-10; NRSV)


Quote:
He knows the end from the beginning, and the beginning to the end. There is nothing single-threaded about it.


You're contradicting yourself. What you believe is certainly single-threaded. That's what a rerun is. It's not different from one time to the next, but always the same. Single-threaded.

Quote:
In the same way knowing history doesn’t alter its reality, so too, knowing the future like history in no way alters its reality.


MM, it's not the same. The past is different from the future. Again, this is not an epistemological issue, but an ontological one. The past is actually, in fact, different from the future. Therefore perfect knowledge of the past must be different than perfect knowledge of the future.

Quote:
We are, after all, talking about God. It’s not like He can change the outcome by doing something different. Why not? Because history is what it is. All the choices and outcomes have played out. There’s no going back and changing things.


Which is why knowing the future is different than knowing the past, because the future is ontologically different than the past.

Quote:
You believe God knows all the possible ways all the choices can play out, which means you believe God knew, in advance, exactly how He was going to act when forced to decide whether or not to implement the plan of salvation.


Apparently He foresaw Himself acting in different ways, since there was a struggle involved. If He only foresaw one possibility, there wouldn't have been any struggle. Having a meeting with Christ, where Christ had to go into conference with Him three times, certainly wouldn't make any sense if God simply foresaw this is what Christ was going to do, and what He would do. He would have just said, "I knew this was going to happen. Here's how we're going to handle it." That's exactly what would have happened were things as you are suggesting. But God didn't act that way. He acted the way one would expect Him to have acted if the future were open, which is He decided what He was going to do, knowing that He could choose among different options.

Quote:
It’s not like He was surprised to find Himself responding the way He was. He foresaw, from eternity past, the whole scenario play out exactly the way it was playing out.


This is only under your view. Under my view, He foresaw the possibility of Christ's failure, which is why there was a risk involved, and a struggle for Him to make His decision.

Quote:
So, the only difference between our views, so far as this point is concerned, is I believe God has known for eternity precisely which scenario is going to play out.


This makes many things different. For example, it makes the future single-threaded. It makes risk impossible. It makes EW 126-127 not make any sense. Also statements like "Christ could have come 'ere this" become false.

(More later).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/07/09 12:24 AM

Quote:
T: God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved. It makes perfect sense to me that God can describe what would happen. God is (however I state this will be understated) incredibly intelligent, so there's no reason to think He would be unable to do so.

M:How can He know, thousands of years in advance, the exact choices and the precise outcomes before people are born?


If you mean possibilities, how could He not know? He knows everything.

Quote:
If, according to you, God does not know in advance precisely which scenario will play out, how can He know with absolute certainty the USA will legislate and enforce the MOB?


Because in all the possibilities God foresaw, this happens.

Quote:
And, why do you think God can know such things without violating their ability and freedom to choose as they please?


There's no logical problem in this scenario, because different things can happen. The logical problem occurs in your view because only one thing can happen.

Quote:
M: GC, I believe the future for God is like watching a rerun. The reason no one can alter what God has shared with us through the prophets is for the simple reason He is explaining what has already happened from His eternal perspective.

T: If things play out like a re-run, then there can be no risk. That should be easy to see. But the SOP has a number of statements which describe risk, such as that God allowed His Son to come at the risk of failure and eternal loss, and that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. Neither of these statements makes sense if God is looking at things like a re-run.

M: Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed?" I've asked this before but don't recall the passages you cited.

T: There are many things in inspiration which depict risk. That's all that needs to be established to make the re-run view logically impossible. For example, all heaven was imperiled for our redemption (COL 196). This makes no sense in a re-run world. Neither does EW 126-127. Nor DA 49, nor DA 131.

M:Tom, you didn’t cite a Bible reference. Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed"?


As I said, there are many things in inspiration which depict risk. I stated a number of examples. The principle of risk is all that's needed. It's not necessary to list every possible example. The Bible doesn't work that way.

Could Christ have sinned? Was God aware of that fact? If it was really a possibility that Christ could have sinned, and God foresaw that, then the answer to your question follows from that. So cite the Bible texts you think prove that Christ could have sinned, and there's the answer to your request.

Quote:
"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."

M: Why did God create FMAs in spite of knowing they would sin and die and require redemption at the expense of Jesus' life and death? Why? - "For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

T: You're misreading her statement. This means that, in spite of the fact that sin should occur, this would not deter the Lord from establishing His throne in righteousness. It does not mean, as you appear to be suggesting, that God created FMA's He was certain would sin for the purpose of establishing His throne in righteousness.

M:What is His “eternal purpose”? The following passages make it clear that His “eternal purpose” is to redeem sinners and to restore them to righteous and true holiness in Paradise Lost. “The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity.” “Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created.” Why? "For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."


This implies sin was a part of God's plan. That can't be right.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/07/09 04:24 AM

I'm bowing out -- I knew my attempts wouldn't reach any connecting point of understanding. Actually Tom, I'm sorry but I find your perspective very strange and anything but logical.

God's foreknowledge of what people will do, is NOT the same as forcing them to do it. It just isn't and I can't understand why you think it is? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. Sorry.

As far as reaching the predetermined conclusion (Christ will set up His kingdom and sin will be no more) God works AROUND peoples choices, doing His utmost to save all EVEN THOUGH HE KNOWS many will reject Him.

Go back to Jacob. Jacob was to receive the birthright. It wasn't God's plan that he obtain it by fraud. That was Jacob and Rebekkah's doing as free moral agents-- they most certainly DID NOT HAVE to that. Yes, God knew they would do it but that didn't in any way influence them into doing it, they could have waited for God to work things out but they chose not to, and God worked with Jacob to bring him to repentance and bring him back on track.


But, I'm sure you still don't understand what I'm trying to say, and we are not to waste time arguing when we know there is no point of agreement. Time is far too short -- we don't know how soon it will close and Christ will come.

But one thing I know for sure --
Christ will come
The promises of the restoration of all things is sure!
Posted By: dedication

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/07/09 06:50 AM

Quote:
T: If you mean possibilities, how could He not know? He knows everything.



MM: If, according to you, God does not know in advance precisely which scenario will play out, how can He know with absolute certainty the USA will legislate and enforce the MOB?


T: Because in all the possibilities God foresaw, this happens.



MM: And, why do you think God can know such things without violating their ability and freedom to choose as they please?


T: There's no logical problem in this scenario, because different things can happen. The logical problem occurs in your view because only one thing can happen.


I wasn't going to write anymore,but this bit in the discussion rather troubled me.

First I don't know what MOB stands for.
But for now I'm going to assume it has something to do with the Sunday law and loss of freedom to worship which we as Adventists believe.

Now, if as Tom seems to be saying; this endtime scenerio was just one "in all the possibilities God foresaw this happens". How do we know this will be the "possibility" that actually plays out.

There have been other people I've talked to who hold a "possibilities" view, and they would do away with the whole Sunday law situation saying it was one "possibility" that could have happened and would have happened back in the late 1880's or early 1900's IF the church had accepted the 1888 message in fullness.
Back then Sunday legislation WAS being agitated, and Sabbath keepers in some Southern states were being persecuted. So that would have been the scenerio that would have played out back then if conditions had been met and Christ could have come.

But, they told me, since the church didn't meet the conditions, it never happened that way. Now, according to them, we are on a different "possibility" track that won't have Sunday laws.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/07/09 10:08 AM

MOB means "Mark of the Beast." I haven't heard of the ideas you are speaking of (regarding that the Sunday law scenario could have happened, but didn't, and now something else will happen). I think it's certainly true that things would play out differently now than they would have over a century ago, and, similarly, if time should last into the future for a similar time period, things will play out differently then than they would now. But the same general principles would apply in any case (i.e., regarding the Mark of the Beast, Sunday worship, Satan's impersonation of Christ, etc.) and that's because Satan is the great instigator of the whole thing, and his character will not have changed.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/07/09 10:16 AM

Quote:
I'm bowing out -- I knew my attempts wouldn't reach any connecting point of understanding. Actually Tom, I'm sorry but I find your perspective very strange and anything but logical.

God's foreknowledge of what people will do, is NOT the same as forcing them to do it. It just isn't and I can't understand why you think it is? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. Sorry.

As far as reaching the predetermined conclusion (Christ will set up His kingdom and sin will be no more) God works AROUND peoples choices, doing His utmost to save all EVEN THOUGH HE KNOWS many will reject Him.

Go back to Jacob. Jacob was to receive the birthright. It wasn't God's plan that he obtain it by fraud. That was Jacob and Rebekkah's doing as free moral agents-- they most certainly DID NOT HAVE to that. Yes, God knew they would do it but that didn't in any way influence them into doing it, they could have waited for God to work things out but they chose not to, and God worked with Jacob to bring him to repentance and bring him back on track.


But, I'm sure you still don't understand what I'm trying to say, and we are not to waste time arguing when we know there is no point of agreement. Time is far too short -- we don't know how soon it will close and Christ will come.

But one thing I know for sure --
Christ will come
The promises of the restoration of all things is sure!


It's too bad, I think, that you're bowing out so soon. I don't think it's possible a subject like this could be understood in so briefly. I know in my case it took something like 20 years to get to the point to where I felt things were starting to fit together.

If you were interested, I could point you to some resources that approach the subject in more detail.

I was especially disappointed that the statements such as COL 196, DA 49, DA 131 and EW 125-126, which make clear that there was a risk involved (which is impossible if we accept the premises that God sees exactly one thing happening for every moment of time in the future, and that everything which God sees will happen) were not considered.

Perhaps you'll wish to consider the subject later in the future some time smile
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/08/09 06:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: You believe God knows all the possible choices and all the possible outcomes. Doesn't that mean our choices and outcomes are limited to the ones God foresees?

