|
Forums118
Topics9,223
Posts196,070
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: How "free" are we after all?
#14982
07/17/05 07:14 AM
07/17/05 07:14 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM: Tom, it looks as though we are both misunderstanding each other. I did not mean to imply that you cannot use the SOP to establish a point. More power to you. However, both of us must ensure that our interpretation of the SOP does not contradict the Bible. Tom: "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss." "Christ risked Himself." "All heaven was placed in peril." These are not difficult statements in need of "interpretation." MM: Whatever she meant by referring to risk and Christ, in the context of the cross, one thing is certain, it cannot be construed to mean Jesus and the Father were not absolutely sure Jesus would succeed in saving us. Tom: The statement was made in the context of Christ's birth. It's in the chapter "Unto You A Saviour" quote:
The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}
MM: None of the scriptures you listed imply, even in the slightest way, that Jesus might not succeed in saving mankind or winning the great controversy against sin and Satan.
Tom: They all do because they demonstrate the future is open and not fixed like a T.V. Rerun. God had faith in His Son, and risked all based on that faith, but it was indeed a risk.
MM: Yes, some prophecies are conditional, and different outcomes are possible, but there is nothing conditional about Jesus and the cross or the outcome of the great controversy.
The expression, “at the risk of failure and eternal loss”, does not unequivocally mean that it was possible for the Son of God to fail and die eternally. First of all, according to the prophecies, Jesus would not fail or lose. There is no hint in the Bible that He might not succeed. Secondly, the word “loss” does not necessarily mean Jesus Himself would die eternally. It could mean something else. If Jesus failed to drink the cup, who or what did He stand to lose eternally? To me, the answer is obvious. The eternal security of fallen and unfallen beings alike depends upon a successful outcome of the great controversy. Jesus risked losing everything if He failed to drink the cup, everything, that is, but His own life. God cannot die. Saying Jesus risked everything is a hyperbole, not a possibility. It’s a figure of speech, not a statement of fact.
Tom: The only sense I can make of this is that you disagree with what the Spirit of Prophesy is saying. That's your perogative.
quote:
The value of a soul, who can estimate? Would you know its worth, go to Gethsemane, and there watch with Christ through those hours of anguish, when He sweat as it were great drops of blood. Look upon the Saviour uplifted on the cross. Hear that despairing cry, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Mark 15:34. Look upon the wounded head, the pierced side, the marred feet. Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul. (COL 196)
She's not using a "figure of speech" but developing a logical argument, whose premise is that to appreciate the value of a soul we must recongnize the risk which was taken for its salvation.
Regarding Christ's own loss, note that in the above DA quote we read that God sent His Son at the risk of "failure and eternal loss." The context makes it clear that she is referring to the risk that God would lose His own Son. That was the whole point. She makes it clear by making an analogy with the fear that a human father feels when his own child enters into the world.
|
|
|
Re: How "free" are we after all?
#14983
07/17/05 04:34 PM
07/17/05 04:34 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, you are assuming that the words "risk" and "imperiled" and "eternal loss" can only mean one thing, and one thing only, namely, that it was possible for Jesus to sin and die eternally. But nowhere does Sister White use the words sin and death in the context of risk and peril and loss. Rather, you are making that assumption.
To make such an assumption you must first reject everything else the Bible says about the life and death of Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP is it taught that it was possible for Jesus to sin and die eternally. God cannot die. Only created beings are capable of dying. Yes, Jesus could have refused to drink the cup, but it would have required destroying all FMAs, which was something Jesus refused to do.
Again, the idea that Jesus placed all heaven at risk and peril by becoming a human being is a hyperbole, an exaggeration to emphasize a point. Jesus Himself used hyperboles to emphasize certain points. No, it is not a form of lying. Rather, it is a form of speech. There was never any doubt that Jesus would drink the cup, never any fear that He might sin and die eternally. But knowing Jesus would triumph over sin and Satan did not lessen the emotional impact of His ordeal.
