|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,211
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
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
9 registered members (TheophilusOne, dedication, daylily, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,658
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
#15126
08/07/05 07:28 PM
08/07/05 07:28 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom:An argument can be valid without being true.
MM: You mean like two wrongs don’t make a right?
Tom: No, that's not at all what it means. A valid argument is one which follows the rules of logic. If one starts with premises which are true, and reasons soundly, then the conclusion will be true. If the conclusion is false, it is because a premise was false.
I was wanting you to address the validity of my argument. I would still like it if you would do that.
Old Tom: The future being fixed is independent on the knowledge of it, just like gravity is independent on one's knowledge of gravity.
MM: Is it something God arbitrarily decides irrespective of our freedom to choose? Or, is it based on divine hindsight, like watching a rerun?
Tom: No. It's what I said above your comment. The future being fixed is independent of God's knowledge of it. Note the word "independent". That means "not dependent on or conditioned by or relative to."
Old Tom: God sees things as they really are. To the best of my knowledge, you have not responded to this point, although I have made it many times.
MM:You also believe God does not know our choices before we make them, therefore, in your opinion, what does God see?
Tom: God sees the future as it is. This is what I've repeatedly said, not what you say I've said. You seem possessed with the desire to do so, not matter how often I ask you not to.
By now we've written many things on this topic. I have been unable to do two things, no matter how much I've tried:
1) Have you consider my arguments.
2) Have you not misrepresent what I've written.
Where have I once written that God does not know our choices? Please quote something.
Old Tom: If we can only make one choice, then we are not free. Do you agree with this?
MM: No.
Tom: So even though we can only make one choice, we are still free.
MM: If we do not choose Jesus, then we choose death by default, right? We do not have to choose to die. All we have to do is refuse to choose to Jesus. As such, we only have one choice, which we are perfectly free to make.
Tom: This response is non-sensical. I'm making a statement which is self-evidently true, that if we can only make one choice we are not free, and you respond that this is not true, for the reason you give above, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
If we can only make one choice at a given point in time, we do not have freedom of choice. This is what freedom of choice means; the ability to make more than one choice.
Old Tom: God knowledge of the past doesn't affeect the past. It is what it is. His knowledge perfectly reflects the reality of it…. Not only is this invalid, it's convoluted.
MM: What? First you agree with me, and then you call it convoluted. I don’t get it.
Tom: This is what I was calling convolted: "Since God saw it after the fact it cannot mean we are not free to choose as we please." This is convoluted. It's difficult to understand what it means, because of the multiple negations.
MM: A fixed future that is based on divine hindsight merely reflects the results of our freedom to choose, like reading a history book.
Tom: This is irresponsive to the argument I was making, which had to do with the fact that if the future is fixed, then we can only make one choice, and thus do not have freedom of choice. This argument is irrespective of God's foreknowledge.
MM: The past and the future are one and the same thing - from God’s perspective.
Tom: This can only be the case if the future and the past really are the same, because God's perspective of things is exactly what they are. Do you agree with this? Or do you think God sees things differently than they are?
MM: Consequently, based on your definition of the past, the future, from God’s perspective, merely reflects reality.
Tom: Here's your argument:
1)The past and the future are one and the same thing - from God’s perspective.
2)Consequently, based on your definition of the past, the future, from God’s perspective, merely reflects reality.
The future and the past are not the same from God's perspective, because they aren't the same. God doesn't perceive things differently than what they are.
MM: But apparently you do not believe God sees the future like a rerun.
Tom: Apparently not. That would imply the future really was like a rereun, wouldn't it?
MM: The future is not “fixed” in the sense you are arguing against. You are desperately striving to build an argument against a type of fixed future that I totally reject. If the future were fixed in the sense you are talking about, then I would agree with your premise regarding the freedom of choice. However, the future is not fixed in the way you are explaining it.