T: Yes. God sees everything that can possibly happen. We cannot do something which is impossible.

M: How is this significantly different than believing God knows precisely which choices and outcomes will play out?

T: Because more than one option is possible.

What good does it do God to know countless options if He has no idea which one will play out? How can He make any future plans? He would have to live in the moment, right?

Quote:
M: Also, if knowing the future for God is like knowing history, do you think it robs FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please?

T: In this case, the freedom FMAs have would be an illusion. One could not logically do anything different than what God has foreseen would happen, meaning that one cannot choose to do among different options. So this would contradict the incompatabilistic definition of free will. However, one could still do what one chooses to do, which is the compatibilistic definition, and it wouldn't contradict that.

Stating what happens after the fact in no way limits their options before the fact.

Quote:
M: If knowing history doesn't rob them, why would knowing the future like history rob them?

T: The history has already happened, so it really is single-threaded. Knowing what you did doesn't impact your free choice because at the time you did what you did you were able to choose among different options. If it is known what you will do before you do it, then at the time you are choosing to do whatever you choose to do, there are not multiple options available that can actually be chosen, since you can't choose to do something different from that which is certain to happen. Only if it's not certain to happen can you logically choose among different options (in the sense of being able to effect one or the other of them).

Why do you think God's reality and our reality are identical so far as the future is concerned? Why do you think God's ability to know the future like history alters our reality?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/08/09 06:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved. It makes perfect sense to me that God can describe what would happen. God is (however I state this will be understated) incredibly intelligent, so there's no reason to think He would be unable to do so.

M: How can He know, thousands of years in advance, the exact choices and the precise outcomes before people are born?

T: If you mean possibilities, how could He not know? He knows everything.

No, I didn’t mean “possibilities”. Also, according to you, God doesn’t know everything. You believe God cannot know with absolute certainty precisely how the future will play out. You think He merely knows the gazillion (bijillion, uncountabillion) ways it might play out. If this were true, then God would have no advantage not available to Satan.

Quote:
M: If, according to you, God does not know in advance precisely which scenario will play out, how can He know with absolute certainty the USA will legislate and enforce the MOB?

T: Because in all the possibilities God foresaw, this happens.

How many possibilities involve the specific details described in the GC (I’m referring to the MOB crisis). Do you think there are thousands of choices and outcomes that could play out in accordance with the specific details described in the GC? Or, do you think only there’s only one possible option that can play out precisely the way it is described in the GC?

Quote:
M: And, why do you think God can know such things without violating their ability and freedom to choose as they please?

T: There's no logical problem in this scenario, because different things can happen. The logical problem occurs in your view because only one thing can happen.

What do you mean different things can happen? Do you think the future could play out differently than the detailed description given in the GC? According to the view I believe in, the future will play out precisely the way it is described in detail in the GC.

Quote:
M: Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed?" I've asked this before but don't recall the passages you cited.

T: There are many things in inspiration which depict risk. That's all that needs to be established to make the re-run view logically impossible. For example, all heaven was imperiled for our redemption (COL 196). This makes no sense in a re-run world. Neither does EW 126-127. Nor DA 49, nor DA 131.

M: Tom, you didn’t cite a Bible reference. Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed"?

T: As I said, there are many things in inspiration which depict risk. I stated a number of examples.

You still haven’t cited a Bible reference where God says, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed." Please do so. I need a specific instance, not a general principle. Principles are meaningless if no precedence or particulars exist to verify them.

Quote:
T: You're misreading her statement. This means that, in spite of the fact that sin should occur, this would not deter the Lord from establishing His throne in righteousness. It does not mean, as you appear to be suggesting, that God created FMA's He was certain would sin for the purpose of establishing His throne in righteousness.

M: What is His “eternal purpose”? The following passages make it clear that His “eternal purpose” is to redeem sinners and to restore them to righteous and true holiness in Paradise Lost. “The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity.” “Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created.” Why? "For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

T: This implies sin was a part of God's plan. That can't be right.

God’s plan involved sin in the sense a detailed plan existed from eternity, prior to the creation of FMAs, to redeem sinners and to restore them to righteous in Paradise Lost. This is precisely how Ellen defines God’s “eternal purpose”. The many quotes I posted make it abundantly clear. Why do you think they mean something else? I’m reposting the quotes you omitted for convenience:

Quote:
The exaltation of the redeemed will be an eternal testimony to God's mercy. "In the ages to come," He will "show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." "To the intent that . . . unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known . . . the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." Eph. 2:7; 3:10, 11, R. V. {DA 26.1}

Of special value to God's church on earth today--the keepers of His vineyard--are the messages of counsel and admonition given through the prophets who have made plain His eternal purpose in behalf of mankind. In the teachings of the prophets His love for the lost race and His plan for their salvation are clearly revealed. {ML 40.7}

During the years that were to follow the rending of the kingdom, Elijah and Elisha were to live and labor, and the tender appeals of Hosea and Amos and Obadiah were to be heard in the land. Never was the kingdom of Israel to be left without noble witnesses to the mighty power of God to save from sin. Even in the darkest hours some would remain true to their divine Ruler and in the midst of idolatry would live blameless in the sight of a holy God. These faithful ones were numbered among the goodly remnant through whom the eternal purpose of Jehovah was finally to be fulfilled. {PK 108.1}

The prophet's absolute faith in God's eternal purpose to bring order out of confusion, and to demonstrate to the nations of earth and to the entire universe His attributes of justice and love, now led him to plead confidently in behalf of those who might turn from evil to righteousness. {PK 461.1}

Through Jeremiah in Jerusalem, through Daniel in the court of Babylon, through Ezekiel on the banks of the Chebar, the Lord in mercy made clear His eternal purpose and gave assurance of His willingness to fulfill to His chosen people the promises recorded in the writings of Moses. That which He had said He would do for those who should prove true to Him, He would surely bring to pass. "The word of God . . . liveth and abideth forever." 1 Peter 1:23. {PK 464.1}

If the remnant people of God will walk before Him in humility and faith, He will carry out through them His eternal purpose, enabling them to work harmoniously in giving to the world the truth as it is in Jesus. He will use all --men, women, and children--in making the light shine forth to the world and calling out a people that will be true to His commandments. Through the faith that His people exercise in Him, God will make known to the world that He is the true God, the God of Israel. {9T 274.1}

The fall of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent. Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created. {TMK 18.2}

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}

It's impossible to read each one of these passages and conclude God's "eternal purpose" (meaning it existed an eternity before God created FMAs) does not involve redeeming sinners and restoring them to righteous in Paradise Lost.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/08/09 09:03 AM

Quote:
M: You believe God knows all the possible choices and all the possible outcomes. Doesn't that mean our choices and outcomes are limited to the ones God foresees?

T: Yes. God sees everything that can possibly happen. We cannot do something which is impossible.

M: How is this significantly different than believing God knows precisely which choices and outcomes will play out?

T: Because more than one option is possible.

M:What good does it do God to know countless options if He has no idea which one will play out?


This is like asking, "What good is it if 2+2=4"? That's simply reality. It's not a matter of it's doing any good or not.

Quote:
How can He make any future plans?


How do you make any future plans? He does it the same way you do, except for having perfect knowledge.

Quote:
He would have to live in the moment, right?


Scripture is overwhelmingly clear that God experiences things in the moment, as we do. This is how He expresses Himself throughout history. He expresses Himself as thinking, struggling to make decisions, being frustrated, suffering emotions such as frustration and disappointment, all things which communicate His living in the moment, as you put it.

Quote:
M: Also, if knowing the future for God is like knowing history, do you think it robs FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please?


It's a logical contradiction, MM, as I've explained. Here's one way I've explained it.

1.If God is certain something will happen, then that thing will happen.
2.It's not possible to do something which God is certain you will not do.

This is not a matter of God's doing something to prevent you from doing something else, but of it's not being logically possible for you to do something different than that which God is certain you will do. This is not a logical problem if you hold to the compatibilistic definition, but it is if if you hold to the imcompatabilistic definition. That is, if you say:

1.Free will means that a person is free to do that which he chooses to do

then there is not a logical contradiction to your position that God sees the future like a re-run.

BUT if you say:

2.It's possible for an FMA to do either of two (or more) things, A or B, THIS is a logical contradiction.

It's a logical contradiction because if God is certain the FMA will do A, it's not possible for the FMA to do B.

It's not that God does something or somehow causes the FMA to not be able to do B, but that it causes a logical contradiction.

Quote:
T: In this case, the freedom FMAs have would be an illusion. One could not logically do anything different than what God has foreseen would happen, meaning that one cannot choose to do among different options. So this would contradict the incompatabilistic definition of free will. However, one could still do what one chooses to do, which is the compatibilistic definition, and it wouldn't contradict that.

[quote]M:Stating what happens after the fact in no way limits their options before the fact.


Well, of course, but we're not discussing this.

Quote:

M: If knowing history doesn't rob them, why would knowing the future like history rob them?

T: The history has already happened, so it really is single-threaded. Knowing what you did doesn't impact your free choice because at the time you did what you did you were able to choose among different options. If it is known what you will do before you do it, then at the time you are choosing to do whatever you choose to do, there are not multiple options available that can actually be chosen, since you can't choose to do something different from that which is certain to happen. Only if it's not certain to happen can you logically choose among different options (in the sense of being able to effect one or the other of them).

M:Why do you think God's reality and our reality are identical so far as the future is concerned?


Because of how He has communicated with us. The only way we know anything about God is from His communication with us.

Quote:
Why do you think God's ability to know the future like history alters our reality?


God's knowing the future like history, as you put it, wouldn't affect our reality in any way. It would *define* our reality, not alter it. It would define our reality as being one in which the future is not Open.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/08/09 09:47 AM

Quote:
T: God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved. It makes perfect sense to me that God can describe what would happen. God is (however I state this will be understated) incredibly intelligent, so there's no reason to think He would be unable to do so.

