|
Forums118
Topics9,234
Posts196,242
Members1,327
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
5 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, Daryl, 2 invisible),
2,392
guests, and 15
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: God the Son
#47665
01/03/06 04:14 AM
01/03/06 04:14 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
Tom, in light of these inspired insights ...
MM, it appears to me you are cherry-picking "insights". When you see something which appears to agree with what you already think, you latch on to that. But you do consider what another writes, ignoring the quotes they set forth (at least, this is what you have done with me). I wrote a lengthy post, which you just ignored. I'll write an even lengthier one here, which hopefully you will consider.
First of all, in regards to the plan of salvation, please consider the following quote.
quote:
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with His Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe....
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. (EW 126)
It is evident that a real time drama took place here. Note that:
1)Sorrow filled heaven.
2)This sorrow included Christ.
3)Three times Christ went into the Father, pleading for man.
4)It was a struggle for God to allow Christ to come on man's behalf.
5)God agreed that Christ should come. Christ's countenance changed.
This is not the impassible Greek idea you seem so fond of, but depicts a God who is impacted by events in real time. This is obvious, unless you think God and Christ were play acting.
Now when we read this, it may appear at first glance that Jesus loves us more than God the Father. Jesus is pleading to come, and God is reticent to allow this. It was a struggle for God, but evidently not for Christ. Why is this? Does God love us less than Christ?
The mystery is cleared up when we consider the following quotes:
quote:
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. (DA 49)
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:
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)
Note that:
1)God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
2)Christ took the risk of failure and eternal loss.
3)Christ risked all.
4)Heaven itself was imperiled(!).
Just think of the implications of this last one. No wonder it was a struggle for God!!
Now if things were as you suggest, none of the above makes any sense. How could there be any struggle or any risk? How could heaven itself have been imperiled? None of these ideas fit into your view of things.
Now as to your quote from DA 22, how should it be understood in the light of the above? The following quote sheds light on this question:
quote:
God's healing power runs all through nature. If a tree is cut, if a human being is wounded or breaks a bone, nature begins at once to repair the injury. Even before the need exists, the healing agencies are in readiness; and as soon as a part is wounded, every energy is bent to the work of restoration. So it is in the spiritual realm. Before sin created the need, God had provided the remedy. Every soul that yields to temptation is wounded, bruised, by the adversary; but whenever there is sin, there is the Saviour. (Ed 113)
The ability within the Godhead to heal sin was present before the sin came about. But this does not mean that sin was inevitable, and neither was the plan of salvation, as the quote from EW 126 makes clear. Before sin came about, God knew what would be needed if that should happen. The plan of salvation was not an afterthought (this is the point of DA 22). When it actually did happen, God considered carefully whether to go ahead with the plan or not. It was a struggle. God finally did decide to go ahead and risked His own Son for us! What a wonderful God He is!
We cheapen the gift if we do not recognize the risk involved.
|
|
|
Re: God the Son
#47666
01/04/06 03:30 AM
01/04/06 03:30 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, I am not ignoring your lengthy posts. It's just that I disagree with your conclusions. The quotes you shared do not contradict the fact God knew from the beginning that Lucifer would rebel, that mankind would fall, and that Jesus would succeed on the cross. He foresaw the existence of sin, and not, as you insist, the mere possibility of it. Her language is too plain to misunderstand. The Father also foresaw Jesus' success, which is also why He was willing and able to endure the pain and agony of it all. The reward was worth it. Knowing Jesus would succeed in no way diminished His sorrow and suffering. Not in the least!
Knowing in advance that something good or bad is going to happen does not diminish it when it does happen. On the contrary, it increases the joy or sorrow. How? Because anticipation, for weal or woe, adds to it. Which is why we read about the struggle all heaven experienced when the Father and Son implemented the eternal, inevitable plan of salvation.
God knew in advance that man would defect, but it did not deter Him carrying out His eternal purpose. He knows the end from the beginning of all His works. The fact God chose to creat us in spite of knowing from eternity that it would cost the life of His only begotten Son reveals a love stronger than we can fathom. He anticipated it for eternity before it ever happened, and yet - He did not change His mind. Why? Because His love for us, and all His works, is as strong as His love for Jesus.
TMK 18
The fall of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent. Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created. {TMK 18.2}
ST 4-25-1892
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. 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; "known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Therefore redemption was not an afterthought--a plan formulated after the fall of Adam--but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {ST, April 25, 1892 par. 1}
|
|
|
Re: God the Son
#47667
01/03/06 07:58 PM
01/03/06 07:58 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
Tom, I am not ignoring your lengthy posts. It's just that I disagree with your conclusions.
That's fine, but it would be nice if you would acknowledge the points I make, and then deal with them in some fashion, as I do with your posts. Consider the points I make, and present some argument as to why you think they are not valid; again, as I do with your posts.
quote:
The quotes you shared do not contradict the fact God knew from the beginning that Lucifer would rebel, that mankind would fall, and that Jesus would succeed on the cross.
