DA 32
So in heaven's council the hour for the coming of Christ had been determined. When the great clock of time pointed to that hour, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. {DA 32.1}

DA 632, 633
But the day and the hour of His coming Christ has not revealed. He stated plainly to His disciples that He Himself could not make known the day or the hour of His second appearing. Had He been at liberty to reveal this, why need He have exhorted them to maintain an attitude of constant expectancy? There are those who claim to know the very day and hour of our Lord's appearing. Very earnest are they in mapping out the future. But the Lord has warned them off the ground they occupy. The exact time of the second coming of the Son of man is God's mystery. {DA 632.4}

1SM 75, 76
In my first book you will find the only statement in regard to the day and hour of Christ's coming that I have made since the passing of the time in 1844. It is found in Early Writings, pages 11, 27, and 145, 146 [pages 15, 34, and 285, present edition]. All refer to the announcement that will be made just before the second coming of Christ. {1SM 75.2}

. . . . {1SM 75.3}

. . . . They contain all that I have ever been shown in regard to the definite time of the Lord's coming. I have not the slightest knowledge as to the time spoken by the voice of God. I heard the hour proclaimed, but had no remembrance of that hour after I came out of vision. {1SM 75.4}

Old Tom: 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")

MM: “But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning.” What do the words in bold type mean to you?

Tom:I don't see the bold, but I can say that I understand this quote to be dealing with the possibility of sin, not its certainty. That is, God knew of the possibility that Adam and Eve would sin, and He was prepared for that contingency. But it was not God's will, plan, or desire that they should sin, and it was not necessary or inevitable. God was also prepared for the possibility of their not sinning as well.

MM: The words “could” and “would” do not mean the same thing. God knew, before He created them, that they could and would sin.

Tom: Right, the words are not the same. If God knew that they *would* sin, then they could not not sin. That is, their sinning was inevitable, which you have many times asserted (you agree with this, correct?) Now "inevitable" means "incapable of being avoided or prevented". This means there's no way that Adam and Eve could have avoiding sinning, if it was inevitable, as you have asserted. In this case it should be clear that God would be to blame for their sinning since clearly that can not be held responsible for something they could not have avoided or prevented.

MM: He knew in advance about the chain of events that would lead to sin and death, and, in spite of it, He chose to create the beings responsible for it.

Tom: If your view were correct, God would be to blame for their sin, because it was He Himself it put into motion the chain of events which would "inevitably" lead to their sin and death. In this case you would be correct in your assertions that God is the author of sin and death.

MM: Regarding risk and eternal loss. No, I am not convinced Sister White implied Jesus would lose or die eternally.

Tom: My question is what you think "failure" and "eternal loss" meant, not what it doesn't mean. You have asserted it doesn't mean that Christ could have sinned and been lost, but it must mean something. What does it mean?

MM: The Bible, which was in print before Jesus’ first advent, nowhere insinuates it.

Tom: So what? The Spirit of Prophesy, which was written after it, no only insinuates it, it out and out states that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

MM: His success on the cross confirmed the prophecies, and vice versa. The word of God is not limited by time and space.

Tom: What does the statement "the word of God is not limited by time and space" mean? The Bible was written on paper at a specific point in time.

quote:

---

Why do you assume it was not possible for God to create without sin existing?

---

MM: Because, if that were an option, God would have done it that way.

Tom: Ok. That makes sense. I agree that if the future were fixed and God could either create beings which would sin or beings which would not sin, then God would have chosen to create beings which would sin. However, your statement disagrees with this one:

quote:

---

It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence.(GC 492)

---

Given your view on things, it's simple to explain the existence of sin. God created beings which could only sin. Nothing could be easier. There's no mystery whatsoever.

MM: God knows the end from the beginning. So, in light of this fact, God knew exactly which men and angels would choose to sin and rebel, and yet He chose to create them anyhow. This tells me that the option not to create them was not available to God.

