Okay, then the future is fixed. Like a rerun, things will play out exactly as God has known from the beginning. It cannot be any other way than God has seen it. He has seen the end from the beginning, and, therefore, things will unfold accordingly, like a rerun.

I believe Jesus was capable of sinning, but it is clear that He did not. For Ellen White to say, 2,000 years after the fact, that Jesus could have sinned is merely academic, another hyperbole. Her statement cannot be forced to mean God wasn’t sure from the beginning if Jesus would sin or not. The most convincing evidence that the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed is the fact He didn’t fail. Again, you are absolutely certain I am dead wrong, and you are entitled to your opinion.

The problem with assuming God could have created men and angels, without infringing upon their freedoms, in such a way that sin and rebellion would not have happened, is that no such option was available to God. His options were two: to create and deal with the sin problem, or not to create and not deal with the sin problem. That’s it. You cannot base an argument on a false assumption.

Again, I agree that God introduced a situation where sin and death were inevitable, and, as such, He assumes responsibility. But to say God is at fault or to blame because men and angels chose to sin and rebel is treasonous. Yes, He foresaw it, but He did not force them to sin or rebel. That men and angels sinned is a mystery, therefore, you cannot base an argument on it. It is important to bear in mind the following insight:

GC 492, 493
Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. {GC 492.2}

Jesus will not, and cannot, return until all the specifics recorded in the Bible are fulfilled. It didn't happen in 1888. Neither the world, nor the church, was ready in 1888 for the return of Jesus. They could have been, and should have been ready, but they weren't. And God knew from the beginning that they wouldn't be ready in 1888. But this doesn't change the fact they could have been ready or should have been ready.

MM: Okay, then the future is fixed. Like a rerun, things will play out exactly as God has known from the beginning. It cannot be any other way than God has seen it. He has seen the end from the beginning, and, therefore, things will unfold accordingly, like a rerun.

Tom: You write "Okay, then" and present a conclusion which has no basis in fact. Let me reproduce an argument from another thread we have going "Who is in control?"):

It's simple logic that if God set into motion a course of evens which could have only one outcome, then God is responsible for that outcome. You've used this same logic yourself. The problem is that the conclusion is false. Now in logic there is an argument where you can argue by using the contrapositive. The argument works like this: if P -> Q then ~Q -> ~P. What this means is that if P implies Q, then not Q implies not P, or in English, if this implies that, then the reverse of that implies the reverse of this. So in the above argument we have:

1)God set into motion a chain of events which could have only one possible outcome, which is sin and death.
2)Therefore God is responsible for that outcome (or "God is to blame").

This argument is logically sound, meaning that the conclusion does indeed follow from the premise. However, the conclusion is false, as shown from the GC statement you have quoted yourself:

quote:

---

Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin. (GC 492, 493)

---

Therefore the premise is false. This is simple logic. The idea that God set into a motion a course of events which can only have one possible outcome has been disproved. Q.E.D. (end of argument from the other thread).

This disproves the idea that there is one fixed future, that the future is like a T.V. rerun, because the argument shows that God could not have set into motion a course of events which can only have one possible outcome (as assumption upon which a T.V. rerun type future depends).

MM: I believe Jesus was capable of sinning, but it is clear that He did not. For Ellen White to say, 2,000 years after the fact, that Jesus could have sinned is merely academic, another hyperbole.

Tom: It's clear from her statements that this is NOT the case. Please take a close look at what she actually wrote. Here's the DA 131 version:

quote:

---

Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. (DA 131)

---

"Hyperbole" means a literary devise in which one is intentionally exerating. The intent of such a device is that the reader would understand that what was being written was not to be taken literally. However, the phrase "Remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss." is obviously meant to be taken literally. That's clear to you, isn't it?

MM: Her statement cannot be forced to mean God wasn’t sure from the beginning if Jesus would sin or not. The most convincing evidence that the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed is the fact He didn’t fail.

Tom: It appers to me that you have no grasp whatsoever of logic. You write that "the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed is the fact He didn’t fail." This translates to:

1)Christ did not fall.
2)Therefore the Bible nowhere intimated Jesus could have failed.

You are basing your conclusion on something which happened *after* your conclusion. Premises are supposed to *preceed* conclusions. That's why "conclusions" are called "conclusions." The conclude that which came previously.

What happened after the Bible was written has not impact whatsoever on the thing which was written, which has become a part of the past.

