That would mean that God didn't know what He was talking about. That's why we all agree that it would have been very bad if Jesus failed, not just for us but for everyone else as well.

Lets assume God does know the future perfectly. Wouldnt there be a distinction between God deciding to do something and planning to do something? A plan would be conditional and responsive to our free choice. God could know what a nation will do but still give the opportunity for them to do it in actual history. It would need to be this way for fairness wouldnt it? How else would we have a real opportunity to repent? God gave a warning to Nineveh so they had the chance to repent.

actually the points from the last post was from a paper my friend gave here is the link so you can read it in full if anyone wishes.

http://www.atsjats.org/publication.php?pub_id=331&journal=1&cmd=view&hash=

Ok, I said, "So if 'did God mean that as a 100% certainty' means 'God meant it was 100% certain that Christ would succeed,' that would have to be false, right?"

Since the first half of this is just restating a question in another way, what this comes down to is how did I conclude that if God meant "it was 100% certain that Christ would succeed," how did I conclude that this would have to be false.

I concluded this must be false because we have agreed that Christ could have failed. So my conclusion is the following:

a.Christ could have failed.
b.Therefore the statement "it was 100% certain that Christ would succeed" is false.

Doesn't b follow immediately from a? If not, how not?



So I gather you think they're wrong? That is, you believe the universe is deterministic?



Then it looks like you have a contradiction of logic in your belief system, as follows.

1.If God is certain something will happen, then it is certain the thing will happen.
2.If a thing is certain to happen, then the risk of it's not happening is 0.

Which of these statements do you disagree with? If you disagree with neither, then how is there not a contradiction?

For example:

1.God was certain Christ would succeed.
2.Christ might have failed.

I changed the "could" previously to "might" to see if that makes any difference to you, because it doesn't to me. By my saying "Christ could have failed" what I meant is there was a chance, greater than 0, that the event "Christ fails" could have occurred. Perhaps you disagree with this, and "Christ could have failed" means something different to you than this. I don't know, but it looks like a contradiction here.

Here's another way of putting it.

1.a.God was certain Christ would succeed.
1.b.God was certain Christ would not fail.
2.Christ might have failed.

Let A = The probability that Christ would fail. 1.b. is equivalent to 1.b. From 1.b. Prob(A)=0. From 2 Prob(A)>0.

I'll await your explanation as to how you don't see a contradiction here.

I believe this. I think we all do. We disagree as to what this means, because "knowing the future" means something different to us, but we all believe God knows the future perfectly. Where we differ is in what we believe the future consists of.

Say there's a box, and you believe that inside the box there is a book, whereas I believe inside the box there's a cup. We both agree that God knows what's in the box. But you think God knows there's a book in the box whereas I think God knows there's a cup in the box.

I just want to make clear what it is that we're disagreeing about. We're disagreeing about the contents of the box, not whether God can see in the box.



God wouldn't really be reacting to anything in this scenario. That is, if the future were as you are suggesting it to be, and God's knowledge of it were definite (as opposed to open) He could not react to anything, since, from His perspective, there would be nothing to react to.

For example:



If the future were as you are suggesting (and God's knowledge of it), then God could not change His mind.

Aaron, I read your friend's paper. I thought it was well written, and agreed with much of it. In particular, I think his conclusion regarding God's changelessness having to do with character is right on the mark, as is his rejection of the Greek concepts of stoicism and immutability applied to God.

However, there are two points I take issue with. One is regarding God as the potter. I think he made the wrong point. The point of the Potter is that He is able to shape the clay however he wants; it's not an argument of sovereignty.

To understand why God answers the way He does, it's necessary to understand the dilemma He is responding to. Jeremiah had made prophesies of the evil that was about to occur. The people responded, "We are doomed! If God has prophesied against us, there's nothing we can do about it." God answers, "Not at all. Cannot the potter do what He wishes with the clay? You are clay in My hands, and I am a skillful potter. If you will repent, I can shape you into a vessel of beauty."