Tom: I agree that it makes God to be less monstrous if He created beings which would inevitably sin if the option to create beings that wouldn't inevitably sin existed. However, it leads to other problems. For example, it implies that it was not possible for God to create FMA's that wouldn't sin. That would imply that the mere possibility of sinning makes sin inevitable, which implies something faulty in God's creation.

MM: Regarding the mystery of sin. The reason why Lucifer and one third of the angels, and Adam and Eve, chose to sin is unaccountable and mysterious.

Tom: There's no mystery. God created them with only the possibility of sinning before them. The option to not sin did not exist.

MM: There is no excuse.

Tom: Not for God. For Adam and Eve, and Lucifer, there is. They were created only being able to do one thing, and they did it.

They can only be to blame if there was some other path they could have taken, but that implies that the future is not fixed.

MM: Yes, God knew in advance that they could and would sin, but He is not blame for it. Why not? Because to blame God is to explain why they chose to sin. But it cannot be explained. Sin and death were inevitable because God created them, but He is not to blame for why they chose to sin. God hasn’t explained that to us, yet.

Tom: If sin was inevitable, then it can be explained, and God would be to blame. Hence it was not inevitable. That's pretty easy to understand.

MM: 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.

Tom: But you would prefer that the Great Controversy would have been won and Christ would have received the honor and glory to which He is due, not to mention the avoidance of two world ward and untold suffering among billions of human beings, to being born, wouldn't you?

MM: Besides, if Jesus was supposed to return in 1888 He would have caused the rocks to proclaim the message that the Church rejected. “And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”

Do you believe God was forced to reset the day and hour of Jesus’ second advent?

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

Tom: You're making the assumption that God arbitrarily sets a date. But God doesn't work that way. Christ will come when His character is perfectly reproduced in His people. This is not something which God can determine. He can do things (like send the 1888 message, the beginning of the latter rain, a message sent to prepare for the coming of Christ, to fill the earth with glory), but if the things He does are resisted, then He just has to wait. Which is what He is doing.

When light is rejected, the only recourse God has is to bring people back to the point of the rejected light. There can only be progress when there is repentance. This is not something which God can force.

God will eventually have to cut short the work, otherwise, as it was in the days of Noah, no one would survive to be translated alive. So, why didn't He do it back in 1888? "For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth."

Old Tom: In this case it should be clear that God would be to blame for their sinning since clearly that can not be held responsible for something they could not have avoided or prevented.

MM: I disagree. Just because God knew they would choose to sin doesn’t mean they were not capable of not choosing to sin. They were free to obey or disobey.

Tom: The issue has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge. I keep pointing this out, but you keep referring back to it. I have never made the point that God's knowing something is causual. My point has always and ever will be that if the future is fixed, THAT implies a lack of option. And this is obvious. If the future is fixed, there is only one option possible. That's what the word "fixed" means. Hence Adam and Eve would be blameless, because they had no other options, because of the future being fixed (Note: This has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge).

Old Tom: You have asserted it doesn't mean that Christ could have sinned and been lost, but it must mean something. What does it mean?

MM: I have answered this question already. It means whatever a hyperbole is supposed to mean. I realize you hate that answer, but it’s my answer. It cannot mean that Jesus could have sinned and died.

Tom: OK, let's deal with just the Jesus could have sinned part. Do you disagree that Jesus could have sinned? There are many statements from the SOP which state that He could have sinned. For example, He's a very famous one from the Baker letter:

quote:

---

He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.

---

MM: Nowhere does the SOP use the words sin and die in the context of risk and eternal loss. “When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.” (5BC 1113)

Tom: Right, divinity would not have died. But Christ would have remained in the tomb for all eternity, something like the stone would never had been rolled away. She writes that somewhere (maybe Phil can find it). God would have lost Christ, because Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

Old Tom: Given your view on things, it's simple to explain the existence of sin. God created beings which could only sin. Nothing could be easier. There's no mystery whatsoever.

MM: I have never said God created them to sin.

Tom: I didn't write that. I wrote that in your view of things God created beings which could only sin. This is because if the future is fixed, they could not act in a different way than that fixed future.