Certainly they do, if you understand "would" as a foregone conclusion, something that's 100% certain. All you have to do is consider what the word "risk" means. Risk means "hazard: a source of danger; a possibility of incurring loss or misfortune." If Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss, then it was not 100% certain he would succeed. That should be clear to anyone.
quote:
He foresaw the existence of sin, and not, as you insist, the mere possibility of it.
This isn't possible, for a number of reasons. I'll just stick with two. First of all, there's the problem of the risk quotes I provided. These demonstrate that the future is not fixed, as opposed to your view, which does not allow for risk. Secondly the events portrayed in the Early Writings quote demonstrate that when sin happened, it was a real time emergency. It was not the simple working out of a plan like an actor reciting lines that had been learned for a play. Real time decisions were being made. A struggle was involved.
quote:
Her language is too plain to misunderstand.
You're right about that! Christ was sorrowful. He pled for the human race. God struggled with His decision. A decision was made. Christ's countenance changed. The risk was understaken. All heaven was imperiled. Her language is to plain to be misunderstood.
quote:
The Father also foresaw Jesus' success, which is also why He was willing and able to endure the pain and agony of it all. The reward was worth it. Knowing Jesus would succeed in no way diminished His sorrow and suffering. Not in the least!
This does not explain either why it was a struggle for God, nor how heaven itself was imperiled. If the future were fixed, and all that was happening was the playing out of an already decided event, then how could it be said that heaven was imperiled? ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif)
quote:
Knowing in advance that something good or bad is going to happen does not diminish it when it does happen. On the contrary, it increases the joy or sorrow. How? Because anticipation, for weal or woe, adds to it. Which is why we read about the struggle all heaven experienced when the Father and Son implemented the eternal, inevitable plan of salvation.
If God was waiting for all eternity for the moment when man would sin, and it happened just as ordained, then how could God have experienced any emotion at all? The Greeks would be correct, and God would be impassible. Much less does it explain why there would be a struggle for God. On the other hand, if what the Spirit of Prophecy wrote really is true, and God really did undertake the risk of the loss of His Son, and heaven itself really was imperiled, then the struggle does make sense.
quote:
God knew in advance that man would defect, but it did not deter Him carrying out His eternal purpose. He knows the end from the beginning of all His works. The fact God chose to create us in spite of knowing from eternity that it would cost the life of His only begotten Son reveals a love stronger than we can fathom.
This would reveal a very strange God, one who could hardly be considered good. A good God would simply have created a human pair that wouldn't sin. The problem with your view is that it makes God to blame for what happened. He could have created a human pair which wouldn't sin, but for reasons of supposedly demonstrating how good He is He subjected this world to the misery, suffering and death that has overtaken it. This is the logical end of what you are suggesting.
But this is false. There was no fault in God's creation. Adam and Eve were created perfectly, with the ability to either sin or not sin. If things were as you suggest, there is no possible way Adam and Eve could not have sinned. This would again put the onus of sin back on God. But this is wrong! God is innocent!
quote:
He anticipated it for eternity before it ever happened, and yet - He did not change His mind. Why? Because His love for us, and all His works, is as strong as His love for Jesus.
What you are suggesting isn't love, it's just a thinly veiled selfishness. If I set in motion a set of circumstances to make myself look good, this isn't love. This is just manipulation to make me apear to be in a way I'm not.
This isn't what happened. God created all beings with the ability to love, which involves the possibility of rejection. God never intended that any creature should suffer the consequences of rejecting God. Sin was never a part of God's plan! This was the invention of the enemy. There was no fault in God's creation to bring it about.
I made 9 specific points in my previous post (I think it's 9, I'm going from memory). You didn't address any of the 9 points (most of which I've repeated here, but without enumerating them).
Awaiting your response,
Tom
|
|
|
Re: God the Son
#47668
01/03/06 11:15 PM
01/03/06 11:15 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, I have attempted to address your objections to my understanding of Sister White's insights. You are convinced that "risk" and "imperiled" mean God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus.
You are using your interpretation of these insights to make my quotes agree with your view of God’s foreknowledge. I am doing the exact opposite. I am interpreting your quote to agree with my interpretation of my quotes.
As I have explained on other threads, I believe “risk” and “imperiled” must be interpreted to agree with the plain language used in my quotes. God foresaw the fall of our first parents and chose to create them anyhow. He didn’t create them to sin. He made them perfect. But He knew they would choose to eat the forbidden fruit.
The assumption that God did not know in advance that Lucifer would rebel, that man would fall, or that Jesus would succeed implies that God’s knowledge of men and angels and His own Son is imperfect. If this were true it also implies God does not know the precise outcome of the future choices of men and angels and His own Son. If these things are true it should cause us to doubt the prophecies, in particular - Nahum 1:9.
|
|
|
Re: God the Son
#47669
01/03/06 11:39 PM
01/03/06 11:39 PM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
If these things are true it should cause us to doubt the prophecies, in particular - Nahum 1:9.
This is only true if assuming that God does not act in history. A prophecy may come true either by God knowing exactly what will happen or by God making that which He told the prophets come to pass.
/Thomas
|
|
|
Re: God the Son
#47670
01/03/06 11:44 PM
01/03/06 11:44 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
This is only true if assuming that God does not act in history.