So the Potter image is not emphasizing God's sovereignty, but the people's. It emphasizes God's ability to shape the people according to His will *if* they will exercise their will accordingly. If affirms the people's sovereignty, and God's ability to accomplish His will if they choose to cooperate with Him.

The second point of disagreement is related. The author actually cited Sanders in a footnote, and captured his point that the passage speaks in conditional terms of *both* the Potter and the pot, but then ignored this point later on in the paper. But Sander's point is an important one. Not only is the people's actions conditional, but so is God's. If they change the way they act, He "changes His mind"; He actually *purposes* something different than He had previously been purposing. This doesn't allow for the future being determined.

Let's assume you're right, for a moment. Here's the question reworded - Without the death of Jesus, upon what grounds would God have allowed the evil angels to experience the "inevitable result of sin"? This question is asked with the following insight in mind:

"By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. {DA 764.1}

"At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}


It's a valid hypothetical question. The SOP makes it clear A&E would have been eternally secure had they resisted Satan's initial attack. They would have been spared the experiential knowledge of evil. The death of Jesus would not have been necessary for them to understand the execution of justice and judgment - the punishment, destruction, and extermination of evil angels.

The question is - Why would it have been clear to them? Keep in mind we're talking about just a few months after rebellion broke out in heaven. You say it wasn't until 4,000 years later that the holy angels finally got it, that they were finally able to understand it - the cause and effect relationship between rebellion and retribution, between sin and death.

Do you agree with my assessment of her insights?


"Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan."

I do not believe this insight means the angels were not secure against evil before rebellion broke out in heaven. It is obvious from the quotes I posted above that the angels knew God as well as they could possibly know Him, that there was nothing more He could have done to help them know Him better. Thus, the cross didn't reveal something about God He hadn't already revealed to them.

So, what is the relationship between 1) knowing God as well as the angels did and 2) being secure against evil? What is the connection between knowing God and being secure against evil? Does knowing God as well as possible equal being as secure against evil as possible? If not, why not?

How secure against evil were the angels before rebellion broke out in heaven? Were they as secure against evil as possible? If not, why not? What more could God have done to make them more secure against evil? I am interested in your answers, Tom.

Here is how I answer them. Yes, before rebellion broke out in heaven the angels were as secure against evil as it is possible to be. There was nothing more God could do to help them be more secure against evil than they were. The cross confirmed their faith. It did not make them more secure than they were. They were already as secure as they could be.

"Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan." Before rebellion broke out in heaven the angels were familiar with the attributes of God's law and love that were revealed at the cross. True, they had never seen them revealed in that manner before, but seeing them revealed in that manner does not mean they learned something about God they didn't already know as well as could be known.

Nevertheless, angels mature more and more every day. They were more mature the day after evil angels were banished to earth than they were the day before it happened. For 4,000 years the angels matured more and more every day. They were more mature the day after Jesus died than they were before He died. In this sense, the angels are more secure against evil than they were before rebellion broke out in heaven.

I already addressed this by saying that as human beings, the cross was necessary. It's the only way the charges of Satan could be resolved in a way that we can understand. I have a conviction that God could have done it some other way, without Jesus having to die, if human beings did not rebel, but being a human being myself, I couldn't tell you how.



I don't think you're putting this very well. Here's DA 764:



You put it as if the destruction of the angels was something God was doing to them, as opposed to the result of their own choice, which EGW is arguing here. If you said it like she did, something like "The death of Jesus would not have been necessary for them to understand the destruction of the angels" I would agree, with the understanding that her statement that they are destroyed when "left" to "reap the full result of their sin" and that their destruction is "the inevitable result of sin."

It should be born in mind that what causes destruction is sin/Satan. In fact, the name "Apollyon," a reference to Satan, means "Destoyer".





No, MM. I didn't say this. Please don't put words in my mouth.