MM:He created them free. The fact they chose to sin is evidence they were free to sin.

Tom: If the future is fixed, then there is no freedom because freedom implies the ability to act in different ways. If the future is fixed, you can only act in one way, hence any "freedom" is only perceived but not real. You cannot have real freedom and a fixed future. The two don't go together.

Old Tom: For example, it implies that it was not possible for God to create FMA's that wouldn't sin.

MM: Obviously not.

Tom: There's nothing obvious here, accept that you are assuming your own conclusion. The "obvious" thing is that God *can* create FMA's that don't sin because the overwhelming majority of them have never sinned. God has created "millions of worlds" whose inhabitants have never sinned. That's trillions or quadrillions of beings who have never sinned, whereas only the inhabitants of one world, and of heaven, have sinned. So "obviously" God *can* create FMA's that don't sin.

MM:You have yet to produce a quote that agrees with your premise that God did not know in advance men and angels would choose to sin and rebel.

Tom: Hmm. You think maybe, just maybe, that this is because what your are suggesting is NOT my premise? Hmm. Yes, I think that's it!

My premise is that the future is not fixed. I have produced a number of arguments that this is the case. If Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss, then the future cannot be fixed. If we can hasten Christ's coming, the future cannot be fixed. If sin is a mystery, and God is not to blame, the future cannot be fixed. If we are truly free, the future cannot be fixed (as our "freedom" would only be a perception, not reality). These are the main arguments.

Old Tom: They can only be to blame if there was some other path they could have taken, but that implies that the future is not fixed.

MM: I disagree. The future is fixed in the sense it’s based on divine hindsight, like reading a history book.

Tom: The future being fixed is independent of God's knowledge of it. It is what it is. Can you describe its being fixed without relating God's foreknowlege to it? Putting God's foreknowledge into an explanation of the future being fixed is not helpful.

MM: The reason sin and death were inevitable is because God foresaw it, not because men and angels were designed wrong.

Tom: Foreseeing something does not make it inevitable.

MM: The perspective of divine hindsight does not mean we are not free moral agents.

Tom: Divine hindsight means the Diety looking into the past, so of course that doesn't mean we are not free moral agents. However, if the future is fixed, *that* does mean we are not free moral agents.

Originally posted by MM:

God will eventually have to cut short the work, otherwise, as it was in the days of Noah, no one would survive to be translated alive. So, why didn't He do it back in 1888? "For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth."

If the day and hour of Christ’s second coming is not fixed – then why does it so say in the Bible and the SOP (see past two posts)?

Tom: It means that are right and true; we really can hasten Christ's coming, just as we have been told. It means our actions really do make a difference, and we, not God, is responsible for Christ's delay. It means we really should repent, just as Christ is calling us to.

Thanks so much Tom...very refreshingly and clearly explained.

It puts the true onus right where it is hated the most by Laodiceans....on our own heads!

"The solemn testimony upon which the destiny of the church hangs has been lightly esteemed, if not entirely disregarded." EW, 270.3

A "hanging destiny" cannot be a fixed destiny at the same time, unless it is a mystically symbolical hyperbole, lightly discarded if not entirely disregarded.

Thank you for quoting from me. I think that's helpful.

Old Tom: Hence Adam and Eve would be blameless, because they had no other options, because of the future being fixed … If the future is fixed, then there is no freedom because freedom implies the ability to act in different ways.

MM: Why do you say they had no options?

Tom: I said why. If the future is fixed, they had not options. This has to do with the meaning of the word "fixed" which is synonomous to "determined." The future being "fixed" or "determined" would imply that it could not be altered, hence Adam and Eve would not have been able to act any differently than they did.

MM: Do you mean they were robots, that they were programmed to sin and rebel?

Tom: Actually, it's irrelevant to my argument. If the future were fixed, then Adam and Eve would have no had real options, and would not have been truly free, whether robots or not.

MM: Were they created with the ability to choose other options? I’m sure your answer is yes, and I agree. Just because God knew they could and would sin, it does not mean He did not create them with the “ability” and the “freedom” to choose. Do you agree?

