The idea that Jesus had to work so hard to persuade the Father to implement the plan of salvation clearly implies the Father wasn't as determined to save and redeem us as was Jesus. It also implies the Father and Son are not coequal, that the Father has more authority and say so than Jesus, that Jesus is subservient to the Father. It also implies the Father and Son were not united in mind and purpose prior to Jesus persuading the Father to consent to His wishes, which implies the Father was of a mind to let A&E perish, which implies the Father didn't or doesn't love us as much as Jesus does. Again, I could not love or trust such a god.

It’s not at all focused on me as you need it to be. My choice is based on EGW’s clear direct revelation, which she, quite possibly, as also seen elsewhere in her writings in regards to other direct revelations, as posted earlier, may just not have fully understood. As e.g, documented in Thomspen’s book cited before, EGW has corrected many things that she ‘had not doubt about before’ e.g., such as God’s attitude towards Satan’s fall.

And Biblical exegesis, which also includes the SOP, is "enlightening".



Your imposing of a little-g “god” to me does not begin to phase. I speak of what I know and I know in who I believe. I think the rules of this forum would require you to, at the very least, express this private opinion of yours neutrally as: ‘my view of God’.

That is all straightforwardly was the key words in that SOP vision pointedly related and conveyed. You have to ignore this to uphold your expressed and ‘subjectively preferred’, theological assumption/traditions.



Again this is not my view as you are trying to paint it. It is just precisely what I read/see throughout the Bible and SOP. The Son is always under the Father’s authority since the start, though of co-eternal and similar substance. Hence the need initial public exaltation of Christ before the Heavenly Host to make this known. (PP 36.2) Clearly the Angels were not aware of this. Being “One” does not mean being “equal in rank”. Jesus may even have voluntarily chosen to be subservient to the Father, even before the angels were created.



Voluntary self-abasement does not less the Divinity of Christ (Phil 2:5-11) Only through base human pride can one either see this and/or see that reject Jesus as God because of this is the only other alternative. (e.g., Matt 20:20-28; John 13:3-9).

Much more could be said on this Theological issue.

Then would it also follow that we cannot change how we act because it has already been played out or is it that we can change since we aren't "right and perfect"?

NJK, thank you for sharing your view. I have nothing further to add at this time.

God's knowledge of the future applies to us as well as to Himself. However, unless He chooses to inform us, we have no idea how the future played out (as opposed to how it might play out). Think of the times God did reveal the future choices and outcomes of people - Did they choose a different path? Of course not. But if they had, would it have proven God doesn't know with certainty how the future played out? And, since they didn't, does it prove God does know with certainty how the future played out (again, as opposed to how it might play out).

You're welcome. I'll be around if/when you do, particularly a Biblical-based one versus philosophical ones.

By the way, you may be interested in the book on this topic: Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views, with contributions by Boyd (Open-Theism); Hunt (Simple Foreknowledge); Lane (Middle-Knowledge); Helm (Augustinian-Calvanist) (InterVarsity Press, 2002). It contains plenty of philosophical arguments with responding comments by each of the three other views after each of these four views are presented. I loathing came to see the utter ambivalent and inconclusive pointlessness of approaching this topic from such underlying and/or overarching philosophical view points after having read it. The Biblical and SOP (direct) testimony is much more certain, determinative and authoritative for me.

I can think of times God revealed the future choices and outcomes of people and they did choose a different path. Can you? Would that negate your, "of course not"? And that's what Tom, I think NJK, and I have been saying.

Kland, I can't think of a time. Nineveh doesn't qualify. The times God got it right, was He just lucky?

You’ll need to transparently cite at least 5 of those examples. As I understand the Biblical Foreplanning View, God does not reveal choices, but states what He plans/wants to, or consequently (i.e., either as a promise or judgement) will, happen, (cf. e.g, Jer 18:1-10), and what is most likely, even surely, to happen, as in prophecies, as these are made upon key GC themes (e.g, Dan 9:26, 27) as He wisely foresee they can/will only play out to reach an end that both He and the Devil wants. (E.g., the Devil will surely want to corrupt God’s Triumphant New Covenant Church/Movement, hence Revelation’s Babylon - For the Devil will surely not go down without a fight.) So, in e.g., Ancient Israel’s case, most of the great plans promises that He had spoken about them, which were to be literally fulfilled, had to be postponed and to be fulfilled on/through a Spiritual Israel.