When probation closes, the 144,000 know they will not sin and die, they know they will be translated alive when Jesus returns. There is no doubt about it in their minds. The prophecies are clear and consistent. To doubt their forthcoming deliverance would be a sin, a sin that would lead to death. Thus, they will refuse to doubt their salvation. It is their refusal to doubt that vindicates God’s kingdom and character, and causes Satan to admit defeat. But their confidence in the promises of God will in no way lessen the emotional impact of their ordeal.
|
|
|
Re: How "free" are we after all?
#14984
07/18/05 04:35 AM
07/18/05 04:35 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
Tom, you are assuming that the words "risk" and "imperiled" and "eternal loss" can only mean one thing, and one thing only, namely, that it was possible for Jesus to sin and die eternally. But nowhere does Sister White use the words sin and death in the context of risk and peril and loss. Rather, you are making that assumption.
Your strawman arguments get rather tiresome at times. Pardon me for saying that, but I already refuted this line of argument. The Spirit of Prophesy states that divinity cannot die, and I have never asserted what you are asserting I am saying. You've made up your own definitions about my interpretations, and assert I am saying things which I never said. I do wish you would stop.
The statements from the Spirit of Prophesy are clear that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. The words "risk" and "failure" and "eternal" and "loss" as words which a bright fourth grader should have no trouble understanding. Let me ask you what your definition of these words are. For myself, I would be happy to stick with the standard dictionary definitions.
The main point I was making earlier is that there is not way one can construe "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" with having something to do with the possibility that FMA's which Christ had created might be lost.
|
|
|
Re: How "free" are we after all?
#14985
07/18/05 02:32 PM
07/18/05 02:32 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Okay, let's agree to disagree. I never meant to imply that you personally believe Jesus was capable of dying eternally. So, moving on. How about the other question I've posted several times? Can the lamblike beast choose not to make an image to the first beast? choose not to enforce the mark of the beast? Or, is it inevitable?
|
|
|
Re: How "free" are we after all?
#14986
07/19/05 11:38 PM
07/19/05 11:38 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
Okay, let's agree to disagree. I never meant to imply that you personally believe Jesus was capable of dying eternally. So, moving on. How about the other question I've posted several times? Can the lamblike beast choose not to make an image to the first beast? choose not to enforce the mark of the beast? Or, is it inevitable?
Does agreeing to disagree mean I answer your questions, but you don't answer mine? I've asked you several times how God sending His Son "at the risk of eternal life" can mean anything other than God risked losing His Son in order to effect our redemption.
In a topic such as "how free our free" it is inevitable that the topic of the nature of the future will come up. If the future is like a T.V. rerun, then we are not free. That would be a logical impossibility. Either we a self-determining creatures, or we aren't. If the future is alread determined, then we cannot determine it. Hence we cannot be free. We can *think* we are free, be we cannot actually be free, because to be free implies that we can act in such a way as to impact the future.
The lamblike beast is not an individual. There's no aspect of freedom involved here, other than the principle that sin leads to bondage. God understands perfectly the principles involved in the Great Controversy, and Satan is a slave to sin (those who commit sin become its slave, and noone is more of a slave than Satan), so God knows what Satan will attempt to do. So to answer your questions, I would say these prophesies are inevitable. I can't think of any circumstances under which they wouldn't come to pass, at any rate.
However, I don't see how this prooves anything. The fact that there is some instance in some circumstance where some event is inevitable does not mean that every event in every circumstance in every instance is inevitable, and goes nowhere towards showing that the future is like a T.V. rerun. OTOH, providing a single counterexample *does* dispell the argument that the future is like a T.V. rerun.
That God took a risk in sending Christ to redeem us does that very thing. That is, it disproves the future is like a T.V. rerun idea because risk means the possibility of loss, which is mutually exclusive to the idea that the future is like a T.V. rerun.
|
|
|
Re: How "free" are we after all?
