Yes, I think you've said that before.

What I'm asking is, assuming you still believe God knows the future and it's multi-threaded, can you contrast that with an example of God knowing the future but it's single-threaded? This would help me understand what you believe. Since what you've defined so far seems contradictory to me, if you contrast those items, I can better understand it and won't need to keep asking you.

No, this isn't the case. I think in 1903, she wrote that Christ was disappointed that He couldn't come. Christ is omniscient.

She wasn't communicating that the church had the ability to do something, but that Christ could have come.



This is self-contradictory. "Hasten Christ's coming" means to cause it to occur more quickly. If the date is already set, obviously we can't do anything to change it one way or the other. It's unfortunate that many SDA's have this way of thinking, that what they do doesn't make any different, and we just have to be ready for Christ's coming, whenever it is, whenever the set date occurs.



It couldn't happen that quickly. Also, it's not dependent upon a majority. That will never happen. Also, it's not a question of numbers, but of quality. Also Christ's body is not the SDA church.



The date for Christ's coming could not have been fixed because in that case it could not be hastened (or delayed, for that matter).

Not before 1844. However, I think shortly after, like a few years after, would have been possible. Not just possible, but likely God's plan, I believe. I believe God has been working to bring sin to an end as quickly as possible since it began, and the judgment will reveal this fact. But God has been frustrated in His plans throughout history, and continues to be so. However, we know eventually Christ will come. The following quote comes to mind:



If one considers the type, there were 359 days, I guess, corresponding to the daily ministry and 1 day for the yearly. That would correspond to something like 5 years in real time, meaning that Christ would have come in 1849, to keep the pattern. That seems like a reasonable amount of time.

It takes time for character to be formed and tested, and for there to be time for the world to be made aware of the Gospel, and have time to respond. Christ's ministry was for 3 and 1/2 years, and there are those who consider that to be a reasonable guess as to how long a preparation is needed.

Yes, but He wish He had come long ago.


??? One thing depends on the other. "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."


If the church gets ready earlier, Christ comes earlier, if it gets ready later, Christ comes later. But God knows when the church will finally get ready.



The great outpouring of the Spirit of God, which lightens the whole earth with His glory, will not come until we have an enlightened people, that know by experience what it means to be laborers together with God. When we have entire, wholehearted consecration to the service of Christ, God will recognize the fact by an outpouring of His Spirit without measure; but this will not be while the largest portion of the church are not laborers together with God.--Review and Herald, July 21, 1896. {ChS 253.2}


Jesus said God knows the day and the hour of Christ's coming. Is this true or not?

This was in reference to the 1888 happenings. God gave a message to prepare for Christ's coming at that time. He was disappointed He couldn't come then.



I don't know what your point is here. She said in 1859 that Christ could have come before then, meaning that Christ could have come before that time, meaning that God could not have known that He couldn't have come before that time.



If Christ's coming is a set date, the church can only get ready immediately before that time. The church couldn't get ready at some other time, because then would Christ come then, and the date wouldn't be set.

These two are mutually exclusive:

1.The date for Christ's coming is set.
2.The date for Christ's coming can be changed (either hastened or delayed).

Put another way, if Christ's coming can be hastened, then its date is not set.



Including children, there are something like 30 million SDA's in the world. It's your understanding that until there are over 15 million SDA's who are entirely consecrated, the Holy Spirit won't be poured out? And this number is growing every day? (since the SDA church is growing).



Yes, this is true. God knows the day and the hour of Christ's coming in the same way He knows any conditional event, in a multi-threaded way.

Yes, because He wished to come then. It could have been then, but the incredulity of the church prevented that. I don't see any problem here.


?? I don't see the meaning you are attributing to her words.


You are inverting things. God didn't set a date hoping, or determing, that the church should get ready immediately before that time. It's the opposite. Since He foresaw that the church would get ready at a given time, He fixed the date on that basis.


Many things will occur simultaneously, including the shaking, when many will abandon the faith. In this context, Ellen White says that when the largest portion of the church are laborers together with God, God will send the latter rain for the church to finish the work in the world.


If God can't know the exact date, He doesn't know the date.

It's just more evidence of the future being multi-threaded. Christ is omniscient, yet He was disappointed He couldn't come. This is only possible if the future is multi-threaded.



She said, "Christ could have come before now." The meaning I am attributing to her words is that it was possible for Christ to have come before the time she stated this.



I'm not saying God set a date at all. I'm pointing out that if a date is set, then Christ's coming couldn't be hastened or delayed.

To set a date is to fix it. If a date is fixed, it cannot be changed. If it cannot be changed, then Christ's coming can neither be hastened nor delayed. To "hasten," means to cause the date of Christ's return to be moved forward. In other words, to cause Christ to return sooner. To "delay" means to cause the date of Christ's return to be moved backward.

These concepts are mutually exclusive:

1.A date is set/fixed, which cannot be other than what it is.
2.A date can be changed, either moved forward (hastening) or moved backward (delayed).



But it's the latter rain/loud cry message which causes the shaking in the first place.



Greg Boyd has a nice explanation of this, but I don't remember where. It goes something like this:

"I have a teen-age daughter. I can say, 'I alone know the how she will be ready to date.' that doesn't imply I have set a date for that to happen." Something like that. That should be enough to get the idea.

I'll right a follow-up post to address the bottom line of our differences on this question.

We've been discussing the possibility that the future is fixed (which I've referred to as "single-threaded", or that it is open ("multi-threaded"). I've made the following argument:

1.God knows things as they are.
2.Therefore, if God knows the future to be fixed (single-threaded), then the future is fixed (single-threaded).

Now we all agree that we experience the future as open, or multi-threaded. That is, from our perspective, we can alter the future. And this is the real issue were are dealing with. Can our decisions alter the future, or impact what God will do?

If the future is fixed (single-threaded), the answer is "no." Nothing we can do can alter the future, nor impact God's decisions, which are already set in stone, as God has already taken into account what we will do. If this is the case then:

1.We cannot hasten or delay Christ's coming.
2.We do not have free will, under the libertarian definition of the word.

Free will can be defined in different ways. One way is that we are free to do what we please. This is a less restrictive definition, and the definition that Calvinists use. One can read Edwards or Luther's work on the bondage of the will (both on line) to get a sense of the arguments involved. Basically the idea is that defining "free will" this way is compatible with a fixed future.

However, if we define "free will" to involve the ability to alter the future, then there is a logical inconsistency between this concept of "free will" and a fixed, or single-threaded, future.

What it comes down to is, is our perception that our decisions make a difference really true? Or is it merely an illusion based on incomplete knowledge?

There is also the question of why God would create a being He was certain would sin. If God set into motion a course of action He was certain would result in sin, how can we maintain that God is not responsible for it?

We've discussed this some years ago, with a train analogy:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=93381#Post93381

It begins at post #93381.

Boyd's illustration is in your post #93302.


I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen, and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God's people. {CET 176.1}

You can't equate "the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans" with the latter rain. This testimony will lead to both the shaking and the latter rain.

We discussed this too. From post #123038: