Is that to "role play" so that we can feel he made an effort or hard decision? Because, if they both knew with absolute certainty, then neither could be torn nor at risk for failure. But you did say "most surely" as if there were some doubt.?

Also from what I Theologically know and understand on this topic I rather say: ‘if the even actually existed.’ God’s plan of the future is what a computerized 3D simulation model is to the actual construction when it will be built.

I actually did not want to involve this Theological issue here as I do not see it as crucial to the understanding here. This direct SOP revelation is enough. Indeed I only see that this only speaks against the classical view of foreknowledge and that vision is what actually sealed the understandings that I was getting from the Bible about the Foreplanning view.



I did not say, nor mean, that ‘God wanted to kill us.’ He, knowing of the great risk here, without any certainty of success, much more preferred to let man die than risk Christ. Just think of the great risk in needing a sinless life as also 100% man living 4000 years after the Fall. Indeed, as it transpired in history, how many people believed in Christ at the Cross. Barely a handful and apparently on John from his own disciples. God knew here that the faith based method that were shown in Christ incarnate life and ministry would be indispensably necessary for this atonement to be acceptable. As the angel said God’s weighed choices were “whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His beloved Son to die for him.” (EW 153.1)



I think EGW would have expressed that distinct notion. E.g., ‘and they were pleading together to accomplish this...’ No need to “plead” in such a common endeavor as there would be not opposition. If they both wanted to do this would would, especially in that enclosed seclusion be telling them otherwise.

Indeed the word “plead” also has its pointed, one sided meanings of: ‘appeal or request earnestly; Offer as an excuse or as a humble request for help from someone in authority; an answer (by the accused party) indicating why a legal matter should be dismissed. [In this case Christ was pleading why the sin of man should be given this opportunity to be atoned for.

Also the statement by the angel asking: “Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? The word “yield” pointedly means: “end resistance, as under pressure or force; give over; surrender or relinquish to the physical control of another; give in, as to influence or pressure; move in order to make room for someone for something; cause to happen or be responsible for (by giving in); be willing to concede; be (fatally) overwhelmed; be flexible under stress of physical force; cease opposition; stop fighting; consent reluctantly.. These are all notions of even two equal sides having one side give in to the other. So that all unequivocally says to me that there were two opposing, and equally matched, views here. That is then seen with Jesus twice leaving and then returning to continue to “plead.” Seems to me that God was showing Jesus how incredibly risky this was going to be and momentarily convincing him.

Furthermore, as stated in the SOP, there was an eternal cost whether successful or not to this plan:

Maybe they are indeed not “acting”, nor “role playing” anything. That is, Jesus in now His physical incarnate form became a Son of God by becoming a Son of Man. Humans are also called Son of God, even unfallen ones. So by that tangible position that He took Jesus also became just like a Son of God, at least in material form.

Also show me in the Bible/SOP where Jesus, before his incarnation is called the “Son of God” (of course outside of prophecies) In the OT, I see that He is called Michael and “the Angel of the Lord”.



As explained above to kland, I do not see, especially the words, “yield” and “plead” to be two sided with Jesus’ offer being opposed by God.



That is Theo-logically and logically self contradictory. I don’t see Biblical support for the Future-knowledge certainty assumption/belief. (It’s telling to me that you only state maxims and truism and not Scripture for your view.)

The (as I understand from an 8 B.C. birth) 38 years of Jesus’s Life before the Cross were also a great risk.

I do not believe the Father and Son were role playing when they met three times to discuss implementing the plan of salvation, the redemption of mankind. Knowing the outcome does not in the least lessen or eliminate the emotional and physical stress. As I assisted my wife with the birth of our 3 children, knowing the pain they were experiencing would eventually end did not in the least lessen their pain or my emotional stress.

NJK, we do not see eye to eye as it relates to God's knowledge of the future.

It seem that you are implicitly contradicting you previous views, Mountain Man, without any explanation! I.e.:



When in this SOP vision were they ‘role playing’ then, as implied by that comment made here?

It also is comical to me, as repeatedly and patently done before in my various discussions, that whenever someone argument is countered and defeated with a Biblical response, the default reaction is vexatiously indifferent silence!?? (cf. e.g., Matt 22:46; Luke 20:26 - especially considering that it was you al who started this thread to question/challenge my view here!? Or should I just assume Luke 20:39, 40). Yet ‘a dense forest is still being seen and claimed’?!?

Given that the “innate and most passionate” wrath/anger of God for sin had to be inflicted on Christ in this Sacrifice, but as that God Himself revealed:



It is clear to me that the suffering that God would have to inflict on Jesus was not the issue, since He was ‘(passionately) pleased/delighted’ to do it. Using your example, that would be as self-contradictory and irrational as you expressing to your wife and your friends that you are pleased/delighted to make your wife suffer in her delivery and indeed doing so. As the Bible also says: ‘God does not need to ‘put on a disguise [#08132], (=in order to ‘put on an act’)’’. (Mal 3:6) I.e., especially in such a “planning” application, He says what He (always) means, and meant, for that Wise (Prophetic) Plan.

In your Classical Foreknowledge view, to say here that ‘He was/will be pleased/delighted’ which He always knew He would be makes it’s a hypocritical lie to say/express/play act at anytime in the past that ‘He was not pleased/delighted in this.

Perhaps Jesus, when made aware of these necessary detailed became e.g., ‘troubled’. By this process of Biblical elimination, it then seems to me that it was instead the great risk involved leading up to, and through the cross that was the issue at hand. (Cf. my blog post on this).

This is actually not a matter of seeing ‘eye to eye’. I have yet to see any Scriptural and Direct SOP Revelations support for your view, but indeed simply “maxims and (supposed) truisms”. Your view most logically, outrightly and innately stands against what you are claiming for this SOP Direct Revelation.

The passage doesn't merely indicate that the implementation was very difficult, but points out that the decision itself had not been made. This is clear by a couple of things.

First of all, the angel points out the decision was a struggle. It could only have been a struggle if God was seriously considering an alternative, indicating that His mind hadn't been made up about it.

Secondly, the way the scene is itself related makes this clear. Jesus Christ went in three times to see the Father, at first His (Christ's) countenance showing distress and agitation. After the third time, His countenance changed. This indicates that something had happened to cause His countenance to change, and the thing that happened was that the Father decided to go through with the plan.

I disagree.

Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.


No, it was a struggle because, although the decision had already been made, it could have been reversed.

I've seen what happens when someone tries to discuss opposing views with you. You are convinced beyond doubt you are right. You are also convinced beyond doubt I am wrong. I see no value in continuing this discussion with you.