#14987
07/20/05 04:26 PM
07/20/05 04:26 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, just because God sees the great controversy from beginning to end does not mean we are not free. Just because I know how a movie is going to end, because I've seen it before, does not mean the actors are not free. Foreknowledge does not undermine freedom, it merely reflects what will be as if it already is.
I thought I answered your question about risk and eternal loss. It's a hyperbole. Jesus did not sin or lose. Theoretically He could have sinned and lost, but the prophecies do not allow for it. The word of God plainly says Jesus will succeed, and God’s word cannot return unto Him void. It cannot fail. Why? Because God sees the beginning and the end of the great controversy, and has known it from the eternal ages.
God knows every single detail, every minute thing about the great controversy. He knows everything everyone will think, say, and do, and the motives behind it, and He has known all this about everyone forever. Nothing is hid from God. The past and the future, in God, are present tense. He is all knowing and all powerful. He “inhabits eternity” (Isa 57:15). He “calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Rom 4:17).
The lamblike beast symbolizes a host of American politicians and lawmakers, and God can foretell their future actions because He knows everything about everyone who will be involved in the decision making process. He knows exactly what each person will think, say, and do, and the motives behind it, and He has known this about them forever and ever. Otherwise, it would be impossible for God to foretell the future of the lamblike beast.
|
|
|
Re: How "free" are we after all?
#14988
07/20/05 06:45 PM
07/20/05 06:45 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM: Tom, just because God sees the great controversy from beginning to end does not mean we are not free. Tom: This is scratching where it doesn't itch. Most people apply this same false reasoning, so you're not alone. The problem with the future being determined is not one of God's foreknowlge causing our lack of freedom. It is not God's foreknowledge which is the problem. The problem has to do with the nature of the future. If the future is determined, then we cannot be self-determining creatures. It's really a very simple concept, but one which many have trouble grasping, for some reason which eludes me. EGW has hit upon this in her writings a couple of times in ways which are easy to understand. She states that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. A little thought will suffice to see that this implies the future cannot be determined. She also emphasizes many times that Christ really could have sinned, so the same logic applies here. If Christ could have sinned, then the Plan of Salvation could have failed, and the prephesies could have failed, which shows the future is not determined, or fixed. This is simple stuff. Another place where one can easily see from her writings that the future is not fixed is from where she speaks of the existence of sin. God is innocent of any wrongdoing. This is only possible if the future is not fixed. If there is only one possible outcome, and God sets into motion a process which can only result in that one possible outcome, it's as clear as sunlight that in this situation God would not be innocent of wrongdoing as He *would* be to blame for sin coming into existence. MM: Just because I know how a movie is going to end, because I've seen it before, does not mean the actors are not free. Foreknowledge does not undermine freedom, it merely reflects what will be as if it already is. Tom: Again, this is scratching where it doesn't itch. It is not understanding the nature of the difficulty, which is not one of causation due to foreknowledge, but one of not being able to be a self-determining creature because of the nature of the future. MM: I thought I answered your question about risk and eternal loss. It's a hyperbole. Tom: You have no basis whatsoever on the basis of the text to assert that it is a hyperbole. The context bears out that she is being deadly serious in what she wrote. "Remember" that Christ risked all. In this way can you understand the value of a soul. God faces a more fateful risk as Christ face a bitterer conflict. Wonder and be astonished O earth and Heavens! Not until we see the courts of heaven and recognize that Christ not only left all of this but took the risk of failure and eternal loss will we fully appreicate what He did for us. These are the types of things she writes. These are not hyperboles! They are well reasoned arguments based on clearly stated premises. MM: Jesus did not sin or lose. Theoretically He could have sinned and lost, but the prophecies do not allow for it. Tom: Then you flat out disagree with her, as she states many times that Christ really and truly could have sinned (not merely "theoretically," whatever that means). MM: The word of God plainly says Jesus will succeed, and God’s word cannot return unto Him void. It cannot fail. Why? Because God sees the beginning and the end of the great controversy, and has known it from the eternal ages. Tom: Once again, you are disagreeing with the Spirit of Prophesy (also Scripture, but that would be another thread). Here's one well known quote which brings out this point, quote:
He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {13MR 18.1}
Note: "He could ahve sinned; He could have fallen." Your premises are:
1)The Word of God plainly says Jesus will succeed.
