Yes, when I had came across that, it was clear to me that indicated the 1888 message could have been the closing one if people had made the right choices. Quite fascinating to realize how soon He could have come and this delay would not have happened. But, no doubt, similar situations will happen in the future as in the past with Sunday laws and many rejecting the message. Will there be more accepting the message than in the past or why will it happen this time and not in the past? I believe God's character will be a major part of the message and it's so unfortunate how strongly (an understatement) some resist it. Did it play a big part of the 1888 message?

I agree with you that Ellen wrote God was certain sin would happen and affect humanity. As to knowing it would certainly involve Lucifer, do you agree Ellen believed "Lucifer" and "Satan" are the same being?

"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."

Apparently you have me mistaken for someone who believes God does not know the precise day and hour Jesus will return.

But not mistaken for someone who recognizes contradictions.

EGW identifies the problem in 1SM 234 with the leadership not playing their part. The plan she outlined was that the message would go from J&W to leadership to pastors to laity to the world. It never got that far, because it faltered at the first step.

There are some who think God will use a different approach next time.

I've heard the analogy of critical mass, and Prescott spoke of something like this at the 1895 General Conference session. So it's not the raw numbers, per se, I think that matters, but enough to get a momentum going, so numbers comes into play in this way (hope this makes sense).

As I recall, there were only 30,000 SDA in the world. Now there's going on 1,000 times as many! Yet the work could have been finished in a short time back then. It makes one wonder the fascination with numbers (i.e., that we need more SDA's, so Christ can come).

You're contradicting yourself. First you right the the future is "wide open." Do you also believe the past is "wide open"? Or is it fixed? You're obviously equating past and future with your used of tenses here ("the outcomes of choices people were free to make in the future").



This doesn't make sense. According to your belief, God exists simultaneously in the past, present and future. For you to speak of Him "going back" can only mean you forgot your view. He's already there, under your view.



Same problem.



If one can reason from cause to effect, and understands logic, one should be able to see why understanding how God experiences things would have an impact on our experience.



I think it's quite evident that for you to make the assertion that how God experiences time and space has zero effect on us, you're not grasping something.



This isn't the question asked.



Nor this.



Of course not. There's no way to explain it. It doesn't make sense. A good being who hates evil would not make such a choice. Why would He? (<== no answer)



Certain if God set into a course of action He was certain would result in sin, the above can't be true. That is, this:



Here's how: God set into a motion a course of action which could only result in sin. Easy!



Avoided? This hasn't even been brought up before this.

I disagree with your idea.



God did not create sinners. God created an unfallen race, the parents of which fell, and we were begotten from them. This is a very different thing than that God created sinners.



Another contradiction. In just one sentence this time! Like saying, "If I roll this die, I'm sure it won't come up with the number 12435, but, nevertheless, the risk is real that it will."



This is dodging the problem. The problem is, as has been explained many times now, with the meeting between God and Christ. *That's* what doesn't make sense. If you don't understand the problem, I can repost the posts which describe it.



Not if there's a fixed date for Christ's coming.



Of course it does. This is easy to see.

1.If God knows the exact date, then there's an exact date to know.
2.If there's an exact date to know, then there's an exact date.
3.If there's an exact date, the date is fixed.
4.If the date is fixed, it can't be changed.
5.If it can't be changed, it can't be hastened.



You have some answers, and some dodges. How you treated EW was just a dodge. You haven't even addressed it, so there isn't something I can disagree with. Also, regarding the question of why a good Being would make creatures certain to sin, you just said this hasn't been explained. That's hardly an answer. Consider the question hypothetically. What *could* be a feasible answer? There just isn't anything.



I'll have to look at what you originally said. I'll see if I misread it.



In Gethsemane, He sweat blood. I think EGW wrote something like "human trembled in the balance." I think the cross was even more difficult.



No, this is bad logic. Would you like a counter example to demonstrate why?

You are basically asking me here to read Ellens mind and intentions and through that devising state that I am wrong and you are right. Why would I want to speculate to my own disadvantage?

How about being recognised as a person who actually believes God when He says that certain conditions will have one result while other conditions will have different results and that it is up to us which conditions we strive to achieve? See Ez 18

Also Jer. 18.



This says that God will actually change His mind regarding what He was going to do based on decisions we make. This would hardly be possible for God to do if the future is "already played out" for Him. The concept of God's changing His plans wouldn't even make sense.

Thanks. I couldn't believe he either didn't see the contradiction or thought it made sense. I was getting ready to point that out but saw you already had.