That's not the only reason your argument is absurd. Here's an analagous argument:

1)The Yankees did not win the World Series last year.
2)Therefore the Bible nowhere intimated that the Yankees could have won.

The point is there is no relationship between the two parts, just like your argument. A reasonable argument would be something like this:
1)If Christ could have fallen, the Bible would have said so somewhere.
2)The Bible nowhere says Christ could have fallen.
3)Therefore Christ could not have fallen.

One could argue whether the premises are true, but at least the conclusion follows from the premises. You construct argruments which not only have untrue statements, but the arguments themselves are not valid, and not even close to valid.

MM: Again, you are absolutely certain I am dead wrong, and you are entitled to your opinion.

Tom: I'm convinced you have no clear understanding of how to reason from cause to effect. You have certain very strongly held beliefs, but they have no basis in fact, at least none which have been adduced. It's not simply a matter that you believe one thing and I believe another, but I have presented valid arguments as to why I think the things I do. By the grace of God, I'm open to change my mind, if one presents evidence.

MM: The problem with assuming God could have created men and angels, without infringing upon their freedoms, in such a way that sin and rebellion would not have happened, is that no such option was available to God. His options were two: to create and deal with the sin problem, or not to create and not deal with the sin problem. That’s it. You cannot base an argument on a false assumption.

Tom: Why do you assume it was not possible for God to create without sin existing? You seem to be of the opinion that God could not create beings with free will who would not sin. But this is obviously untrue. The vast majority, by a huge margin, of the free will creatures God has created have never sinned. Why could God not have simply not created those creatures who would not sin? Why is this a "false assumption" on my part? Why is this not a viable option for God? Why limit God to two options?

MM: Again, I agree that God introduced a situation where sin and death were inevitable, and, as such, He assumes responsibility. But to say God is at fault or to blame because men and angels chose to sin and rebel is treasonous.

Tom: Why? If God did something which could only lead to one possible result, then He is to blame. To blame means "to attribute responsibility to."

MM: Yes, He foresaw it, but He did not force them to sin or rebel.

Tom: That God foresaw it is absolutely NOT the issue. I've pointed this out many times.

The issue is that if God set into motion a course of events which could only have one outcome, then He did force that thing to happen. To force is to "cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means." If God created creatures that could only do one thing, and they did that one thing which is the only thing they could do, then they were forced. The only way they could not have been forced would be to have more than one option available.

MM: That men and angels sinned is a mystery, therefore, you cannot base an argument on it.

Tom: This logic is flawed to. Here's your argument:

1) That men and angels sinned is a mystery.
2) Therefore, you cannot base an argument on it.

The reason this argument is flawed is that it relies upon an unstated premise, which is that under no circumstances can a reason be given for why men or angels sinned, because the fact that they sinned is a mystery. It's true that no legitamate reason can be given. But a false reason could be postulated, and such a false reason could be disproved by arguing that there's no mystery involved in one holds to the postulated reason.

Allow me to clarify. Say God had created men as robots, with no ability to reason. Suppose these robots broke some rule of God. There would be no mystery involved as to why the rule was broken. Therefore the hypothesis that God created men like robots is false, because it leads to a false conclusion.

So if you postulate a hypothesis which leads to the false conclusion that men sinned for a non-mysterious reason, then your hypothesis is false. This is precisely what you have done. The argument I presented was both valid and true. Your assertion that my argument is invalid is false.

MM: It is important to bear in mind the following insight:

GC 492, 493
Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. {GC 492.2}

Tom: That's exactly my point! It's only a mystery as to why sin came about if no reason can be given for its existence. In your way of looking at things, a reason CAN be given, and very simply. The reason sin came about is because God set into motion a course of events with only possible outcome. Given that no reason can legitimately be given, your way of looking at things cannot logically be correct.

This argument is actually just a restatement of the first one I gave.

MM: Jesus will not, and cannot, return until all the specifics recorded in the Bible are fulfilled. It didn't happen in 1888. Neither the world, nor the church, was ready in 1888 for the return of Jesus. They could have been, and should have been ready, but they weren't. And God knew from the beginning that they wouldn't be ready in 1888. But this doesn't change the fact they could have been ready or should have been ready.

Tom: What your writing is not based on any facts. It's just conjecture. You don't even try to provide any basis for it. Here's what Sister White wrote:

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 (1SM 234, 235).