2)The Word of God cannot fail.
The conclusion must be:
3)Jesus must succeed.
Do you see how "Jesus must succeed" does not agree with "He could have sinned; He could have fallen"?
MM: God knows every single detail, every minute thing about the great controversy. He knows everything everyone will think, say, and do, and the motives behind it, and He has known all this about everyone forever. Nothing is hid from God. The past and the future, in God, are present tense. He is all knowing and all powerful. He “inhabits eternity” (Isa 57:15). He “calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Rom 4:17).
Tom: I've pointed this out many times, but the point hasn't been grasped, so I'll try again. What we're dealing with is not God's foreknowledge, but the nature of the future. You are correct that God knows the future perfectly, but God knows the future as it actually is, which isn't necessarily how you think it is. That is, it is not necessary for the future to be of the simplistic T.V. rerun variety in order for God to perfectly know it.
If the future is like a T.V. rerun, then
1)How can it be said that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss?
2)How can it be said that God is not to blame for sin?
3)How can it be said that we are to no only look for but to hasten the coming of Christ?
4)How can it be said that Christ could have come before now, in the 1888 era for example?
MM: The lamblike beast symbolizes a host of American politicians and lawmakers, and God can foretell their future actions because He knows everything about everyone who will be involved in the decision making process. He knows exactly what each person will think, say, and do, and the motives behind it, and He has known this about them forever and ever. Otherwise, it would be impossible for God to foretell the future of the lamblike beast.
Tom: You conclusion in no way follows from you premise. This is completely flawed logic. Your argument is:
1)God has known from all eternity what every person will think, say, and do.
2)Otherwise it would be impossible for God to foretell the future of the lamblike beast.
This argument is equivalent to the following:
1)God is able to foretell the future of the lamblike beast.
2)Therefore God must have known from all eternity what every person will think, say and do.
It should be obvious that this logic is flawed, but just in case this isn't obvious, I will illustrate it. I am able to predict what my wife will do in a certain circumstance. This is because I know her. So if I say to her, "do me a favor" she will say "E` muito" (which means, "that's a lot", kind of like "that's too much"). So I can foretell what she will do. Therefore I must have known from all eternity what every person will think, say and do.
The principles were in place for these prophesies to be fulfilled in the 1890's. They could have happened then; indeed, should have. That they could have happened then, but didn't, yet will happen in the future should make it plain that the fulfillment of these prophesies is not dependent upon any *specific* group of politicians.
|
|
|
Re: How "free" are we after all?
#14989
07/20/05 07:48 PM
07/20/05 07:48 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, the “future being determined” and God knowing the end from the beginning, like watching a rerun, are not one and the same thing. Knowing the choices people will make, before they make them, is not fixing the future or restricting their freedom. The idea that Jesus was free to sin is academic only, it in no way implies God does not know the end from the beginning in minute detail.
Just because God foresaw the fall of men and angels, and chose to create them anyhow, does not mean God is to blame for the entrance of sin. It was inevitable, because God chose to create them, but He did not make them to sin or cause them to sin. He made them perfectly holy and happy.
There is nothing disingenuous about employing a hyperbole to emphasize the magnitude and beauty of the plan of salvation. Whether or not you and I agree on this is a matter of interpretation. You believe she was clearly saying that Jesus could have failed to save mankind, and I insist she was only employing a hyperbole. You are absolutely sure I’m wrong and that you’re right. I feel the opposite about it. The word of God cannot lie, nor can it return unto God void. Period. No question or doubt about it. If you disagree, then you at odds with the word of God, not me.