M: How can He know, thousands of years in advance, the exact choices and the precise outcomes before people are born?

T: If you mean possibilities, how could He not know? He knows everything.

M:No, I didn’t mean “possibilities”.


Then my answer to your question is that He doesn't. God knows the future as it is, and the future is comprised of possibilities, until these possibilities become realities. God doesn't know the future as not involving possibilities because the future does, in reality, consist of possibilities.

Quote:
Also, according to you, God doesn’t know everything.


This is a lie! I've stated on many, many occasions, including several times on this very thread, that God knows everything, that He has perfect knowledge.

This is a gross misrepresentation of my position.

Please don't repeat this statement.

Quote:
You believe God cannot know with absolute certainty precisely how the future will play out.


I don't disagree in any way with you in regards to God's ability to see the future. As I've explained many times, our disagreement is not epistemological but ontological. I disagree with you in regards to the nature of the future, not with God's ability to see it.

A little thought should be sufficient to show that the view I hold requires far more intelligence on the part of God than the view you hold.

Quote:
You think He merely knows the gazillion (bijillion, uncountabillion) ways it might play out. If this were true, then God would have no advantage not available to Satan.


Satan isn't nearly as intelligent as God. There is no basis for your assertion here.

Quote:
M: If, according to you, God does not know in advance precisely which scenario will play out, how can He know with absolute certainty the USA will legislate and enforce the MOB?

T: Because in all the possibilities God foresaw, this happens.

M:How many possibilities involve the specific details described in the GC (I’m referring to the MOB crisis).


How would I know?

Quote:
Do you think there are thousands of choices and outcomes that could play out in accordance with the specific details described in the GC?


It doesn't matter.

Quote:
Or, do you think only there’s only one possible option that can play out precisely the way it is described in the GC?


Obviously there's more than one. We've been told that Christ could have come before now. Specifically, he could have come in the 1888 era. But He didn't. So, assuming the Great Controversy will play out as described in the book by that name, it is still future that it will do so, and God has foreseen that. So that's at least two.

And EGW wrote before the 1888 era that Christ could have come "'ere now". So that's at least three.

Quote:
M: And, why do you think God can know such things without violating their ability and freedom to choose as they please?

T: There's no logical problem in this scenario, because different things can happen. The logical problem occurs in your view because only one thing can happen.

M:What do you mean different things can happen?


I explained what I meant.

Quote:
Do you think the future could play out differently than the detailed description given in the GC?


Read what I wrote, please. I explained what I meant in detail.

Quote:
According to the view I believe in, the future will play out precisely the way it is described in detail in the GC.


I didn't say it wouldn't. Please re-read what I wrote.

Quote:
M: Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed?" I've asked this before but don't recall the passages you cited.

T: There are many things in inspiration which depict risk. That's all that needs to be established to make the re-run view logically impossible. For example, all heaven was imperiled for our redemption (COL 196). This makes no sense in a re-run world. Neither does EW 126-127. Nor DA 49, nor DA 131.

M: Tom, you didn’t cite a Bible reference. Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed"?

T: As I said, there are many things in inspiration which depict risk. I stated a number of examples.

M:You still haven’t cited a Bible reference where God says, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed." Please do so. I need a specific instance, not a general principle. Principles are meaningless if no precedence or particulars exist to verify them.


There is precedence and particulars to verify the principles I mentioned, many of them. I've cited them. There's also the SOP, which gives particulars on the very event you're questioning.

Quote:
T: You're misreading her statement. This means that, in spite of the fact that sin should occur, this would not deter the Lord from establishing His throne in righteousness. It does not mean, as you appear to be suggesting, that God created FMA's He was certain would sin for the purpose of establishing His throne in righteousness.

M: What is His “eternal purpose”? The following passages make it clear that His “eternal purpose” is to redeem sinners and to restore them to righteous and true holiness in Paradise Lost. “The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity.” “Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created.” Why? "For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

T: This implies sin was a part of God's plan. That can't be right.

M:God’s plan involved sin in the sense a detailed plan existed from eternity, prior to the creation of FMAs, to redeem sinners and to restore them to righteous in Paradise Lost. This is precisely how Ellen defines God’s “eternal purpose”. The many quotes I posted make it abundantly clear. Why do you think they mean something else?


I've explained why. The way you are thinking, sin would be inevitable. It wasn't. It wasn't even expected. EW 125-126 makes this clear:

Quote:
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then 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 we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race...(EW 126)


This simply makes no sense from the viewpoint you are coming from. This is clearly presenting the event of man's fall as not something which God and Christ were responding to and making decisions in real time. God is even represented as struggling with His decision, which certainly would not be possible from the viewpoint you are coming from.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/08/09 07:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Stating what happens after the fact in no way limits their options before the fact.

T: Well, of course, but we're not discussing this.

I’m trying to discuss it, but you’re not. You seem to think it is impossible for God to know the future like history, as if He lacks the ability or power. Why do you think it is impossible for God to know the future like history?

Quote:
M: Why do you think God's reality and our reality are identical so far as the future is concerned?

T: Because of how He has communicated with us. The only way we know anything about God is from His communication with us.

God has communicated to us the future like history. That’s what unconditional prophecy is all about. Just because He also speaks to us in the here and now it does not mean He has absolutely no idea exactly how the future will play out. God often spoke to people as if He didn’t know certain basic facts. For example, He pretended like He didn’t know where A&E were or if they had eaten the forbidden fruit.

Quote:
M: Why do you think God's ability to know the future like history alters our reality?

T: God's knowing the future like history, as you put it, wouldn't affect our reality in any way. It would *define* our reality, not alter it. It would define our reality as being one in which the future is not Open.

You are assuming God is no different than us, that He cannot know the future like history, as if it would reduce our options to one. And yet you don’t seem to think it matters that, according to you, God knows all the options and outcomes before we choose. You seem to think it has no bearing on reality. But all current choices and consequences render predicting future choices and consequences impossible. It creates infinite sequential and compounded unknown variables upon which it is impossible to construct a future. If you have no idea exactly what 2 billion people are going to think, say, or do today it is impossible to predict what Jim, who isn’t even born yet, will think, say, or do 2 thousand years later.

PS - You've already admitted that if it were possible for God to know the future like history that it wouldn't effect our reality. Or, did I misunderstand you?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/08/09 07:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved. It makes perfect sense to me that God can describe what would happen. God is (however I state this will be understated) incredibly intelligent, so there's no reason to think He would be unable to do so.

M: How can He know, thousands of years in advance, the exact choices and the precise outcomes before people are born?

T: If you mean possibilities, how could He not know? He knows everything.

M: No, I didn’t mean “possibilities”.

T: Then my answer to your question is that He doesn't. God knows the future as it is, and the future is comprised of possibilities, until these possibilities become realities. God doesn't know the future as not involving possibilities because the future does, in reality, consist of possibilities.

You wrote, “God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved.” According to you, though, this is impossible. There are too many unknown variables. If your theory is right God cannot know their characters; instead, He can only know numberless possibilities. Consequently, it would be impossible for God to know that the precise details described in the GC will, without a doubt, play out exactly as recorded. He could, according to you, suggest that it might play out that way, but He couldn’t say with absolute certainty that it will.

Quote:
M: Also, according to you, God doesn’t know everything.

This is a lie! I've stated on many, many occasions, including several times on this very thread, that God knows everything, that He has perfect knowledge. This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. Please don't repeat this statement.

Tom, your theory does not allow you to say without qualification that God knows everything. At best you need to say, God knows everything He is capable of knowing. You believe God is incapable of knowing precisely how the future will play out. He cannot know it one minute from now and He certainly cannot know it 6000 years from now. In other words, it was impossible for Him to state with absolute certainty, “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Or, do you think the possibility of failure is inherent in such promises and prophecies?

Quote:
M: You believe God cannot know with absolute certainty precisely how the future will play out.

T: I don't disagree in any way with you in regards to God's ability to see the future. As I've explained many times, our disagreement is not epistemological but ontological. I disagree with you in regards to the nature of the future, not with God's ability to see it. A little thought should be sufficient to show that the view I hold requires far more intelligence on the part of God than the view you hold.

The view I am advocating includes God knowing of more than one option before the fact. You assume if God knows the future like history it destroys its nature and reduces our options to one. Why do you think God cannot know the future like history without destroying its nature? How does His knowing it have any effect on it? Do you think God knows precisely what you’re going to think, say, or do one second before you do it? Or, do you think it would reduce your options to one?

Quote:
M: You think He merely knows the gazillion (bijillion, uncountabillion) ways it might play out. If this were true, then God would have no advantage not available to Satan.

T: Satan isn't nearly as intelligent as God. There is no basis for your assertion here.

Do you think Satan lacks the intelligence to know all the options and outcomes? Also, what does it matter if he only knows half as many options and outcomes as God does? He is no better or worse off than God so far as knowing precisely which ones will play out. God has no advantage not available to Satan.

Quote:
M: If, according to you, God does not know in advance precisely which scenario will play out, how can He know with absolute certainty the USA will legislate and enforce the MOB?

T: Because in all the possibilities God foresaw, this happens.

M: How many possibilities involve the specific details described in the GC (I’m referring to the MOB crisis). Do you think there are thousands of choices and outcomes that could play out in accordance with the specific details described in the GC?

T: How would I know?

The details are too specific to play out more than one way.

Quote:
Or, do you think only there’s only one possible option that can play out precisely the way it is described in the GC?