Tom: Ok, good. So you do accept my argument in terms of the validity of the logic. You reject the premise, which is fine and good, but accept that my argument is valid. *IF* my premise were true, then my conclusion would be ture. You agree to this.
MM: Okay, let me try this again. Do you believe God has known, from eternity, the exact day and hour Jesus will return? I'm not talking about an era, or a general time frame. I mean, has God known from eternity the exact day and hour Jesus will return?
Tom: It seems to me that your question presupposes that the future is fixed. Is this correct? I don't believe the future is fixed. God's knowledge of the future, which is perfect, must include all possibilities, not just the one which will actually occur.
Consider that all heaven was placed in peril for our redemption. Or the fact that God took a risk in sending Christ to save us. Given your view of the future, I don't see how these statements could possibly be true. Do you? How could God take a risk in doing something of which He was absolutely certain of the result?
|
|
|
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
#15127
08/07/05 09:28 PM
08/07/05 09:28 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
*IF* my premise were true, then my conclusion would be true. You agree to this.
Yes. But since I believe the future for God is like watching a rerun, which merely reflects, out of all the possible options, the precise option we will decide on, consequently, I cannot accept or assume your theoretical view of a fixed future is valid.
But, for the sake of argument, I will assume your premise is true. Please proceed with the rest of your formula. I’m all ears.
quote:
I don't believe the future is fixed. God's knowledge of the future, which is perfect, must include all possibilities, not just the one which will actually occur.
Okay, let me try this again. Do you believe God has known, from eternity, the exact day and hour Jesus will return? You seem reluctant to answer this question. Why?
quote:
God sees the future as it is. This is what I've repeatedly said, not what you say I've said. You seem possessed with the desire to do so, not matter how often I ask you not to.
Okay, let me try this again. When you say “God sees the future as it is”, do you mean He knows in advance the precise, exact choices we are going to make before we make them? Or, do you mean He only sees all the options available to us? What does God see when He sees the future? You seem reluctant to answer this question, too. Why?
quote:
How could God take a risk in doing something of which He was absolutely certain of the result?
You already know my answer to the assumption that God takes risks in the same way humans take risks. Attempting to prove a point by basing it on an assumption I totally disagree with isn't helpful.
quote:
Originally posted by MM:
If we do not choose Jesus, then we choose death by default, right? We do not have to choose to die. All we have to do is refuse to choose to Jesus. As such, we only have one choice, which we are perfectly free to make.
I realize you think this is a “nonsensical” response, but, please, humor me. Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice? Do you agree that if we refuse to choose Jesus we are choosing, by not choosing, to sin and die in the lake of fire?
|
|
|
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
#15128
08/07/05 10:55 PM
08/07/05 10:55 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom:*IF* my premise were true, then my conclusion would be true. You agree to this.
MM: Yes. But since I believe the future for God is like watching a rerun, which merely reflects, out of all the possible options, the precise option we will decide on, consequently, I cannot accept or assume your theoretical view of a fixed future is valid.
But, for the sake of argument, I will assume your premise is true. Please proceed with the rest of your formula. I’m all ears.
Tom: Given the argument is valid, then my conclusions would be valid if your premise were equvialent to mine. That is, I have argument that if the future is fixed, then we do not have freedom of choice. You agree with the argument, but reject the premise, according to how I have defined fixed future (and in reality, I also reject the premise, since I don't believe it either).
So the next step would be to see if your view of things, that God sees the future as a re-run, is equivalent to the starting point of the argument -- that the future is fixed. This was the direction I was wanting to head.
To summarize where we are now, we both agree that if the future is fixed, then we do not have freedom of choice. Neither one of us thinks the future is fixed, as I have defined it (there's only one path which is possible, etc.). You believe that from God's perspective it is fixed, but this does not interfere in our ability to make free choices.
I'm going to think about how to make the argument that God's seeing the future as fixed implies the future actually is fixed, but before making such an argument (which I'd like to think about) allow me to ask how, from your perspective, is it possible that God can see the future as if it were a re-run without it actually being like a re-run.