Tom: "There you go again." You have a fixation on foreknowledge, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, and will no doubt many more times point out, I'm not dealing with God's foreknowledge but with the future being fixed.

If the future is fixed, then Adam and Eve could not have had the actual ability to make choices, only the apparent ability to do so.

Old Tom: Can you describe its being fixed without relating God's foreknowlege to it? … Divine hindsight means the Diety looking into the past, so of course that doesn't mean we are not free moral agents. However, if the future is fixed, *that* does mean we are not free moral agents.

MM: The future was fixed after the fact.

Tom: "After the fact" would mean, after it happened, in which case it is no longer the future, but the past. The past *is* fixed, but not the future, which isn't fixed until it happens.

MM: It is based on hindsight, thus it cannot interfere with the unfolding of history.

Tom: This cannot be. Hindsight has to do with that which has happened in the past. So the future could only be fixed, or based on hindsight at some point *after* the future had occured. And this is irrespective of divine foreknowledge.

MM: It’s like reading a history book. Knowing the facts after the fact doesn’t change the facts.

Tom: That's because the past is prologue; it's already happened; it's fixed. The future, on the other, is yet to happen, being the future. It is not fixed. It cannot be seen with hindsight, but is rather seen with foresight.

MM: That’s why foreknowledge and hindsight are key parts of this discussion.

Tom: No, they're irrelvant. They just cloud the issue, which has to do with the future being fixed.

MM: I believe they are based on the same information, and you do not. That’s why we do not agree on the nature of the future, and also why we need to study it further.

Tom: In order for you to hold your view in a logically consistent way, you have to believe there is no fundamental difference between the past and the future; the only difference is in our perceptions of such. Thus the future is just as fixed as the past. We simply perceive them differently.

This has been my point all along. In such a universe, freedom is not real; it is merely perceived.

There are many who hold this point of view, including among them physicists. However, you are not being consistent, because you are both holding to the idea that the future is fixed, yet our freedom is real, not perceived (you haven't actually stated this, but it is implied by what you have written; i.e. that you believe our freedom is real and not merely perceived).

Your point of view is logically inconsistent. If the future is fixed, then our freedom is a perception.

Old Tom: Do you disagree that Jesus could have sinned?

MM: Yes, of course. But not until after He became a human being. He could have sinned does not mean He would have sinned. Do you agree? Could have sinned simply means He was capable of sinning, not that God had no idea if He would or not.

Tom: I'm not following you here. You're asking me non-sensical questions which have nothing to do with any statements I have made. I, on the other hand, asked you a question which specifically had to do with a statement you made, which was:

quote:

---

I have answered this question already. It means whatever a hyperbole is supposed to mean. I realize you hate that answer, but it’s my answer. It cannot mean that Jesus could have sinned...

---

You state that the DA quote "cannot mean that Jesus could have sinned..." This implies you do not believe Jesus could have sinned. Now you say "of course" He could have sinned. You're not being consistent here. If Jesus could have sinned, then the statement I quoted *can* mean that Jesus could have sinned.

Old Tom: Right, divinity would not have died. But Christ would have remained in the tomb for all eternity, something like the stone would never had been rolled away.

MM: I’m glad we agree risk and eternal loss does not imply God did not know if Jesus would sin and die.

Tom: Divinity could not die, but Jesus could be eternally lost, as the statement points out "God sent His Son as the risk of failure and eternal loss." You seem to have gotten the idea in your head that "eternal loss" mean "divinity dies" and when I agree that divinity could not die then that must mean I agree with your line of thinking. I don't. You have no reason to think that "eternal loss" means divinity dying. That's a groundless assumption.

The statement is clear that Christ could have "failed" and was subject to "eternal loss" -- that's what it says.

MM: There are two crucial quotes you have yet to post, 1) God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed, and 2) Jesus would have remained forever in the tomb if He had failed. We cannot base a belief on missing texts, right?