T: Obviously there's more than one. We've been told that Christ could have come before now. Specifically, he could have come in the 1888 era. But He didn't. So, assuming the Great Controversy will play out as described in the book by that name, it is still future that it will do so, and God has foreseen that. So that's at least two. And EGW wrote before the 1888 era that Christ could have come "'ere now". So that's at least three.

Why do you consider things that didn’t happen as viable options? And, why do you think the minute details would have played out differently? Do you think God knows precisely what He’ll do in the future? How can He know He won’t do something else?

Quote:
M: Do you think the future could play out differently than the detailed description given in the GC?

T: Read what I wrote, please. I explained what I meant in detail.

It sounded like you said, Yes.

Quote:
M: Tom, you didn’t cite a Bible reference. Where in the Bible did God say, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed"?

T: As I said, there are many things in inspiration which depict risk. I stated a number of examples.

M: You still haven’t cited a Bible reference where God says, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed." Please do so. I need a specific instance, not a general principle. Principles are meaningless if no precedence or particulars exist to verify them.

T: There is precedence and particulars to verify the principles I mentioned, many of them. I've cited them. There's also the SOP, which gives particulars on the very event you're questioning.

Before we can rightly understand what Ellen meant in the passages you posted we need to know what the Bible says about it. Where in the Bible does God say something to the effect, "I'm not certain Jesus will succeed." I need a specific instance, not a general principle. For example, Genesis 3:15. Do you think it implies God did not know for certain Jesus would succeed?

Quote:
M: God’s plan involved sin in the sense a detailed plan existed from eternity, prior to the creation of FMAs, to redeem sinners and to restore them to righteous in Paradise Lost. This is precisely how Ellen defines God’s “eternal purpose”. The many quotes I posted make it abundantly clear. Why do you think they mean something else?

T: I've explained why. The way you are thinking, sin would be inevitable. It wasn't. It wasn't even expected. EW 125-126 makes this clear. This simply makes no sense from the viewpoint you are coming from. This is clearly presenting the event of man's fall as not something which God and Christ were responding to and making decisions in real time. God is even represented as struggling with His decision, which certainly would not be possible from the viewpoint you are coming from.

Tom, it sounds like you’re saying the passages I posted do not say God’s “eternal purpose” involved Jesus dying to redeem sinners and to restore them to righteousness in Paradise Lost. If so, why, then, does she specifically say so? Listen:

Quote:
The incarnation of Christ is a mystery. The union of divinity with humanity is a mystery indeed, hidden with God, "even the mystery which hath been hid from ages." It was kept in eternal silence by Jehovah, and was first revealed in Eden, by the prophecy that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, and that he should bruise His heel. {6BC 1082.4}

To present to the world this mystery that God kept in silence for eternal ages before the world was created, before man was created, was the part that Christ was to act in the work He entered upon when He came to this earth. And this wonderful mystery, the incarnation of Christ and the atonement that He made, must be declared to every son and daughter of Adam. {6BC 1082.5}

Do you think the mysterious plan of Jesus’ incarnation and atonement existed before God created FMAs?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/08/09 09:50 PM

Quote:
M: Stating what happens after the fact in no way limits their options before the fact.

T: Well, of course, but we're not discussing this.

M:I’m trying to discuss it, but you’re not. You seem to think it is impossible for God to know the future like history, as if He lacks the ability or power. Why do you think it is impossible for God to know the future like history?


For the same reason it's not possible for God to know you as me. You're not me. The future is not the past.

Quote:
M: Why do you think God's reality and our reality are identical so far as the future is concerned?

T: Because of how He has communicated with us. The only way we know anything about God is from His communication with us.

M:God has communicated to us the future like history. That’s what unconditional prophecy is all about. Just because He also speaks to us in the here and now it does not mean He has absolutely no idea exactly how the future will play out. God often spoke to people as if He didn’t know certain basic facts. For example, He pretended like He didn’t know where A&E were or if they had eaten the forbidden fruit.


Jer. 18 explains how prophecy works:

Quote:
7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18:7-10)


Quote:
M: Why do you think God's ability to know the future like history alters our reality?

T: God's knowing the future like history, as you put it, wouldn't affect our reality in any way. It would *define* our reality, not alter it. It would define our reality as being one in which the future is not Open.

M:You are assuming God is no different than us, that He cannot know the future like history, as if it would reduce our options to one.


No, I'm not assuming this. I'm pointing out that our difference is not epistemological but ontological. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God, and everything to do with what the future is like. We are not disagreeing with God's ability to see the future, but about what the content of the future is.

Quote:
And yet you don’t seem to think it matters that, according to you, God knows all the options and outcomes before we choose.


You asked me how many options *I* thought there were. I said that didn't matter.

Quote:
You seem to think it has no bearing on reality.


It doesn't. How many options I think there are has no bearing on reality.

Quote:
But all current choices and consequences render predicting future choices and consequences impossible. It creates infinite sequential and compounded unknown variables upon which it is impossible to construct a future.


Impossible for you or I, but not for God. The possibilities are not infinite, but finite. They are too many for you or I to handle, but not God. Also, God acts in the future, so He can foresee the impact which His own actions will have.

Quote:
If you have no idea exactly what 2 billion people are going to think, say, or do today it is impossible to predict what Jim, who isn’t even born yet, will think, say, or do 2 thousand years later.


No it doesn't.

Quote:
PS - You've already admitted that if it were possible for God to know the future like history that it wouldn't effect our reality. Or, did I misunderstand you?


I said the problem is not epistemological but ontological. God's knowledge of the future does not alter it. It's not knowledge that impacts us, but reality. If the future were single-threaded, as opposed to Open, that would impact us. Knowing it is one way or another doesn't alter our reality. It's *being* one way or the other is what has the impact.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/09/09 07:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: What good does it do God to know countless options if He has no idea which one will play out?

T: This is like asking, "What good is it if 2+2=4"? That's simply reality. It's not a matter of it's doing any good or not.

According to your example, God knows in advance precisely which way it will play out. Such knowledge is indeed incredibly good, yea more, it is absolutely necessary.

Quote:
M: How can He make any future plans?

T: How do you make any future plans? He does it the same way you do, except for having perfect knowledge.

Comparing my knowledge of the future to God’s is like saying there is no difference. Also, you do not believe God’s knowledge of the future is perfect for the simply reason you do not believe He knows precisely how it will play out.

Quote:
M: He would have to live in the moment, right?

T: Scripture is overwhelmingly clear that God experiences things in the moment, as we do. This is how He expresses Himself throughout history. He expresses Himself as thinking, struggling to make decisions, being frustrated, suffering emotions such as frustration and disappointment, all things which communicate His living in the moment, as you put it.

You missed the point. Having to live in the moment is different than having no other choice because He has no idea how the future will play out. And, yes, God also lives in the moment – but not, as you believe, exclusively. He also has the ability to know the future like history, which merely reflects the way He lived.

Quote:
M: Also, if knowing the future for God is like knowing history, do you think it robs FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please?

T: It's a logical contradiction, MM, as I've explained. Here's one way I've explained it.

1.If God is certain something will happen, then that thing will happen.
2.It's not possible to do something which God is certain you will not do.

This is not a matter of God's doing something to prevent you from doing something else, but of it's not being logically possible for you to do something different than that which God is certain you will do. This is not a logical problem if you hold to the compatibilistic definition, but it is if if you hold to the imcompatabilistic definition. That is, if you say:

1.Free will means that a person is free to do that which he chooses to do then there is not a logical contradiction to your position that God sees the future like a re-run. BUT if you say:

2.It's possible for an FMA to do either of two (or more) things, A or B, THIS is a logical contradiction. It's a logical contradiction because if God is certain the FMA will do A, it's not possible for the FMA to do B. It's not that God does something or somehow causes the FMA to not be able to do B, but that it causes a logical contradiction.

You wrote, "Free will means that a person is free to do that which he chooses to do then there is not a logical contradiction to your position that God sees the future like a re-run." So, your answer to my question is - No, God’s ability to know the future like history does not rob FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/09/09 08:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Stating what happens after the fact in no way limits their options before the fact.

T: Well, of course, but we're not discussing this.

M: I’m trying to discuss it, but you’re not. You seem to think it is impossible for God to know the future like history, as if He lacks the ability or power. Why do you think it is impossible for God to know the future like history?

T: For the same reason it's not possible for God to know you as me. You're not me. The future is not the past.

So, you do think God lacks the ability or power.

Quote:
M: Why do you think God's reality and our reality are identical so far as the future is concerned?

T: Because of how He has communicated with us. The only way we know anything about God is from His communication with us.

M: God has communicated to us the future like history. That’s what unconditional prophecy is all about. Just because He also speaks to us in the here and now it does not mean He has absolutely no idea exactly how the future will play out. God often spoke to people as if He didn’t know certain basic facts. For example, He pretended like He didn’t know where A&E were or if they had eaten the forbidden fruit.

T: Jer. 18 explains how prophecy works:

It doesn’t explain unconditional prophecy. You didn’t comment on the rest of what I wrote.

Quote:
M: You are assuming God is no different than us, that He cannot know the future like history, as if it would reduce our options to one.

T: No, I'm not assuming this. I'm pointing out that our difference is not epistemological but ontological. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God, and everything to do with what the future is like. We are not disagreeing with God's ability to see the future, but about what the content of the future is.

I’m talking about God’s ability to know the future like history without compromising its nature and essence. You seem to think God cannot know the future like history without destroying its nature and essence.

Quote:
M: But all current choices and consequences render predicting future choices and consequences impossible. It creates infinite sequential and compounded unknown variables upon which it is impossible to construct a future.

T: Impossible for you or I, but not for God. The possibilities are not infinite, but finite. They are too many for you or I to handle, but not God. Also, God acts in the future, so He can foresee the impact which His own actions will have.