Old Tom: I don't believe the future is fixed. God's knowledge of the future, which is perfect, must include all possibilities, not just the one which will actually occur.
MM: Okay, let me try this again. Do you believe God has known, from eternity, the exact day and hour Jesus will return? You seem reluctant to answer this question. Why?
Tom: I did answer the question. I don't believe He sees things the way you do, like a T.V. rerun; so from your perspective the answer is no. From my perspective, where He sees the future not as a single line but as a vast web, the answer is yes.
Old Tom: God sees the future as it is. This is what I've repeatedly said, not what you say I've said. You seem possessed with the desire to do so, not matter how often I ask you not to.
MM: Okay, let me try this again. When you say “God sees the future as it is”, do you mean He knows in advance the precise, exact choices we are going to make before we make them?
Tom: Yes, as well as the choices we don't make.
MM: Or, do you mean He only sees all the options available to us? What does God see when He sees the future? You seem reluctant to answer this question, too. Why?
Tom: I've answered this many times. God sees the future as it is, which is a vast web of possibilities.
Old Tom: How could God take a risk in doing something of which He was absolutely certain of the result?
MM: You already know my answer to the assumption that God takes risks in the same way humans take risks.
Tom: But God is communicating to us as humans. Communications where words such as "risk" have some special meaning to Him which aren't shared by us aren't meaningful. Especially when these communications are emphasized, such as "Remember Christ risked all."
MM: Attempting to prove a point by basing it on an assumption I totally disagree with isn't helpful.
Tom: I was attempting to answer your question. I was pointing out in answering your question why I don't believe the future is fixed, and giving reasons as to why.
Old MM: Originally posted by MM:
If we do not choose Jesus, then we choose death by default, right? We do not have to choose to die. All we have to do is refuse to choose to Jesus. As such, we only have one choice, which we are perfectly free to make.
MM: I realize you think this is a “nonsensical” response, but, please, humor me.
Tom: It appeared "nonsesical" in the context of answering my statement that the future being fixed implies we cannot have more than one choice available at any given time.
MM: Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice?
Tom: No.
MM: Do you agree that if we refuse to choose Jesus we are choosing, by not choosing, to sin and die in the lake of fire?
Tom: Yes.
|
|
|
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
#15129
08/09/05 02:18 AM
08/09/05 02:18 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
… from your perspective, is it possible that God can see the future as if it were a re-run without it actually being … a re-run.
Yes, that makes sense, if you omit the word “like” in your original post, which I have done. The future is a rerun in the mind of God because God “inhabits eternity” (Isa 57:15), which means He knows the end from the beginning. Been there, done that. The past and the future are alike in the mind of God, which is true in reality; it’s not just make believe. However, from our space and time perspective life is not a rerun.
quote:
From my perspective, where He sees the future not as a single line but as a vast web, the answer is yes.
I’m not sure I understand your answer. Help me out here. Are you saying God has known from eternity the precise, exact day and hour Jesus will return? Or, are you saying God is aware of a million possible dates but that He actually hasn't known or doesn't know the exact day and hour?
quote:
Yes, as well as the choices we don't make… God sees the future as it is, which is a vast web of possibilities.
Again, your answer confuses me. Please bear with me. Are you saying God knows, of all the possible choices available to us, exactly which one we will choose, before we make our choice?
quote:
But God is communicating to us as humans.
Would you agree, then, it is entirely possible that when Sister White used the word “risk” that she did not intend to contradict the Bible? The reason I ask is because nowhere in the Bible is it taught that God wasn’t absolutely sure Jesus would succeed on the cross. In other words, the Bible makes it crystal clear that God knew in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross.
As such, at least in my way of thinking, the word “risk” must necessarily mean something entirely different than the way you are applying it. Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding how you are applying it. Are you saying the word "risk" implies God didn't know in advance if Jesus would succeed on the cross?
quote:
Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice?
