Are the consequences of our choices without a Master?

MM: I wrote a detailed post which you haven't addressed. I'm reposting it here, with the personal remarks removed. I hope I've succeeded in removing any offensive remarks. If I haven't, please excuse me, and consider the arguments.

I'll await your response.
-----------------------------------------------

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: 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 no 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 clearly invalid. 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. The argruments you have constructed 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 are not reasoning in this case from cause to effect. 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. 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.

"Regarding the return of Christ in 1888. In one sense it’s too bad Jesus didn’t return back then, but on the other hand, I’m glad He didn’t – I wasn’t born yet. Besides, if Jesus was supposed to return in 1888 He would have caused the rocks to proclaim the message that the Church rejected."

I will ignore the obvious egocentric nature off this sort of logic, and instead ask you:

Are talking rocks a hyperbole to you, MM?

"If Adventists delayed the return of Christ in 1888, contrary to God's set date, how many more times can we do it?"

Once more is too many!

Somehow you comments smack of God goofing in even starting the 1888 message; if no one was ready, why would He set all the agencies in motion? Why would He awaken a church that He knew would reject the Message? Was He just toying with our hearts, putting a carrot in front of His faithful ones and then withdrawing it, like a cruel bully boy?

Or was the Church actually able to accept the Truth, but refused it from pride and self-wisdom?

You blame God for teasing His church, it seems to me.

Thanks for the new approach of direct answers, MM It cuts down on the misunderstandings.

Now that you seem to be "in the mood" for direct answers, how about answering the most weighty ones I asked in the same manner, please:


Somehow you comments smack of God goofing in even starting the 1888 message; if no one was ready, why would He set all the agencies in motion?

Why would He awaken a church that He knew would reject the Message?

Why? I don't know.

Now, I have a few questions. And, please, feel free to elaborate.

1. Where does it say the day and hour of Jesus' return was originally set for 1888? or for shortly after 1844?

2. Has God had to reset the date of Christ's return? Or, has it been set since the beginning of time?

3. What does the following quote teach us about why Jesus' hasn't returned yet?

Selected Messages, volume One, pages 66-69

"Time Nearly Finished"

A statement published in 1851 in Experience and Views, and found on page 49 [page 58, present edition] of Early Writings is quoted as proving my testimonies false: "I saw that the time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly finished, and that time can last but a very little longer." {1SM 66.6}

As the subject was presented before me, the period of Christ's ministration seemed almost accomplished. Am I accused of falsehood because time has continued longer than my testimony seemed to indicate? How is it with the testimonies of Christ and His disciples? Were they deceived? {1SM 67.1}

Paul writes to the Corinthians: {1SM 67.2}

"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not" (1 Cor. 7:29, 30). {1SM 67.3}

Again, in his epistle to the Romans, he says: {1SM 67.4}

"The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light" (Rom. 13:12). {1SM 67.5}

And from Patmos, Christ speaks to us by the beloved John: {1SM 67.6}

"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand" (Rev. 1:3). "The Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly; blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book" (Rev. 22:6, 7). {1SM 67.7}

The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional. {1SM 67.8}

God had committed to His people a work to be accomplished on earth. The third angel's message was to be given, the minds of believers were to be directed to the heavenly sanctuary, where Christ had entered to make atonement for His people. The Sabbath reform was to be carried forward. The breach in the law of God must be made up. The message must be proclaimed with a loud voice, that all the inhabitants of earth might receive the warning. The people of God must purify their souls through obedience to the truth, and be prepared to stand without fault before Him at His coming. {1SM 67.9}

Had Adventists, after the great disappointment in 1844, held fast their faith, and followed on unitedly in the opening providence of God, receiving the message of the third angel and in the power of the Holy Spirit proclaiming it to the world, they would have seen the salvation of God, the Lord would have wrought mightily with their efforts, the work would have been completed, and Christ would have come ere this to receive His people to their reward. {1SM 68.1}

But in the period of doubt and uncertainty that followed the disappointment, many of the advent believers yielded their faith. Dissensions and divisions came in. The majority opposed with voice and pen the few who, following in the providence of God, received the Sabbath reform and began to proclaim the third angel's message. Many who should have devoted their time and talents to the one purpose of sounding warning to the world, were absorbed in opposing the Sabbath truth, and in turn, the labor of its advocates was necessarily spent in answering these opponents and defending the truth. Thus the work was hindered, and the world was left in darkness. Had the whole Adventist body united upon the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, how widely different would have been our history! {1SM 68.2}

It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed. God did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years in the wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and establish them there a holy, healthy, happy people. But those to whom it was first preached, went not in "because of unbelief" (Heb. 3:19). Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He COULD NOT fulfill His covenant with them. {1SM 68.3}

For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among the Lord's professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and sorrow so many years. {1SM 69.1}

There are two other passages said to be found in my first book, but not given in my later writings. Concerning these I shall only say, when I can obtain a book containing them, so that I can be assured of the correctness of the quotations and can see for myself their connection, I shall be prepared to speak understandingly in regard to them. {1SM 69.2}