Right! This is what the issue comes down to.
|
|
|
Re: God the Son
#47671
01/04/06 12:09 AM
01/04/06 12:09 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
Tom, I have attempted to address your objections to my understanding of Sister White's insights. You are convinced that "risk" and "imperiled" mean God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus.
MM, I wish you would stop doing this, but my protests probably won't do any good. I have never said that "God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus." I've repeatedly asked you to quit misreprenting my position on this.
As I have pointed out many, many, many, many times, I believe there is NOTHING which God does not foresee. Is this clear? I sure hope so.
quote:
You are using your interpretation of these insights to make my quotes agree with your view of God’s foreknowledge.I am doing the exact opposite. I am interpreting your quote to agree with my interpretation of my quotes. As I have explained on other threads, I believe “risk” and “imperiled” must be interpreted to agree with the plain language used in my quotes. God foresaw the fall of our first parents and chose to create them anyhow. He didn’t create them to sin. He made them perfect. But He knew they would choose to eat the forbidden fruit.
The assumption that God did not know in advance that Lucifer would rebel, that man would fall, or that Jesus would succeed implies that God’s knowledge of men and angels and His own Son is imperfect. If this were true it also implies God does not know the precise outcome of the future choices of men and angels and His own Son. If these things are true it should cause us to doubt the prophecies, in particular - Nahum 1:9.
Two points. Risk" means the possibility of loss. She makes that even more clear in saying "the risk of failure and eternal loss." How could there be any doubt as to what that means? It means Jesus could have failed, right? Is any other meaning than this possible? Similarly in saying that heaven itself was imperiled means that failure was possible. I don't see how she could have communicated these thoughts any more clearly, do you?
If the future were fixed so that there was no other possibility except for success, then this would be like me having a two-headed coin and flipping at the "risk" of getting a tail. Risk is only risk if there is more than one possible outcome. An event which has only one possible outcome can have no risk.
The second point is that your assertion that God did not know Lucifer would rebel, or that man would fall, or that Jesus would succeed implies that God's knowledge of any of the above is imperfect is completely wrong. Understanding this point is vital, as it comes down to understanding free will. Let's consider this carefully.
You are asserting that if man could sin without God knowing that he would do that would mean that God's knowledge of man was imperfect. So simply by knowing someone sufficiently well would mean that you would know exactly what they would do in a given circumstance. Free will makes this impossible. No matter how well you know someone, they can do something unexpected. In fact, as well as we know ourselves, we can, and do, do things which are unexpected to we ourselves.
There's another problem with your supposition that perfect knowledge of a person would enable one to perfectly predict what they would do. This is that if God knew that Adam and Eve would sin, because of His perfect knowledge of them, then God is alone responsible for their having sinned. Their sinning would have been inevitable, and God, as their creator, would have been responsible for having created them in such a way that sinning was inevitable.
Well I said two things, but I'll mention a third. The third thing is that whether or not the future is fixed has no bearing whatsoever on God's ability to see the future. God sees the future perfectly. God is in no way limited in intelligence or ability to foresee what will happen. The question under consideration does not have to do with God's abilities, but rather with the nature of things. Does God act in history? Are the emotions which God communicates real or feigned? Was it really a struggle for God to send His Son, or was this all play acting? Was there any point for Jesus to plead with His Father? Did it make any difference? Or was it just play acting?
According to your viewpoint, it must have been play acting. Think of the day before man sinned. You would have God thinking the following: "In exactly 24 hours, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 12 hours before man sinned. God would be thinking ""In exactly 12 hours, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 1 hour before man sinned. God would be thinking ""In exactly 1 hour, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 1 minute before man sinned. God would be thinking "In exactly 1 minute, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of the time when man was sinning. God would be thinking, "Now my Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of the third pleading of Christ. God would be thinking, "OK, He has pled twice. This is the important one. I'll give in on this one."
This doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
Re: God the Son
#47672
01/04/06 04:39 AM
01/04/06 04:39 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
I have never said that "God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus."
Tom, please help me out here. Do you believe God knew with absolute certainty, before the fact, that 1) Lucifer would rebel, that 2) man would fall, and that 3) Jesus would succeed on the cross? Or, were these only one of many possible outcomes that God was aware of, and that He had no idea which way it would play out before the fact?
|
|
|
Re: God the Son
#47673
01/05/06 03:35 AM
01/05/06 03:35 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM: Here's the problem. You wrote of my position: quote:
God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus.
This is not the same thing as what you're asking in the follow up questions. We should get that straight I think before continuing to your questions. Do you see the difference?
|
|
|
Re: God the Son
#47674
01/04/06 05:35 PM
01/04/06 05:35 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
You are convinced that "risk" and "imperiled" mean God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus.
Yes, Tom, the observation stated above is not as well worded as the following question:
quote:
Do you believe God knew with absolute certainty, before the fact, that 1) Lucifer would rebel, that 2) man would fall, and that 3) Jesus would succeed on the cross? Or, were these only one of many possible outcomes that God was aware of, and that He had no idea which way it would play out before the fact?
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