Let me rephrase this question: Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice (not one chance)? Do you agree that God gives us multiple chances to make the one choice to be saved?
quote:
Do you agree that if we refuse to choose Jesus we are choosing, by not choosing, to sin and die in the lake of fire?
I’m glad we agree on this point.
|
|
|
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
#15130
08/08/05 06:06 PM
08/08/05 06:06 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Tom: I was in the middle of a response to this, and my browser died. Bummer. I hope I can be as eloquent as the response that died. Old Tom: … from your perspective, is it possible that God can see the future as if it were a re-run without it actually being … a re-run. MM: Yes, that makes sense, if you omit the word “like” in your original post, which I have done. Tom: If the future is not really a re-run, but God sees it as a re-run, then God is in error, since He would be seeing something in a way that it is not. That's not possible. It's possible that *we* see the future in a way that it is not. So if we have: 1) The future is not really a re-run. 2) We do not perceive the future as a re-run. 3) God perceives the future as a re-run. then you would have a situation where our perception of reality is correct, but God's is off. That can't be. OTOH if you have: 1) The future really is like a re-run. 2) God perceives the future like a re-run. 3) We perceive the future not like a re-run. *then* you have a situation which is possible. And this is exactly what I've been arguing. If you're view of things were correct, you would have this last scenario I've just laid out. The first scenario, which you appear to be suggesting, is impossible, because God cannot perceive things to be different than they really are. MM: The future is a rerun in the mind of God because God “inhabits eternity” (Isa 57:15), which means He knows the end from the beginning. Been there, done that. The past and the future are alike in the mind of God, which is true in reality; it’s not just make believe. However, from our space and time perspective life is not a rerun. Tom: In your scenarion, things would be make believe. It would be a make believe freedom of choice universe, but not an actual one. There can be no freedom of choice if the future is fixed, and if God perceives the future as fixed, then it is fixed, because things are the way God perceives them to be. Regarding God's seeing the future, God sees it as it is, which is as a vast web of possibilities. For any given contingency, God sees what will happen. He knows the end from the beginning. If you go down path A, God knows the end. If you go down path B, God knows the end. Old Tom: But God is communicating to us as humans. MM: Would you agree, then, it is entirely possible that when Sister White used the word “risk” that she did not intend to contradict the Bible? The reason I ask is because nowhere in the Bible is it taught that God wasn’t absolutely sure Jesus would succeed on the cross. In other words, the Bible makes it crystal clear that God knew in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross. Tom: If there's a discrpency between how MM perceives things and inspiration, my inclination would be that MM is in error, not inspiration. Here's what inspiration says: quote:
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.
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)
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. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12.(DA 131)
quote:
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)
Because these quotes do not agree with your preconceived notions, you dismiss them as "hyperbole," but they clearly are not. Each statement is made to make a larger point:
1. a. God sent His son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
b. Wonder o heavens, and be astonished O earth at such great love!
2. a. Only when we see heaven, and remember that NOT ONLY did Christ leave all this BUT He took the risk of failure and eternal loss will we realize the great sacrifice made.
b. Then we will respond, Worthy is the lamb to receive honor, etc.
3. a. All heaven was imperiled for our redemption. Christ risked all.
b. Only be realising this can the value of a soul be estimated.
When our private ideas do not coincide with inspiration, we should prefer to adjust our ideas, rather than make inspiration an "hyperbole".
Regarding the view of Scripture, EGW's view is in perfect harmony. God created human beings with free will, which entailed risk on His part. God did not intend that sin should occur, but there was a risk involved, and unfortunately the evil that was possible to happen actually did happen. When Christ came, He took humanity, so it was just as possible for Him to sin as for any other human. God also took a risk in sending Christ, just as He did in creating Adam. Fortunately Christ succeeded where Adam failed, but there is nothing in what EGW wrote which is not in harmony with Scripture.