Tom: I never said there was a quote like 1). I said there were quotes which stated that God took a risk in sending His Son, and risk implies a future which is not fixed. I provided these quotes.

Regarding 2), I didn't bother to provide this quote because I thought you were familiar with it. Also I don't think it would make any difference. If I found the quote, would you change your mind in any way?

Old Tom: So "obviously" God *can* create FMA's that don't sin.

MM: To my way of thinking, it would be more accurate to express it this way – God created FMAs equal, with the ability to obey or disobey. While some chose to disobey, most chose to obey. It is a mystery that some chose to sin and rebel. It is also a mystery that God, who knew in advance that they could and would sin and rebel, chose to create them anyhow. Do you agree?

Tom: Except for the "would" part. I don't believe God intended or planned that anyone should sin, and I believe it was possible, probable in fact, that sin would never occur.

Old Tom: … These are the main arguments.

MM: Until proven, though, they are only assumptions. But you are treating them as undeniable facts.

Tom: What are you doing here! I object! I provided well reasoned arguments, with premises leading to a conclusion. I did not make groundless assertions. You're taking my statement "these are the main arguments" completely out of context.

Here's the entire paragraph:

quote:

---

My premise is that the future is not fixed. I have produced a number of arguments that this is the case. If Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss, then the future cannot be fixed. If we can hasten Christ's coming, the future cannot be fixed. If sin is a mystery, and God is not to blame, the future cannot be fixed. If we are truly free, the future cannot be fixed (as our "freedom" would only be a perception, not reality). These are the main arguments.

---

The first argument is:
1)a) If Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss THEN
b) The future cannot be fixed.

If you do not think this argument is valid, then state where the invalidity lies. That is, explain why the conclusion does not follow from the premise. I proved the premise is true, so if the argument is valid, then the conclusion follows. This *has* been proved, and is NOT an assumption. It's gratuitous of you to claim that it has.

To deal with the argument, you must either point out its invalidity, or explain why the premise is not true.

I won't bother to write out the same points for the other arguments, but the same points apply to them. The arguments were well formulated. They are not "assumptions"; that's not even a possibilty. They may be faulty in that they are invalid or have false premises, but they are not assumptions.

Old Tom: It means our actions really do make a difference, and we, not God, is responsible for Christ's delay.

MM: How does your conclusion agree with this quote: “God's unwillingness to have His people perish has been the reason for so long delay.” Please refer to my post (posted July 23, 2005 01:34 PM) concerning the words “will” and “unwilling”. Do you agree?

Tom: The last two times you have quoted times for your posts you have gotten the time wrong. It makes it a bit challenging to find what you're referring to. If it's just a small portion, it would be easier for the reader if you would just repost the portion you're referring to. I think you're referring to this:

quote:

---

Again, it wasn’t God’s “will” to set the date so late, but He is “willing” to wait until the timing is right. Indeed, He will not, cannot, return until the timing is right. That's why Jesus hasn't returned yet.

---

I don't know what you mean by the timing being right. If by that you mean until the things which have been prophesied to happen must happen (such as Christ's character being reproduced in His people, and the message which God gave to be given to the earth is actually given) then I agree. But this is not something which is determined by God, but determined by the choices of His loved but obstinate people.

Here's your quote, Bro.Tom:

"Had it been possible, the prince of darkness with his apostate army would have kept forever sealed the tomb that held the Son of God. But a heavenly host surrounded the sepulcher. Angels that excel in strength were guarding the tomb, and waiting to welcome the Prince of life.'--DA 779

The key aspect is the word "But.." and the fact that a special kind of angel was there to prevent Satan's actions...unless as MM seems to theorize, it was all a melodrama, a skit all acted out according to some fixed script that stooge-like Satan dumbly follows and good angels pantomime for effect!

Foreknowledge is not hindsight! It is "ability to see, after the event, what should have been done" according to Webster and the common usages of the Queen's English.

Thank you Phil, but that's not the one I'm thinking of. It says that had Christ sinned, the stone never would have been removed, or He would have remained in the tomb, something like that.