M: If you have no idea exactly what 2 billion people are going to think, say, or do today it is impossible to predict what Jim, who isn’t even born yet, will think, say, or do 2 thousand years later.

T: No it doesn't.

The possibilities are infinite, Tom. There is no limit to how many different people could be born of parents two or three generations removed from A&E. There is no way God can know Jim will be born or an infinite number of other people instead. For these reasons it is just as impossible for God to know precisely what He will do in the future (the future as you describe it, that is, a future God cannot know precisely how it will play out).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/09/09 08:10 PM

Tom, don't overlook 121383.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/09/09 09:48 PM

Quote:
M:You wrote, “God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved.” According to you, though, this is impossible.


That's a rather ridiculous thing to affirm. Clearly if I said "God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved." I hardly think, let alone say something that would make it "according to me," that this is impossible.

Quote:
There are too many unknown variables.


For you or I, yes, but not for God.

Quote:
If your theory is right God cannot know their characters; instead, He can only know numberless possibilities. Consequently, it would be impossible for God to know that the precise details described in the GC will, without a doubt, play out exactly as recorded. He could, according to you, suggest that it might play out that way, but He couldn’t say with absolute certainty that it will.


It's not difficult, even for us, with our limited intelligence, to know the character of the Catholic church, or the Protestant church, or Satan, or the United States. I don't know why you would even think this would be challenging for God, let alone impossible. Consider the Great Controversy, the historical part. We have all sorts of evidence as to what the character of the involved institutions is.

Quote:
M: Also, according to you, God doesn’t know everything.

T:This is a lie! I've stated on many, many occasions, including several times on this very thread, that God knows everything, that He has perfect knowledge. This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. Please don't repeat this statement.

M:Tom, your theory does not allow you to say without qualification that God knows everything.


Yes it does. I've said so repeatedly. You could qualify your statement by saying you don't understand how this is possible, or something like that, but you can't claim that "according to me" God doesn't know everything. That's a lie. According to me, God knows everything. Let that be clear!

Quote:
At best you need to say, God knows everything He is capable of knowing.


Well, you too. Unless you think God knows things He isn't capable of knowing.

Quote:
You believe God is incapable of knowing precisely how the future will play out.


As I've pointed out, our difference is not God-related, but future-related. It's not epistemological, but ontological. We're disagreeing regarding the content of the future, NOT God's ability to see it. I, as much as you, believe God sees the future perfectly. God cannot see the future in the way you are suggesting because that's not the way it is. It would be like God knowing you as me. He can't, because you're not me, you're you.

Quote:
He cannot know it one minute from now and He certainly cannot know it 6000 years from now.


I disagree. God knows what the future will be one minute from now, and He knows what it will be 6,000 years from now.

Quote:
In other words, it was impossible for Him to state with absolute certainty, “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Or, do you think the possibility of failure is inherent in such promises and prophecies?


Jer. 18 says:

Quote:
7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.


From the SOP:

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

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


Quote:
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. (DA 131)


Quote:
Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul. (COL 196)


Quote:
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then 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 we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right.

Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others. Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them.(EW 126-127)


I've explained how these passages disagree with your suggestions in detail. Perhaps you might wish to respond to what I've written?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/09/09 10:09 PM

Quote:
M: What good does it do God to know countless options if He has no idea which one will play out?

T: This is like asking, "What good is it if 2+2=4"? That's simply reality. It's not a matter of it's doing any good or not.

M:According to your example, God knows in advance precisely which way it will play out. Such knowledge is indeed incredibly good, yea more, it is absolutely necessary.


? This doesn't seem to make much sense.

Quote:
M: How can He make any future plans?

T: How do you make any future plans? He does it the same way you do, except for having perfect knowledge.

M:Comparing my knowledge of the future to God’s is like saying there is no difference.


No, I was making you aware of why your statement was false. Your argument is that if God can't see the future like a re-run, then He can't plan for it. But you don't see the future like a re-run, yet you can plan for it. So your argument is false.

Quote:
Also, you do not believe God’s knowledge of the future is perfect for the simply reason you do not believe He knows precisely how it will play out.


As I've explained many times, I believe God's knowledge is perfect. What I disagree with you is in regards to WHAT God sees, NOT how well He sees it.

You've written things in the past that make me believe you've understood what I've said, so I don't understand your statement here, which sounds as if you're not understanding what I've written.

Quote:
M: He would have to live in the moment, right?

T: Scripture is overwhelmingly clear that God experiences things in the moment, as we do. This is how He expresses Himself throughout history. He expresses Himself as thinking, struggling to make decisions, being frustrated, suffering emotions such as frustration and disappointment, all things which communicate His living in the moment, as you put it.

M:You missed the point. Having to live in the moment is different than having no other choice because He has no idea how the future will play out.


MM, even you have an idea how the future will play out, and you're intelligence can't even be compared to God's. Why would you think God would have no idea how the future will play out, just because it's Open?

Quote:
And, yes, God also lives in the moment – but not, as you believe, exclusively. He also has the ability to know the future like history, which merely reflects the way He lived.


God can't know the future like history because the future is not like history. The future is different from the past. Just as you are different than me, and God cannot know you as me because you are not me, so God cannot know the future like the past, because the future is not the past.

Quote:
M: Also, if knowing the future for God is like knowing history, do you think it robs FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please?

T: It's a logical contradiction, MM, as I've explained. Here's one way I've explained it.

1.If God is certain something will happen, then that thing will happen.
2.It's not possible to do something which God is certain you will not do.

This is not a matter of God's doing something to prevent you from doing something else, but of it's not being logically possible for you to do something different than that which God is certain you will do. This is not a logical problem if you hold to the compatibilistic definition, but it is if if you hold to the imcompatabilistic definition. That is, if you say:

1.Free will means that a person is free to do that which he chooses to do then there is not a logical contradiction to your position that God sees the future like a re-run. BUT if you say:

2.It's possible for an FMA to do either of two (or more) things, A or B, THIS is a logical contradiction. It's a logical contradiction because if God is certain the FMA will do A, it's not possible for the FMA to do B. It's not that God does something or somehow causes the FMA to not be able to do B, but that it causes a logical contradiction.

M:You wrote, "Free will means that a person is free to do that which he chooses to do then there is not a logical contradiction to your position that God sees the future like a re-run."


I wrote "if you say" in front of this. I then described two positions of free will, the compatibilistic one (also called "deterministic") and the imcompatibilistic one (also called "libertarian"). This one, that you're quoting, is the first one.

Quote:
So, your answer to my question is - No, God’s ability to know the future like history does not rob FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please.


If you take the incompatibilistic, or deterministic, definition, then there isn't a logical contradiction is what I said.

Quote:
: Stating what happens after the fact in no way limits their options before the fact.

T: Well, of course, but we're not discussing this.

M: I’m trying to discuss it, but you’re not. You seem to think it is impossible for God to know the future like history, as if He lacks the ability or power. Why do you think it is impossible for God to know the future like history?

T: For the same reason it's not possible for God to know you as me. You're not me. The future is not the past.

M:So, you do think God lacks the ability or power.


???

No. Please re-read what I wrote.

Quote:
M: Why do you think God's reality and our reality are identical so far as the future is concerned?

T: Because of how He has communicated with us. The only way we know anything about God is from His communication with us.

M: God has communicated to us the future like history. That’s what unconditional prophecy is all about. Just because He also speaks to us in the here and now it does not mean He has absolutely no idea exactly how the future will play out. God often spoke to people as if He didn’t know certain basic facts. For example, He pretended like He didn’t know where A&E were or if they had eaten the forbidden fruit.

T: Jer. 18 explains how prophecy works:

M:It doesn’t explain unconditional prophecy. You didn’t comment on the rest of what I wrote.


God explained how prophecy works in Jer. 18. There's no explanation of prophecy working as you're thinking.

Quote:
M: You are assuming God is no different than us, that He cannot know the future like history, as if it would reduce our options to one.

T: No, I'm not assuming this. I'm pointing out that our difference is not epistemological but ontological. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God, and everything to do with what the future is like. We are not disagreeing with God's ability to see the future, but about what the content of the future is.

M:I’m talking about God’s ability to know the future like history without compromising its nature and essence. You seem to think God cannot know the future like history without destroying its nature and essence.


Why would it?

Quote:
M: But all current choices and consequences render predicting future choices and consequences impossible. It creates infinite sequential and compounded unknown variables upon which it is impossible to construct a future.

T: Impossible for you or I, but not for God. The possibilities are not infinite, but finite. They are too many for you or I to handle, but not God. Also, God acts in the future, so He can foresee the impact which His own actions will have.

M: If you have no idea exactly what 2 billion people are going to think, say, or do today it is impossible to predict what Jim, who isn’t even born yet, will think, say, or do 2 thousand years later.

T: No it doesn't.

MM:The possibilities are infinite, Tom.


No, they're not infinite. They're finite. There's a lot of possibilities, but not an infinite number. Not even close.

Quote:
There is no limit to how many different people could be born of parents two or three generations removed from A&E.


What do you mean? Of course there is. One can make a few assumptions and calculate it easily. Just off the top of my head, I'm sure it's many times less than a quadrillion.

Quote:
There is no way God can know Jim will be born or an infinite number of other people instead.


There's not an infinite number. There's a finite number.

Quote:
For these reasons it is just as impossible for God to know precisely what He will do in the future (the future as you describe it, that is, a future God cannot know precisely how it will play out).


Your assumption that the number of possibilities is infinite is false.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/10/09 06:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: You wrote, “God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved.” According to you, though, this is impossible. There are too many unknown variables. If your theory is right God cannot know their characters; instead, He can only know numberless possibilities. Consequently, it would be impossible for God to know that the precise details described in the GC will, without a doubt, play out exactly as recorded. He could, according to you, suggest that it might play out that way, but He couldn’t say with absolute certainty that it will.