MM: As such, at least in my way of thinking, the word “risk” must necessarily mean something entirely different than the way you are applying it. Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding how you are applying it. Are you saying the word "risk" implies God didn't know in advance if Jesus would succeed on the cross?
Tom: Risk means "hazard: a source of danger; a possibility of incurring loss or misfortune." There's no ambiguity in how EGW used the term. Everybody knows what risk means, even a small child. She also says the same way using equivalent phrases, in cases you were confused by the word "risk". For example, "For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled." "Imperiled" means "to be brought into peril." "Peril" means "exposure to the risk of being injured, destroyed, or lost."
She even makes an analogy using human parents
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.
She then says the risk that God took was "more fearful" than the one just cited. There is no lack of clarity in her writing here. It's difficult to imagine how she could have put things any more clearly.
God really did, well and truly, take a risk in sending His Son on our behalf, and this fact should fill our hearts with awe and praise.
Old Tom: Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice?
MM: Let me rephrase this question: Do you agree with the premise that our choices, as they pertain to our salvation, are limited to one choice (not one chance)?
Tom: No.
MM: Do you agree that God gives us multiple chances to make the one choice to be saved?
Tom: We have multiple chances, but we have more than one choice.
I think what you're wanting to say is that there's only one way to be saved, which is through Christ. That's true, but we always have more than one choice available, provided we haven't passed the point of no return.
Old Tom: Do you agree that if we refuse to choose Jesus we are choosing, by not choosing, to sin and die in the lake of fire?
MM: I’m glad we agree on this point.
Tom: Well, I didn't like the way you put it, but I agree with the general idea. The way Sister White puts it, which I prefer (the part in bold especially addresses the point you are making), is like this:
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (DA 764)
|
|
|
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
#15131
08/08/05 08:59 PM
08/08/05 08:59 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
I was in the middle of a response to this, and my browser died. Bummer. I hope I can be as eloquent as the response that died.
Bummer, indeed. For that very reason I compose all my posts on MS Word before pasting them on MSDAOL.
quote:
… from your perspective, is it possible that God can see the future as if it were a re-run without it actually being like a re-run.
1) The future really is like a re-run.
2) God perceives the future like a re-run.
3) We perceive the future not like a re-run.
Again, I wouldn’t write the formula the same way. Instead, I would write it this way:
1) God knows what we will do before we do it.
2) We know not what we will do before we do it.
quote:
Regarding God's seeing the future, God sees it as it is, which is as a vast web of possibilities. For any given contingency, God sees what will happen. He knows the end from the beginning. If you go down path A, God knows the end. If you go down path B, God knows the end.
How far down the path does God see? Can He see beyond our next choice? Or, can He only see our vast web of options after each choice we make?
quote:
God really did, well and truly, take a risk in sending His Son on our behalf, and this fact should fill our hearts with awe and praise.
Yes, it does have that affect on me. But you still haven’t answered my question. So, here it is again - Are you saying that the words "risk" and “imperil” imply God did not know in advance if Jesus would succeed on the cross? A simple yes or no answer would suffice, but please feel free to elaborate.
quote:
We have multiple chances, but we have more than one choice.
As it relates to our salvation what other choices do we have? How many different ways can we be saved or lost? I’m glad we both agree that Jesus is the only means by which we can experience salvation.
quote:
"From my perspective, where He sees the future not as a single line but as a vast web, the answer is yes."
I’m not sure I understand your answer. Help me out here. Are you saying God has known from eternity the precise, exact day and hour Jesus will return? Or, are you saying God is aware of a million possible dates but that He actually hasn't known or doesn't know the exact day and hour?
|
|
|
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
#15132
08/08/05 10:07 PM
08/08/05 10:07 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom: I was in the middle of a response to this, and my browser died. Bummer. I hope I can be as eloquent as the response that died.
MM: Bummer, indeed. For that very reason I compose all my posts on MS Word before pasting them on MSDAOL.
Tom: I think MS Word is much more likely to die than Mozilla is. I've never had that happen before. And there was user error involved as well.