The Bible very plainly says Jesus will, and did, succeed on the cross. It never, in any way, implies that Jesus might not succeed. Yes, the Bible talks about certain conditional prophecies, but there is absolutely nothing conditional about the prophecies that talk about Jesus and the cross. He “could have sinned” simply means He was free to sin, that He wasn’t incapable of sinning. It doesn’t imply He might, or that God wasn’t sure if He would or not.
The fact Christ could have returned “ere this” does not in any way suggest God does not know the exact day and hour of Christ’s second coming. The religio-political situation in 1888 did not meet the criteria outlined in the Bible. Yes, in some ways it came close, but obviously it stopped short of fulfilling the prophecies. Therefore, Jesus did not return in 1888.
Jesus will not, and cannot, return until all the specifics recorded in the Bible are fulfilled. It didn't happen in 1888. The world, or the church, wasn't ready in 1888 for the return of Jesus. They could have been, and should have been ready, but they weren't. And God knew they wouldn't be ready in 1888. But this doesn't change the fact they could have been ready or should have been ready.
|
|
|
Re: How "free" are we after all?
#14990
07/20/05 08:50 PM
07/20/05 08:50 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM: Tom, the “future being determined” and God knowing the end from the beginning, like watching a rerun, are not one and the same thing. Knowing the choices people will make, before they make them, is not fixing the future or restricting their freedom. Tom: This is again scratching where it doesn't itch. The issue is not with God's foreknowledge, but with the nature of the future. God cannot know the future in some way that it isn't. God knows things as they are. If the future is not fixed, than God cannot know it as fixed. Take God out of the question for a moment. That might simplify things. Think about the future. Is it fixed, or isn't it? If it is fixed, then it can only have one path. If it is open, then there are many paths it can take. This question is independent of God's foreknowledge. MM: The idea that Jesus was free to sin is academic only, it in no way implies God does not know the end from the beginning in minute detail. Tom: This sentence has a false beginning, and an irrelevant conclusion. No one is asserting that God doesn't know the end from the beginning in minute deatil. What is being asserted is that the future is not fixed. You may have the idea that Jesus' being free to sin is academic only, but EGW often faught against this idea. She emphasized the reverse many times. I quoted one of the more famous of these times. Your idea is not hers. MM: Just because God foresaw the fall of men and angels, and chose to create them anyhow, does not mean God is to blame for the entrance of sin. Tom: If God set into motion a chain of events which could only result in one possible outcome, it DOES mean He is to blame for the entrance of sin. There's no way around this. MM: It was inevitable, because God chose to create them, but He did not make them to sin or cause them to sin. He made them perfectly holy and happy. Tom: If sin was inevitable, then God was to blame. How can that not be the case? He could have chosen to not create, or to have created things differently, a first angel whom He foreknew wouldn't sin, or a first human couple that He foreknew wouldn't sin. As you have frequently pointed out, according to your view, God foresaw that these creatures would sin (not could, but would) and chose to create them "anyhow". The "anyhow" is significant. It is what places the blame on God. If God could have done things in some other way in which sin would have not arisen, and deliberately chose not to do this, prefering to do things the way that He did, resulting in sin being inevitable when that need not have been the case, then God IS to blame for sin. How could He not be, given this set of assumptions? MM: There is nothing disingenuous about employing a hyperbole to emphasize the magnitude and beauty of the plan of salvation. Tom: The only reason you are assuming this is a hyperbole is because you don't agree with it. What she is writing is plain speech. Here it is again: quote:
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}
The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}
Where is there any "hyperbole" here? Hyperbole is "deliberate exaggeration used to achieve an effect." For example, in William Shakespeare's Macbeth, Lady Macbeth hyperbolizes when she says, "All the perfumes of Arabia could not sweeten this little hand." This is hyperbole! What EGW wrote is NOT. There is nothing to indicate either here or in DA 131, or in COL that she is intentionally exagerating anything.
MM: Whether or not you and I agree on this is a matter of interpretation. You believe she was clearly saying that Jesus could have failed to save mankind, and I insist she was only employing a hyperbole.