T: It's not difficult, even for us, with our limited intelligence, to know the character of the Catholic church, or the Protestant church, or Satan, or the United States. I don't know why you would even think this would be challenging for God, let alone impossible. Consider the Great Controversy, the historical part. We have all sorts of evidence as to what the character of the involved institutions is.

The best we can do is guess how things might play out. But we are incapable of knowing with absolute certainty precisely how it will play out. We do not possess the ability or power to know the future like history. Besides, your example is based on preexisting facts. God has known from eternity precisely how it will play out. He has known it for thousands of years before the existence of the papacy and the USA.

Quote:
M: Tom, your theory does not allow you to say without qualification that God knows everything. At best you need to say, God knows everything He is capable of knowing. You believe God is incapable of knowing precisely how the future will play out.

T: God cannot see the future in the way you are suggesting because that's not the way it is.

It’s the way God is, therefore, it is. Knowing the future like history in no way alters its nature or essence because God is who He is. God can do things and know things without altering reality. We can too when He reveals it to us.

Quote:
M: According to you, He cannot know it one minute from now and He certainly cannot know it 6000 years from now.

T: I disagree. God knows what the future will be one minute from now, and He knows what it will be 6,000 years from now.

No, according to your view you need to say, God knows what the future might be one minute from now, and He knows what it might be 6,000 years from now.

Quote:
M: In other words, it was impossible for Him to state with absolute certainty, “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Or, do you think the possibility of failure is inherent in such promises and prophecies?

T: I've explained how these passages disagree with your suggestions in detail. Perhaps you might wish to respond to what I've written?

None of the “risk” passages you posted mean God was unsure Jesus would succeed. Nowhere in the Bible does God say anything to this effect.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/10/09 05:36 PM

Quote:
M: You wrote, “God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved.” According to you, though, this is impossible. There are too many unknown variables. If your theory is right God cannot know their characters; instead, He can only know numberless possibilities. Consequently, it would be impossible for God to know that the precise details described in the GC will, without a doubt, play out exactly as recorded. He could, according to you, suggest that it might play out that way, but He couldn’t say with absolute certainty that it will.

T: It's not difficult, even for us, with our limited intelligence, to know the character of the Catholic church, or the Protestant church, or Satan, or the United States. I don't know why you would even think this would be challenging for God, let alone impossible. Consider the Great Controversy, the historical part. We have all sorts of evidence as to what the character of the involved institutions is.

M:The best we can do is guess how things might play out. But we are incapable of knowing with absolute certainty precisely how it will play out.


We could if we were as smart as God.

Quote:
We do not possess the ability or power to know the future like history.


That wouldn't be necessary. Being as smart as God would be enough. Even half as smart would do.

Quote:
Besides, your example is based on preexisting facts. God has known from eternity precisely how it will play out.


Not if we accept inspiration as it reads.

Quote:
He has known it for thousands of years before the existence of the papacy and the USA.


He had known of the possibility, and again, this wouldn't be difficult to foresee. Everything that has happened is logical.

Quote:
M: Tom, your theory does not allow you to say without qualification that God knows everything. At best you need to say, God knows everything He is capable of knowing. You believe God is incapable of knowing precisely how the future will play out.

T: God cannot see the future in the way you are suggesting because that's not the way it is.

M:It’s the way God is, therefore, it is.


The issue has nothing at all to do with the way God is, but only with how the future is. Our disagreement is regarding the future, not God. We both agree that God is omniscient, and knows the future perfectly. We disagree in regards to what that future is like.

Quote:
Knowing the future like history in no way alters its nature or essence because God is who He is.


It presupposed the future is a certain way.

Quote:
God can do things and know things without altering reality.


God cannot know reality to be different than it is. It's what reality is that we differ on. I believe reality is that the future is Open, whereas you perceive it to be like the past.

Quote:
We can too when He reveals it to us.


We could be confused into thinking this, but the future is not like the past.

Quote:
M: According to you, He cannot know it one minute from now and He certainly cannot know it 6000 years from now.

T: I disagree. God knows what the future will be one minute from now, and He knows what it will be 6,000 years from now.

M:No, according to your view you need to say, God knows what the future might be one minute from now, and He knows what it might be 6,000 years from now.


No! This is wrong! It's important to understand this point!

God knows *precisely* what the future is like one minute from now, and 6,000 years from now. Your phrasing "God knows what the future might be" is supposing that the future is single-threaded; that is "is" one given thing. But this is the whole problem. It's NOT one given thing. It consists of possibilities.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

Pardon the shouting, but I want to make clear this point. The future IS the combination of possibilities. It's not one given thing.

I know you don't agree with this, but I want you to at least understand the point of view with which you're disagreeing.

Quote:
M: In other words, it was impossible for Him to state with absolute certainty, “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Or, do you think the possibility of failure is inherent in such promises and prophecies?

T: I've explained how these passages disagree with your suggestions in detail. Perhaps you might wish to respond to what I've written?

M:None of the “risk” passages you posted mean God was unsure Jesus would succeed. Nowhere in the Bible does God say anything to this effect.


Could Christ have sinned? Does the Bible teach this? If you answer "yes," then Christ could have failed, and the Bible teaches this. If Christ could have failed, then God must have known this.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 11/13/09 11:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: You wrote, “God knows the characters of the beings/institutions involved.” According to you, though, this is impossible. There are too many unknown variables. If your theory is right God cannot know their characters; instead, He can only know numberless possibilities. Consequently, it would be impossible for God to know that the precise details described in the GC will, without a doubt, play out exactly as recorded. He could, according to you, suggest that it might play out that way, but He couldn’t say with absolute certainty that it will.

T: It's not difficult, even for us, with our limited intelligence, to know the character of the Catholic church, or the Protestant church, or Satan, or the United States. I don't know why you would even think this would be challenging for God, let alone impossible. Consider the Great Controversy, the historical part. We have all sorts of evidence as to what the character of the involved institutions is.

M: The best we can do is guess how things might play out. But we are incapable of knowing with absolute certainty precisely how it will play out. We do not possess the ability or power to know the future like history.

T: We could if we were as smart as God.

You do not believe God is capable of “knowing with absolute certainty precisely how it will play out”.

Quote:
M: Besides, your example is based on preexisting facts. God has known from eternity precisely how it will play out.

T: Not if we accept inspiration as it reads.

Inspiration says nothing about your example being based on preexisting facts.

Quote:
M: He has known it for thousands of years before the existence of the papacy and the USA.

T: He had known of the possibility, and again, this wouldn't be difficult to foresee. Everything that has happened is logical.

God has known from eternity precisely how it will play out.

Quote:
M: Tom, your theory does not allow you to say without qualification that God knows everything. At best you need to say, God knows everything He is capable of knowing. You believe God is incapable of knowing precisely how the future will play out.

T: God cannot see the future in the way you are suggesting because that's not the way it is.

M: It’s the way God is, therefore, it is.

T: The issue has nothing at all to do with the way God is, but only with how the future is. Our disagreement is regarding the future, not God. We both agree that God is omniscient, and knows the future perfectly. We disagree in regards to what that future is like.

What God the future is like for God is what I’m talking about. You cannot say without qualification that God “knows the future perfectly” for the simple reason you do not believe He knows precisely which one of the many possibilities will play out.

Quote:
M: Knowing the future like history in no way alters its nature or essence because God is who He is.

T: It presupposed the future is a certain way.

M: God can do things and know things without altering reality.

T: God cannot know reality to be different than it is. It's what reality is that we differ on. I believe reality is that the future is Open, whereas you perceive it to be like the past.

Your view assumes the future is greater than God, that God cannot know the future like history because it would destroy its nature and essence. Why do you think God lacks the power or ability to know the future like history without destroying its nature and essence?

Quote:
M: According to you, He cannot know it one minute from now and He certainly cannot know it 6000 years from now.

T: I disagree. God knows what the future will be one minute from now, and He knows what it will be 6,000 years from now.

M: No, according to your view you need to say, God knows what the future might be one minute from now, and He knows what it might be 6,000 years from now.

T: No! This is wrong! It's important to understand this point! God knows *precisely* what the future is like one minute from now, and 6,000 years from now. Your phrasing "God knows what the future might be" is supposing that the future is single-threaded; that is "is" one given thing. But this is the whole problem. It's NOT one given thing. It consists of possibilities. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. Pardon the shouting, but I want to make clear this point. The future IS the combination of possibilities. It's not one given thing. I know you don't agree with this, but I want you to at least understand the point of view with which you're disagreeing.

You believe it is possible to know the many ways the future could play out but that it is impossible to know which one of these many ways will play out. This is what you mean when you say God knows the future perfectly. I disagree. I believe not only does God know all the way it could play out He also knows precisely which one will play out. Not because He’s a good guesser but because He knows the future like history. God is, as it were, a time traveler.

Quote:
M: In other words, it was impossible for Him to state with absolute certainty, “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Or, do you think the possibility of failure is inherent in such promises and prophecies?

T: I've explained how these passages disagree with your suggestions in detail. Perhaps you might wish to respond to what I've written?

M: None of the “risk” passages you posted mean God was unsure Jesus would succeed. Nowhere in the Bible does God say anything to this effect.

T: Could Christ have sinned? Does the Bible teach this? If you answer "yes," then Christ could have failed, and the Bible teaches this. If Christ could have failed, then God must have known this.

Again, you haven’t posted a biblical passage where God says anything to the effect, “I’m not certain Jesus will succeed.” Why?

Also, where in the Bible does it say anything to the effect, “He could have sinned”?

And, do you think “He could have sinned” means God was unsure Jesus would succeed?