Old Tom: … from your perspective, is it possible that God can see the future as if it were a re-run without it actually being like a re-run.
1) The future really is like a re-run.
2) God perceives the future like a re-run.
3) We perceive the future not like a re-run.
MM: Again, I wouldn’t write the formula the same way. Instead, I would write it this way:
1) God knows what we will do before we do it.
2) We know not what we will do before we do it.
Tom: This doesn't address the question of the reality of the future. It really is fixed, or not fixed, which is to say it really is possible for more than one thing to happen, or only possible for one thing to happen. Which is it, MM? Note that this is in no way dependent upon God's foreknowledge (although God's foreknowledge will agree with how the future really is).
Old Tom: Regarding God's seeing the future, God sees it as it is, which is as a vast web of possibilities. For any given contingency, God sees what will happen. He knows the end from the beginning. If you go down path A, God knows the end. If you go down path B, God knows the end.
MM: How far down the path does God see?
Tom: All the way.
MM: Can He see beyond our next choice?
Tom: Yes.
MM: Or, can He only see our vast web of options after each choice we make?
Tom: No. God is infinitely intelligent. It's no easier for Him to foresee things after the fact than before.
Old Tom: God really did, well and truly, take a risk in sending His Son on our behalf, and this fact should fill our hearts with awe and praise.
MM: Yes, it does have that affect on me.
Tom: How could it possibly? You don't believe it's true! You don't believe God took any risk in sending Christ, because God knew without any doubt that Christ would succeed. Your comment appears to me to be disingenuous.
MM: But you still haven’t answered my question. So, here it is again - Are you saying that the words "risk" and “imperil” imply God did not know in advance if Jesus would succeed on the cross? A simple yes or no answer would suffice, but please feel free to elaborate.
Tom: The words "risk" and "imperil" mean it was possible for Christ to fail. That's what the words mean. I provided the definitions. Really, "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" is not difficult to understand.
Since God knows all things, He must have foreseen both the possibility that Christ would succeed and that Christ would fail. If it were not possible for Christ to fail, then God would have seen that, and there wouldn't have been any risk.
Old Tom: We have multiple chances, but we have more than one choice.
MM: As it relates to our salvation what other choices do we have? How many different ways can we be saved or lost? I’m glad we both agree that Jesus is the only means by which we can experience salvation.
Tom: Well, wide is the way that leads to destruction. So there are many ways to be lost. I don't know how this impacts our discussion, however.
Old Tom: "From my perspective, where He sees the future not as a single line but as a vast web, the answer is yes."
MM: I’m not sure I understand your answer. Help me out here. Are you saying God has known from eternity the precise, exact day and hour Jesus will return? Or, are you saying God is aware of a million possible dates but that He actually hasn't known or doesn't know the exact day and hour?
Tom: If there were one fixed date, then it would not be possible for us to hasten Christ's coming, or delay it. So God must be aware of all the possible dates. There's no date set in stone. When Christ's character is perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come and claim them as His own. This could have happened at different points in the past (specifically around 1888 and before 1860 are two times mentioned).
|
|
|
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
#15133
08/09/05 07:49 PM
08/09/05 07:49 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
No. God is infinitely intelligent. It's no easier for Him to foresee things after the fact than before.
Okay, let me rephrase the question. Does God know what we will do before we do it? Or, does He only see our vast web of options?
quote:
Your comment appears to me to be disingenuous.
Just because it doesn’t mean the same thing to me that it does to you doesn’t mean it cannot affect me in a positive way. Do you agree?
quote:
If it were not possible for Christ to fail, then God would have seen that, and there wouldn't have been any risk.
You still haven’t answered my question. So, here it is again - Are you saying that the words "risk" and “imperil” imply God did not know if Jesus would succeed on the cross? I already know you believe God was aware of the many different options available to Jesus on the cross. But that’s not what I’m asking. Do you believe God did not know which option Jesus would choose before He chose it?
quote:
So there are many ways to be lost.