Tom: But you have no basis to insist this. You only do this because you prefer this to admitting your view is incorrect, or that EGW doesn't support it. It makes it kind of pointless to try to prove something to you from her writings if when you are proven incorrect you can wipe your hand and call things a "hyperbole."
If there were something in the text which indicated the possibility of hyperbole, I would be open to accept your suggestion. Can you point to anything in the text which suggests hyperbole?
MM: You are absolutely sure I’m wrong and that you’re right. I feel the opposite about it.
Tom: I have confidence in what she has written, not in myself. I've often been wrong about things, regardless of my confidence in them. At one point I was confident that SDA's were a cult. By the grace of God, I have the openness of mind to change my views when I am presented with evidence which disagrees with what I have believed. I have often changed or adjusted my views. If you presented some evidence to support your view, I would be willing to adjust my thoughts. You haven't presented any evidence. I have. That's the difference.
MM: The word of God cannot lie, nor can it return unto God void. Period. No question or doubt about it. If you disagree, then you at odds with the word of God, not me.
Tom: I'm at odds with your very limited view of things. You are saying things are the way I think they are, or you are disagreeing with God. That seems to me to be very closed-minded. It seems to me to be entirely possible that you are wrong.
MM: The Bible very plainly says Jesus will, and did, succeed on the cross. It never, in any way, implies that Jesus might not succeed.
Tom: Your tenses are messed up here. You mean "would" and "might not have" in the place of "will" and "might not".
The Spirit of Prophesy is clear about these things. You often cite her, so I assume you believe she is inspired. So inspiration DOES imply that Christ might not have succeeded. Actually, more than implying it, it out and out states it directly.
MM: Yes, the Bible talks about certain conditional prophecies, but there is absolutely nothing conditional about the prophecies that talk about Jesus and the cross.
Tom: This is just a gratuitous assumption on your part. You have adduced no proof.
MM: He “could have sinned” simply means He was free to sin, that He wasn’t incapable of sinning. It doesn’t imply He might, or that God wasn’t sure if He would or not.
Tom: This doesn't agree with the statement that God sent His Son at the "risk of failure and eternal loss." "Risk" means more than a physical possibility; it means the possibility of loss, to be imperiled.
MM: The fact Christ could have returned “ere this” does not in any way suggest God does not know the exact day and hour of Christ’s second coming.
Tom: You keep bringing up things which are not the issue. The issue is the nature of the future, not God's foreknowledge. If the future is fixed, then Christ could not have returned "ere this." Do you understand this?
MM: The religio-political situation in 1888 did not meet the criteria outlined in the Bible.
Tom: What?!? Of course it did. All the pioneers believed it did, including Ellen G. White.
MM: Yes, in some ways it came close, but obviously it stopped short of fulfilling the prophecies. Therefore, Jesus did not return in 1888.
Tom: This is never the reason given for why Jesus didn't come. She wrote that because of insubordination we might have to remain for many years. This was in 1901 I think. Here's a statement from 1SM:
quote:
An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren {E.J.} Waggoner and {A.T.} Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded
235
in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world.
God gave a message, the purpose of which was to prepare a people for Christ's coming. That message was not heeded. THAT'S the reason Christ didn't come.
(snipped rest; I didn't see anything to add)
|
|
|
Re: How "free" are we after all?
#14991
07/20/05 10:22 PM
07/20/05 10:22 PM
|
OP
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,664
Plowing
|
|
MM: Ellen White exaggerating through hyberbole? As Tom points out to you, that's a bold way to force her into your non-mainstream SDA opinion box.
1888 a pre-mature attempt by God? God was in error??? This blows away any credibility concerning "set-fate", on your part [my term, please don't get upset that you never used it, directly].
This is the same problem the church had then and later: they refused to admit that they, personally, were at fault concerning 1888. They blamed others, and comforted themselves that all was "as planned".
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