Quote:
Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {5BC 1128.4}
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 06/12/11 04:39 PM

Ah, here was the quotes I was looking for:

Those who claim that it was not possible for Christ to sin, cannot believe that He really took upon Himself human nature. But was not Christ actually tempted, not only by Satan in the wilderness, but all through His life, from childhood to manhood? In all points He was tempted as we are, and because He successfully resisted temptation under every form, He gave man the perfect example, and through the ample provision Christ has made, we may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption which is in the world through lust.” (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 7, page 929).

“Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity.” (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 7, page 929)


“The obedience of Christ to His Father was the same obedience that is required of man. Man cannot overcome Satan’s temptations without divine power to combine with his instrumentality. So with Jesus Christ; He could lay hold of divine power. He came not to our world to give the obedience of a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God’s holy law, and in this way He is our example. The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a man could do, through faith in God’s power to help in every emergency. Man is, through faith, to be a partaker in the divine nature, and to overcome every temptation wherewith he is beset.” (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 7, page 929

“When Jesus was awakened to meet the storm, He was in perfect peace. There was no trace of fear in word or look, for no fear was in His heart. But He rested not in the possession of almighty power. It was not as the “Master of earth and sea and sky” that He reposed in quiet. That power He had laid down, and He says, “I can of Mine own self do nothing.” John 5:30. He trusted in the Father’s might. It was in faith—faith in God’s love and care—that Jesus rested, and the power of that word which stilled the storm was the power of God.” (Ellen White, Desire of Ages, page 336)

He took on Himself a nature fully human so He could face sin as we do and be our example on how sin could be overcome, and yet carried a even heavier burden than us when it came Him sinning. As being still fully divine He was tempted by Satan to use it of Himself and not trust fully on the Father.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 06/13/11 05:15 PM

Absolutely! Thank you, Jesus.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/07/11 01:38 AM

Yes, Jesus pioneered Christlikeness for us, and for winning the great controversy.

There's a reason other churches appear to assert that Jesus could not sin..., a deep-rooted reason: what would have happened to Jesus' divinity, and the Father's, if Jesus had sinned once becoming a man?

It's not just an examination of Christ's humanity that explains why some think Jesus could not have sinned, on this earth. The impact on God, when seen as a trinity, is more the issue.

Now, I thank God that Jesus' merits save me from sin & death, and that he overcame sin in the flesh! Still, had Jesus sinned, then, hypothetically, the Father would have lost his Son..., and the trinity would no longer a trinity. To avoid that potential of the risk of Jesus sinning, the possibility is excluded: Jesus could not sin. Our scholars haven't published this point, yet, to the best of my knowledge.

Non-trinitarians do not have this limitation on Jesus' risk, strictly speaking, since loss of his glory with his Father would not deprive his Father of retaining glory as God. Otherwise, for trinitarians, what kind of God would remain were the trinity to be reduced to 'two'?

This is still on topic, isn't it. wink
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/15/11 06:13 PM

Interesting point. How would God have prevented Jesus from sinning? What impact would it have had on the great controversy if God had intervened and prevented Jesus from sinning in order to save the Godhead? Save the Godhead and lose FMAs - doesn't sound so good.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/17/11 08:12 AM


In one sense the Father did "prevent" Jesus from sinning. It was by fully trusting the Father and uniting His human will with the Father's will that Christ in His humanity was able to resist sin.
But this was not an "intervention" by the Father contrary to the will of Christ. Christ could have chosen to assert his own human will and gone contrary to the will of God (sinned)
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/17/11 07:55 PM

Originally Posted By: dedication

In one sense the Father did "prevent" Jesus from sinning. It was by fully trusting the Father and uniting His human will with the Father's will that Christ in His humanity was able to resist sin.
But this was not an "intervention" by the Father contrary to the will of Christ. Christ could have chosen to assert his own human will and gone contrary to the will of God (sinned)

Good thoughts. I agree.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/17/11 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: dedication
Christ could have chosen to assert his own human will and gone contrary to the will of God (sinned)

Do you agree with Colin? Above he wrote:

Originally Posted By: Colin
Still, had Jesus sinned, then, hypothetically, the Father would have lost his Son..., and the trinity would no longer a trinity. To avoid that potential of the risk of Jesus sinning, the possibility is excluded: Jesus could not sin.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/19/11 03:45 PM

Quote:
Now, I thank God that Jesus' merits save me from sin & death, and that he overcame sin in the flesh! Still, had Jesus sinned, then, hypothetically, the Father would have lost his Son..., and the trinity would no longer a trinity. To avoid that potential of the risk of Jesus sinning, the possibility is excluded: Jesus could not sin. Our scholars haven't published this point, yet, to the best of my knowledge.

Had Christ sinned, He would have lost His deity and the heavenly Trio would have become a heavenly Duet. The Godhead wouldn't cease to exist because of that.
Now, the reason other churches present for not believing Jesus could sin is not the Trinity, but the fact that Jesus was God, and God cannot sin.
Posted By: asygo

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/24/11 02:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Had Christ sinned, He would have lost His deity and the heavenly Trio would have become a heavenly Duet. The Godhead wouldn't cease to exist because of that.

While I believe that the Godhead would cease to exist as we know it, I don't think Jesus would have lost His deity. He is divine, not because He was made divine, but because He is such inherently. Jesus has always been God, whether or not anyone knew it or acknowledged it. Therefore, I do not think that He can lose that attribute, even if He had sinned.

One possibility is that He could have chosen to die and not come back. He could have remained dead forever. And the separation caused by sin within the Godhead would have been permanent. Ugly, to say the least.

Another possible result is that He would have lost His holiness. Then there would be an immortal, omnipotent, evil Being. We are seeing the mess caused by an angel who rebelled. Can we even imagine the mess of an evil God? The risk that God took in the plan of salvation is surely beyond finite comprehension.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/24/11 11:36 PM

HI, Arnold. I was thinking about this quote:

Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His deity could not be lost while He stood faithful and true to His loyalty. Surrounded with sorrow, suffering, and moral pollution, despised and rejected by the people to whom had been intrusted the oracles of heaven, Jesus could yet speak of Himself as the Son of man in heaven. He was ready to take once more His divine glory when His work on earth was done. {5BC 1129.3}

Had there been the least taint of sin in Christ, Satan would have bruised His head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope. But Christ "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." {16MR 119.3}

There is something about Christ remaining in the tomb, but I don't remember the exact words to find the quote.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/26/11 01:49 AM

Quote:
To the honor and glory of God, His beloved Son—the Surety, the Substitute—was delivered up and descended into the prisonhouse of the grave. The new tomb enclosed Him in its rocky chambers. If one single sin had tainted His character the stone would never have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished. {10MR 385.1}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/26/11 03:46 AM

It's hard to imagine the deity of Christ remaining entombed forever. Praise the Lord Jesus succeeded.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/26/11 09:50 PM

Thank you, Tom. That's the quote I was referring to.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/27/11 12:52 AM

You're welcome. It took me a little while to find, as it's difficult not knowing exactly what words to use for the search.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/27/11 12:53 AM

Quote:
It's hard to imagine the deity of Christ remaining entombed forever. Praise the Lord Jesus succeeded.


It's Christ's humanity which would have been entombed forever. Deity cannot die (or be entombed). These are pretty mind-blowing concepts we're dealing with!
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/27/11 08:20 PM

Yes, and another mind-blowing concept is that of Christ losing His deity.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/28/11 04:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
It's Christ's humanity which would have been entombed forever. Deity cannot die (or be entombed). These are pretty mind-blowing concepts we're dealing with!


Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Yes, and another mind-blowing concept is that of Christ losing His deity.


Even if solely for pondering/rhetorical purposes here as I personally don’t have the time to invest in this study (i.e., factually-speaking, [and actually nothing personal], I personally am self-impelled to expend most of my efforts of preventing the brains of unborn infant from being vacuum for an abortion process rather than ‘blow my mind’ on certain Theological issues):

How about a divine nature that is suddenly imbued with the sins of the world in order to “fully” pay the ransom that is required to fully and relatively seamlessly redeem fallen man? Seems to me that then, in such a circumstance, Deity could be put to death (i.e., by God the Father). According to my understanding that sudden Divinity Sacrificing led to Christ’s refusals of worship until he had met with the Father and ascertained that He was still worthy of worship. In other words this was Jesus trying to fully understand just what exactly had occurred at the Cross and how did that affect Him from then on. (Cf. in this post #134871 on the issue of: is the death of a Man (i.e., only Christ’s Human Nature) sufficient to fully pay the ransom price for man. To me if that was the case, then contrary to what had been said in Heaven (EW 150.1) an sinlessly living angel would have been enough to pay that ransom price).

My personal working thesis view (which, for several Biblical evidence reasons (see in this post #134790) Theologically differs from what EGW says on this matter), is that Jesus was purposefully “surprised” with that added redemption element while on the Cross and that cause Him to questioningly cry out “Why has thou forsaken me”.

Thus to me, Divinity could be put subject to death if any trace of sin is found in it and, in response to this topic’s question Jesus could have sinned and if he did, he surely would not be able to live eternally after that, thus His Deity/Divine Nature would indeed have been subject to death.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/28/11 05:19 PM

There is a fundamental difference. Our offenses made Christ sinful by imputation, a sin on His part would have made Him intrinsically sinful.
Death is separation from God. The "death of a Man (i.e., only Christ’s Human Nature)" wouldn't be sufficient to fully pay the ransom price for man, but the separation of Christ, a member of the Godhead, from the other members of the Godhead, was an infinite sacrifice, sufficient to redeem man.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/29/11 03:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
There is a fundamental difference. Our offenses made Christ sinful by imputation, a sin on His part would have made Him intrinsically sinful.