From what I’ve read there is only one way to be saved and lost. We only have one choice (not one chance). If we refuse or neglect to accept Jesus Christ as our personal Saviour then we are lost. What are some of the “many ways” we can be lost that you alluded to?
quote:
I don't know how this impacts our discussion, however.
Here’s my point. The fact our choices are limited to one, as far as our salvation is concerned, means we only have one choice. However, according to your theory of the future, from what I have been able to piece together (correct me if I’m wrong, but, please, don’t make me go back and try to find quotes, just restate your position), if our choices are limited to one then we are not truly free.
quote:
There's no date set in stone.
By this do you mean God has never known and still does not know exactly when Jesus will return?
|
|
|
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
#15134
08/09/05 09:08 PM
08/09/05 09:08 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom: No. God is infinitely intelligent. It's no easier for Him to foresee things after the fact than before.
MM: Okay, let me rephrase the question. Does God know what we will do before we do it?
Tom: Yes.
MM: Or, does He only see our vast web of options?
Tom: Yes. He sees the vast web of options, which of course includes what we will actually do.
MM: Your comment appears to me to be disingenuous.
Tom: Just because it doesn’t mean the same thing to me that it does to you doesn’t mean it cannot affect me in a positive way. Do you agree?
MM: It seemed to me it would be as if I said something like I was moved by how God will kill children, or bring up those He had killed in the resurrection and kill them again. That is, I would be saying I was moved by something I didn't agree with.
You've been arguing consistently that God did not take a risk in sending Christ, because He knew 100% that Christ would be successful, so how could you be moved by something which states the exact opposite of what you believe? That seems odd to me. Maybe "odd" is a better word than "disingenious" since it is not so pejorative. Let's retract "disingenious" and go with "odd".
Old Tom: If it were not possible for Christ to fail, then God would have seen that, and there wouldn't have been any risk.
MM: You still haven’t answered my question.
Tom: Let me interject a question of my own, as which is if you agree with my above statement? (i.e. the one just above yours where it says "Old Tom")
MM: So, here it is again - Are you saying that the words "risk" and “imperil” imply God did not know if Jesus would succeed on the cross?
Tom: How could they not? What else could "risk" and "imperli" mean? If God knew 100% for sure that Christ would succeed, then the chance Christ would fail would be 0%. This is self-evidently true, isn't it? If the chance that Christ would fail was 0%, then the risk God took was also 0%
MM: I already know you believe God was aware of the many different options available to Jesus on the cross. But that’s not what I’m asking. Do you believe God did not know which option Jesus would choose before He chose it?
Tom: If God was 100% certain Christ would succeed, He could hardly have told us He took a risk in so doing, could He?
Old Tom: So there are many ways to be lost.
MM: From what I’ve read there is only one way to be saved and lost. We only have one choice (not one chance). If we refuse or neglect to accept Jesus Christ as our personal Saviour then we are lost. What are some of the “many ways” we can be lost that you alluded to?
Old Tom: I don't know how this impacts our discussion, however.
MM: Here’s my point. The fact our choices are limited to one, as far as our salvation is concerned, means we only have one choice. However, according to your theory of the future, from what I have been able to piece together (correct me if I’m wrong, but, please, don’t make me go back and try to find quotes, just restate your position), if our choices are limited to one then we are not truly free.
Tom: Let's say you live on an island, and there's only one way to get home, which is by ferry. The last ferry leaves at 11:00 P.M. I could say there's only one reason why you could not get home that night, which is by missing the ferry. However, there are many different ways you could miss the ferry. You could get injured; you could have car trouble; you could start to try to catch the ferry too late; etc. etc. etc. Now any vision of the future would have to cover ALL of these options. You couldn't just say there's only one way to not get home, which is by missing the ferry, so there's only one path of the future that would need to be seen to cover it.
What you are suggesting is analogous to this.