---

God gave a message, the purpose of which was to prepare the world for the coming of Christ. That message was resisted, and the enemy succeeded in delaying Christ's coming. It had nothing to do with something not being ready, other than the hearts of those to whom God was sending the message, which was not something foreordained, but a free will choice made be those to whom God was sending the message.

I meant no ill will by the statements, MM. I do think your arguments were absurd and illogical. Most people do not know how to use logic. The vast majority fall into the category. You can see this by looking at commercials or political campaigns.

I'll take the statements one by one:

1) It appers to me that you have no grasp whatsoever of logic.

I am convinced of this. I have taken a great deal of effort to write out well reasoned arguments, and usually you make no response to the arguments. When you do, your arguments are not valid. It's not simply that you write things that I disagree with, but the arguments themselves are not valid.

2) That's not the only reason your argument is absurd.

Here I was addressing your argument, not you. I thought the argument was absurd, and gave explicit reasons why.

3) I'm convinced you have no clear understanding of how to reason from cause to effect.

MM, to be honest, I am convinced of this. You construct arguments that are, I'll just say obviously invalid to anyone who has even a cursory understanding of logic.

However, it was not my intention to hurt your feelings, and I do apologize for that. I will ask you how you think I should have expressed the above thoughts. Instead of "absurd" would "obvsiouly invalid" be better? I can use that expression instead.

Regarding my conviction of your inability to reason from cause to effect, I invite you to:
a)Not present arguments that are obviously invalid.
b)Disprove my arguments of the invalidity of your arguments by clearly presented arguments.

Should I not have expressed my conviction? It's been an exasperating thing for me. I put in a lot of effort in the arguments I present, and you usually don't deal with them at all, or you present counterargments that are obviously invalid. If you can suggest a better way for me to have presented my conviction, I'll be happy to use your suggestion.

Please understand that my intent is not in any way to belittle you, but rather to express my angst in dealing with your obviously invalid arguments and to encourage you to use valid arguments. If you will do this, my conviction will change.

Allow me to give Rosangela as an example. She and I have disagreed on a number of things, but her posts are always logical and always on point. She doesn't misquote me, and she doesn't present spurious arguments or repeat platitudes.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these things with you (and Rosangela, and others). Although I don't really expect you to change your mind, it does provide an opportunity to think though things and learn to better express myself. I've had a number of insights from our discussions, so I think you for your participation.

I also wish to compliment you on your tone. I complained about it quite some time ago, and you responded. It's only reasonable that I respond in kind, so I do apologize for any remarks which were untoward, and ask you for alternatives as to how I should have phrased the remarks you found offensive.

Tom, what do you hope to profit by expressing your opinion about my opinion? If you are truly convinced I cannot reason logically or follow logic reasonably, then we need to stop studying together. Your failure to apologize for the unlovely and unnecessary things you wrote about me suggests that we are not compatible study partners.

I thought I did apologize. I'll try again.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I didn't expect that to happen, and I wouldn't have written what I did had I known that would happen. I feel bad about having hurt you, and have been praying about it, and for you, throughout the day.

I try to keep comments from being personal, and failed to do so here, and am sorry for that. As I pointed out, you responded nicely when I asked you to refrain from personal comments, and you are well entitled to expect the same behavior from me.

When you apologized for your comments, I allowed you to continue to converse with me, and hope to receive the same courtesy from you.

I would be happy to continue our discussions.

Thank you. I, too, am sorry you are convinced I cannot reason logically, but I cannot expect you to change your opinion about me. It sounds like you are willing to refrain from posting them, so, I don't see why we cannot continue studying together. I will try to be more careful how I respond to your posts, and hopefully it will be less frustrating for you.

Ah...feelings...such fickle masters of many hearts, even among Christians. I have seen souls leave the Truth over perceived injuries (oh, and real ones, too), seen saints become reprobates because of some "insult", seen hearts hardened to Light due to fear of others harming their "reputation".

Feelings are a dangerous thing; the Testimonies are filled with references to incorrect love of feelings and emotions.

But, back on topic....

Bro. Tom Since we all agree that God knows all, and is all-powerful, do you see this as requiring that He manufactors every incident in every saved man's life? (I say "saved" man, so as to narrow down the field a bit. We may agree, I hope, that the unsaved cannot claim the same protection and direction as the redeemed.)