From what I see about the concept of “types” in the Bible, the original or antitype always involves a more, or entirely, full reality than the type. So to me, what God did to Christ on the Cross in indeed ‘making him to be sin on our behalf’ (2 Cor 5:21), involved a most concrete and (to Jesus) “surprising” reality. What was being done in the typological sanctuary service with the priests and other elders laying their hands on the animals about to be sacrificed as various sin bearing offerings, was an “imputation”. However I Theologically understand that it was tangibly effectuated in the antitype process.

Another thing to seriously consider on this topic is, is the concept of imputation in regards to what was done to Jesus Theologically accurate (i.e., by what the many texts in the Bible which describe what was done here actually say).

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Death is separation from God. The "death of a Man (i.e., only Christ’s Human Nature)" wouldn't be sufficient to fully pay the ransom price for man, but the separation of Christ, a member of the Godhead, from the other members of the Godhead, was an infinite sacrifice, sufficient to redeem man.


My view on the ‘two aspects of death’ i.e., the First and Second Death, with all men, whether believers or not, being subject to the First Death (except for the generation that will be translated alive), but not the Second one (Rev 2:11; 20:6), The First Death pays for the physical punishment for sin while the Second one (Rev 20:14; 21:8) pays for the mental aspect of sin

In regards to the “separation from God issue”, I understand this to be in the Second Death as there will be a conscious varying period of time when the “dying” sinner will experience, not merely “separation” but the undiluted wrath and rejection of God, being actually pour out in their sins, and since they have “clung” to those sins, them also. Jesus experienced this rejection on the Cross and this could really only be because God had something “tangible” against Him personally. And that was because He had been made to fully be imbued with the sins of the world, and that, as I understand it, on also His Divine Nature, for that Second Death implication.

There is also the issue that, actually contrary to Christ’s expressed expectation (cf. also Matt 10:23 - which to me all shows how He was indeed equally dependent on the same things available to us for our Spiritual Journey), it was the Spirit of God and not Christ Himself who raised Him from the dead. [Bible and SOP (i.e., DA resurrection account) texts showing all this are omitted]. As I understand it, that was also all because He, surprisingly, had sacrificed His deliberately sin-stained Divine nature at the Cross that would have made this possible.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/30/11 02:22 AM

Quote:
What was being done in the typological sanctuary service with the priests and other elders laying their hands on the animals about to be sacrificed as various sin bearing offerings, was an “imputation”. However I Theologically understand that it was tangibly effectuated in the antitype process.

2 Corinthians 5:21 says: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." He is sinful in the same way we are righteous. Since we aren't intrinsically righteous, He couldn't be intrinsically sinful.

Quote:
In regards to the “separation from God issue”, I understand this to be in the Second Death as there will be a conscious varying period of time when the “dying” sinner will experience, not merely “separation” but the undiluted wrath ... of God

Right. The second death is different from the first because of the wrath of God and the separation from Him that are experienced by the sinner. And what I said is still valid: the death of Christ as a man wouldn't be sufficient to fully pay the ransom price for man, but the separation of Christ, a member of the Godhead, from the other members of the Godhead, was an infinite sacrifice, sufficient to redeem man.

Quote:
it was the Spirit of God and not Christ Himself who raised Him from the dead. [Bible and SOP (i.e., DA resurrection account) texts showing all this are omitted].

I disagree, and I will quote the Bible and the SOP to show why:

John 10:18 "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

John 2:19-21 "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ... But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

When the voice of the mighty angel was heard at Christ's tomb, saying, Thy Father calls Thee, the Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in Himself. Now was proved the truth of His words, "I lay down My life, that I might take it again. . . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Now was fulfilled the prophecy He had spoken to the priests and rulers, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 10:17, 18; 2:19. Over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, Christ had proclaimed in triumph, "I am the resurrection, and the life." These words could be spoken only by the Deity. All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are dependent recipients of the life of God. From the highest seraph to the humblest animate being, all are replenished from the Source of life. Only He who is one with God could say, I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again. In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. {DA 785.2, 3}
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Could Christ have sinned. - 07/30/11 11:25 PM

Quote:
NJK: What was being done in the typological sanctuary service with the priests and other elders laying their hands on the animals about to be sacrificed as various sin bearing offerings, was an “imputation”. However I Theologically understand that it was tangibly effectuated in the antitype process.

R: 2 Corinthians 5:21 says: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." He is sinful in the same way we are righteous. Since we aren't intrinsically righteous, He couldn't be intrinsically sinful.


I think you are not properly taking into consideration the “in Him” portion whereby the redeemed ‘become the righteousness of Christ’. That indeed is explicitly non-intrinsic. Indeed our righteousness, until we are transformed prior to being taken to Heaven is a mere ‘coat/robe covering’. However I don’t see in that verse the same thing being stated for what Jesus underwent for us. Indeed His antitypical experience was more concrete and tangible than our reception of the gift. Like any “gift”, it will cost more, if not (always) only cost, the person who procures it than the one who receives it and makes use of it.

Quote:
NJK: In regards to the “separation from God issue”, I understand this to be in the Second Death as there will be a conscious varying period of time when the “dying” sinner will experience, not merely “separation” but the undiluted wrath ... of God

R: Right. The second death is different from the first because of the wrath of God and the separation from Him that are experienced by the sinner. And what I said is still valid: the death of Christ as a man wouldn't be sufficient to fully pay the ransom price for man, but the separation of Christ, a member of the Godhead, from the other members of the Godhead, was an infinite sacrifice, sufficient to redeem man.


My view is that the Second Death is, in full, ‘a dying process that involves God’s wrathful outpouring (a.k.a. “Separation). Yet it still, after the physical and psychological torment/mental anguish suffering still involves Death, the Second one. So Jesus also had to die that death, and that after the suffering aspect of it. And this is where I see that it was nowHis Divine nature that suffered that distinct (Second) Death, which for Him actually transpired a little before His Human Nature (First) Death, i.e., when He cried out “My God....” He felt that Second Death then.

Quote:
NJK: it was the Spirit of God and not Christ Himself who raised Him from the dead. [Bible and SOP (i.e., DA resurrection account) texts showing all this are omitted].

R: I disagree, and I will quote the Bible and the SOP to show why:

John 10:18 "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

John 2:19-21 "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ... But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 785.2, 3
When the voice of the mighty angel was heard at Christ's tomb, saying, Thy Father calls Thee, the Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in Himself. Now was proved the truth of His words, "I lay down My life, that I might take it again. . . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Now was fulfilled the prophecy He had spoken to the priests and rulers, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 10:17, 18; 2:19. Over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, Christ had proclaimed in triumph, "I am the resurrection, and the life." These words could be spoken only by the Deity. All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are dependent recipients of the life of God. From the highest seraph to the humblest animate being, all are replenished from the Source of life. Only He who is one with God could say, I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again. In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. {DA 785.2, 3}



I don’t fully agree with EGW’s commentary here, which I see is interweaved with her own Theological understanding of this. Indeed in regards to my claimed the SOP quote(s), I predominantly had in mind what I see as a more direct revelation on this account in DA 779.3 where the ‘(Mighty) Angel Clothed in the Panoply [“complete armor or defense” -Webster 1828] of God (DA 779.2) relayingly cries out “Son of God, come forth; Thy Father calls Thee.” As I see it is that relayed Divine Word is what ‘made Jesus come (back) to life” (1 Pet 3:18)

The Full Biblical Testimony:
(The Resurrection Angel) Matt 28:6 (“raised” in Greek passive voice = Rom 6:4; 1 Cor 15:16, 17).
(Peter) Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:(8) 10; 5:30; 10:40; 1 Peter 1:21; 3:18.
(Paul) Acts 13:30, 33 (“= Ps 2:7), 34, 37; 17:31; Rom 4:24; 6:4 (passive voice); 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:15 (cf. 16, 17); 2 Cor 4;14; Eph 2:6.

One does not pervasively and copious make this singular notion, (and that while, at least in one instance, ‘being full of Holy Spirit’ (Acts 4:8, 10); in stating this fundamental faith tenet unless they know for a fact what they are talking about. And I am seeing here that this post death/resurrection event most accurate fact came from God (Angel) and Jesus (Peter and Paul) either directly, or indirectly through the Holy Spirit.

I exegetically fully reconcile what is actually valid (i.e., from EGW’s comments) with the Jesus and the rest of those inspired statements in the Bible, by more widely seeing, as already stated that the death of Christ Deity on the Cross was an unforwarned act by God on Christ, hence the resulting questioning on the Cross and post resurrection ascertaining. I can give an illustrating detailed analogy of a Police officer who would have had to go so deep undercover that he actually, in the final busting of the Criminal enterprise, had to , in the heat of the Battle break the Law, even shooting and killing other police officers as not doing so would have unmasked the whole undercover operation and make the whole thing fail. But time fails me. I think you can get my point here. Unbeknownst to the incarnate Christ, even if this was told to him in Heaven prior to his incarnation, i.e., when He was deliberating about this Plan with the Father (EW 149-153), and it was not retold to Him after he had “emptied” (Phil 2:7) Himself in His incarnation, but left as a God-testing surprise for the Cross. And so Christ self-resurrection expectation were rendered null by that sovereign action of God. So the post resurrection statement are the most “Historically” accurate/full here. As I said before with Matt 10:23, I see that this would have not been an impossibility for Jesus.

And then to me, according to this full exegetically view, EGW herself did not fully understand this Historical development. So I see her inserted/included ‘self-resurrection’ statements as not being by command, but according her limited knowledge on what fully transpired here. Those comments of hers were neither directly inspired nor exegetical.

As normative and incontrovertible a proper exegetical understanding is not based on only some texts, but a harmonization of all (valid) applicable ones and in regards to EGW’s own comments, they always depend on how they reconcile with the full/exegetical Biblical testimony.
© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church