Tom: There's no date set in stone.
MM: By this do you mean God has never known and still does not know exactly when Jesus will return?
Tom: Do you believe Christ's coming can be hastened? If it can be hastened, then the date is not set in stone. If the date is not set in stone, then God cannot know the date as set in stone.
God can only know the future in the way it really is. This is a key point I've been repeatedly trying to get across. Allow me to ask two questions on this:
1)Do you understand what I mean by stating that God can only know the future as it is? (if this is unclear, I'll try to explain what I mean in more detail)
2)Do you disagree with the statement?
|
|
|
Re: Is the date of the second coming fixed or flexible?
#15135
08/10/05 10:06 PM
08/10/05 10:06 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
Yes. He sees the vast web of options, which of course includes what we will actually do.
Okay, when I asked you, “Does God know what we will do before we do it”, you answered, “Yes.” Great. We agree on something. All along I thought you were saying God does not know which option we will choose before we choose it.
So, since we agree that God knows which option we are going to choose before we choose it, tell me, does He also know the outcome of our choices before we choose it? That is, does He know exactly how it will play out? And, how long has He known it? From eternity?
quote:
[S]o how could you be moved by something which states the exact opposite of what you believe?
Who said it is the exact opposite of what I believe? As I see it, it agrees perfectly with what I believe. Even though God knew in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross it doesn’t take away from the fact it caused Him great suffering to watch His Son suffer so. That God was willing to allow His only begotten Son to go through all that to save us is more than moving.
quote:
If it were not possible for Christ to fail, then God would have seen that, and there wouldn't have been any risk.
It was possible for Jesus to sin and fail. But God knew He wouldn’t, which didn’t lessen His personal suffering. The “risk” that God took in sending Jesus to earth involved losing FMAs if Jesus decided to abandon the plan of salvation. The “risk” God took didn’t have anything to do with losing Jesus forever. That wasn’t possible. “Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.” (LHU 76)
The “risk” that God took was hypothetical. He knew Jesus would be successful on the cross, that He would satisfy all the requirements necessary to qualify to serve as our Saviour and to save all who call upon His name. Ellen White used words like “risk” to emphasize the enormous sacrifice that God made in sending Jesus to live and die for us.
I realize you totally reject this explanation, and you are entitled, of course, to your own opinion. So please, let’s just agree to disagree on this particular point. Okay?
quote:
If God was 100% certain Christ would succeed, He could hardly have told us He took a risk in so doing, could He?
Alright, then, do I have your permission to say - You do not believe God knew in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross on our behalf.
quote:
Now any vision of the future would have to cover ALL of these options.
Not if you’re God and have already watched it play out, like a rerun. That’s my whole point. I watched a movie years ago where a guy kept going back in time to change things to prevent something bad from happening. But each time he went back in time and changed something, new bad things happened, which made it necessary for him to go back in time again to stop that new thing from happening. And on and on it went until he died. My point? God knows exactly what is going to happen, before it happens, therefore it isn’t necessary for God to know all the alternate outcomes, especially since time travel isn’t possible for us.
At any rate, so far as salvation is concerned, all the different ways and reasons we can be lost all boil down to one thing, namely, we failed to choose Jesus. “Our condemnation in the judgment will not result from the fact that we have been in error, but from the fact that we have neglected heaven-sent opportunities for learning what is truth.” (DA 489) Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 14:12) Clearly our choices are limited to one. Praise the Lord.
quote:
1) Do you understand what I mean by stating that God can only know the future as it is?
I think so. You mean God only knows the myriad of options and outcomes that are possible based on the choices we are free to make.
quote:
2) Do you disagree with the statement?
No. I believe God knows exactly which options we will choose, before we choose them, and that He knows the outcome of every choice we will ever make throughout our entire lifetime. He knows the future as it is, like a rerun, not just how it can or might turn out if we choose this or that option (which in and of itself would require God to know the future like a rerun).
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