MM, I've been very careful to simply quote her. Yet when you characterize my position, you don't use her words, or mine, but you make up your own, which are inaccurate. For example, you write, "You say it wasn't until 4,000 years later that the holy angels finally got it, that they were finally able to understand it - the cause and effect relationship between rebellion and retribution, between sin and death." There's a germ of truth in this, but this isn't what she said. She said this:



This is clear enough, isn't it? We don't need to try to improve on this, do we?



You didn't quote them. If you provide more of a context, it makes it easier to respond. Before my comment, you wrote this:



so I assume this is what you're asking about. No, I don't see the correlation between your ideas here and hers. I'm not saying that I disagree with what you're saying (nor that I agree with it), but that I don't see a relationship between what she wrote and what you are writing. For example, where did she speak of their loyalty being "confirmed" as opposed to "established"?



It's clear the angels had things to learn about God. For example:



There are many statements like this. The angels were not expecting God's mercy, so obviously they didn't know this about Him, and the cross did reveal something to them.

The angels were amazed by the cross, and still are, as are all of God's followers.



You're assuming that the angels knew God as well as they ever could, before the Plan of Salvation was revealed, but I think this is clearly false. Jesus Christ said that to know God is eternal life, so I think that answers your question as to the connection between knowing God and being secure against evil.



Clearly they weren't secure since they rebelled.



If by "as possible" you mean as possible as they could be at the time, yes.



God has always done as much as He can for all created beings.



Clearly not, since they were more secure after the cross than before. The statement



makes this clear. After the cross they were more secure than before it, so clearly they were less secure before it than after! Equally clear they weren't as secure as it is possible to be before the cross since they were more secure after.

Unless what you meant was that they were as secure as it was possible to be at the time, in which case I agree with your statement.



You're talking about two different things here, maturity and security. One can be mature and insecure, or immature and secure. So I don't see how what you're saying relates to what EGW said, which is that without the cross the angels would not have been any more secure than they were when Satan started his rebellion. How secure were the angels when Satan rebelled? This is seen in that they rebelled. They weren't secure! If they had been secure, they wouldn't have rebelled.

It seems to me you may not have understood EGW's point. Her point is that the loyal angels, without the cross, would be no more secure against evil than the disloyal angels were when Satan rebelled. It's very important to get this right!

When she speaks of "angels" she is speaking of the angels as a class. The class of angels, without the cross, would be no more secure than the class of angels was before Satan began his rebellion. (I hope your familiar with the concept of a "class"; if not, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class).

The holy angels were ready to let the evil angels suffer the inevitable results of sin even before A&E sinned. They would have accepted their death as readily as they accepted the death of humans. They had seen enough of sin and evil and Satan. They were ready for it to end.


Are you implying this from the SOP quote? I ask because she doesn’t say so.


I tried very hard to make it clear that I do not believe this.


Again, are you implying this from the SOP quote? Because she clearly does not say so. Instead, elsewhere (quoted below) she emphatically explains that the angels were as acquainted with God as can be. There was nothing new He could have revealed to them to help them be more secure against evil than they were. To imply otherwise is to blame God for not doing enough to safeguard the angels against evil. "What more," says Christ, "could I do for My sheep than that I have done?" {LHU 216.4} The same thing applied to the angels before rebellion broke out in heaven.

Satan, the chief of the fallen angels, once had an exalted position in heaven. He was next in honor to Christ. The knowledge which he, as well as the angels who fell with him, had of the character of God, of His goodness, His mercy, wisdom, and excellent glory, made their guilt unpardonable. {4BC 1163.2}

There was no possible hope for the redemption of those who had witnessed and enjoyed the inexpressible glory of heaven, and had seen the terrible majesty of God, and, in presence of all this glory, had rebelled against Him. There were no new and wonderful exhibitions of God's exalted power that could impress them so deeply as those they had already experienced. If they could rebel in the very presence of glory inexpressible, they could not be placed in a more favorable condition to be proved. There was no reserve force of power, nor were there any greater heights and depths of infinite glory to overpower their jealous doubts and rebellious murmuring. {4BC 1163.3}

Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. {GC 492.2}