While Tom and Phil are taking time out to lament the wickedness of my understanding of God's foreknoweldge, would anyone else like to share their understanding?

Or, am I the only one on MSDAOL who believes the following quotes clearly say God knew, before He created Lucifer and Adam and Eve, that they would choose to disobey the law?

quote:

---

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."

From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency.

---

Does knowing the end from the beginning mean knowing the beginning from the beginning? Or, does it mean knowing the end from the beginning? In other words, does God know everything that will happen between the beginning and the end? from eternity past to eternity future? By the way, when did the beginning begin and when will the end end?

God knows everything from eternity past, and into eternity future, and everything in between.
He is a loving God who gives us a chance to make choices and many of us here have made plenty of wrong choices, but He still loves us because He instructs us, and His goodness leads us to repentance.
He doesn't want any of us to die (second death), and He made a plan which apparently is working because Jesus did come and take away our sins, and it is through Him we are cleansed and reconciled to God by His blood. Look at how many lives have been changed through Jesus Christ!
God Bless,
Will

I've made this point point many times, and suppose I'll have to make it many more times. The issue is not regarding God's foreknowledge; it's regarding the nature of the future.

Is the future determined? It is like a T.V. rerun?

MM, you are accusing me of lamenting your view of God's foreknowledge. Have I written such a thing? If so, where? I don't believe I have, but have repeatedly stated that I agree with you that God's foreknowledge is perfect; He knows the future exactly as it is. God is omniscient. I've not written anything different than this at any time, have I?

It's often convenient to sidetrack an argument rather than deal with the real issues involved, which I'll repeat: Is the future like a T.V. rerun? Is there only one possible thread for the line of time to follow? Is the future determined?

The arguments I have presented are all along these lines. For example:

If the future is like a T.V. rerun, then
1)How can it be said that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss?
2)How can it be said that God is not to blame for sin?
3)How can it be said that we are to no only look for but to hasten the coming of Christ?
4)How can it be said that Christ could have come before now, in the 1888 era for example?

Note that none of these questions is addressing God's foreknowledge; all are addressing the nature of the future.

Tom, yes, from God’s perspective the future is like a rerun. He has already seen everything play out exactly the way it will happen. In this sense, the future is fixed. There is no other possible outcome. It can only unfold the way God has seen it. Of course, we humans do not know the future like a rerun, except for what God has revealed to us in the remaining unfulfilled unconditional prophecies.

My view and your view of God’s knowledge of the future are not the same, are they? That’s why I mentioned you and Phil together in my last post. Perhaps foreknowledge isn't the best word, maybe hindsight is more accurate. For God, the future is hindsight.

If the future is like a T.V. rerun, then

1)How can it be said that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss?

Is this hyperbole expressed in the Bible?

2)How can it be said that God is not to blame for sin?

Because He didn’t force them to sin.

3)How can it be said that we are to no only look for but to hasten the coming of Christ?

Because we can and should.

4)How can it be said that Christ could have come before now, in the 1888 era for example?

Because what could have been should have been.

MM: Tom, yes, from God’s perspective the future is like a rerun.

Tom: While our perceptions of reality are different (ours and God's), the reality itself is not different for God than it is for us. Either the future is fixed or it isn't, and it is exactly the same way both for God and us. What I have been addressing is the underlying reality, not the perception of reality.

If your ideas were true, then we would not really be free. We would only have the perception of freedom. True freedom requires the possiblity of different outcomes based on decisions we freely make. If there are, in reality, no other possible outcomes than what the future really holds (the one future that God, according to your view, sees) then our freedom is purely imaginary.

This is the main point I've been trying to make. I believe our freedom is realy, not merely a perception.

MM: He has already seen everything play out exactly the way it will happen.

Tom: This is assuming the future can only happen one way. You see that, don't you?

MM: In this sense, the future is fixed. There is no other possible outcome. It can only unfold the way God has seen it.

Tom: Ok, if this is the case, then we are not free, because there is only one possible future. If the future is already determined before our input, then we are not self-determining creatures. We are really nothing more that very elaborate pre-programmed machines which have been programmed to belive they are free.

MM: Of course, we humans do not know the future like a rerun, except for what God has revealed to us in the remaining unfulfilled unconditional prophecies.

Tom: I agree that we do not know the future like a rerun.

MM: My view and your view of God’s knowledge of the future are not the same, are they?

Tom: Only in the sense that the future is different. Other than that, our views are the same. This is a point I've repeatedly tried to make.

MM: That’s why I mentioned you and Phil together in my last post. Perhaps foreknowledge isn't the best word, maybe hindsight is more accurate. For God, the future is hindsight.

Tom: If the future is hindsight, then my points about freedom should be seen even more easily. Can the past be changed? Can even God change the past? If the future is like the past, then clearly we cannot be free to change it any more than we are free to change the past. Our freedom is not real, in this case, but simply a trick of our minds.

MM: If the future is like a T.V. rerun, then

1)How can it be said that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss?

Is this hyperbole expressed in the Bible?

Tom: Does it rain in Hawaii? What does this have to do with anything? What relationship does whether hyperbole exists in the Bible have to do with whether the Spirit of Prophesy is using hyperbole in the quotations I cited? The language is CLEARLY not that of a deliberate literary exageration, for the points I have repeatedly made, and points which you have not in the least addressed.

Look at the argument being made in the paragraphs cited. The statements EGW made were not made in a vacuum. They were in a context, and in each case she was making a specific point. For example, she made the point in COL that the value of a human soul can only be comprehended when we recognize the risk that Christ took to win it. Now if we don't recognize that Christ took any risk at all, then we cannot comprehend the value of a human soul. Her whole argument falls completely apart if we make the assumption that she was using hyperbole.

Hyperbole is like "All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand." It is not like "Remember Christ risked all."

MM: 2)How can it be said that God is not to blame for sin?

Because He didn’t force them to sin.

Tom: Sure He did, if He created creatures which could only do one thing.

MM: 3)How can it be said that we are to no only look for but to hasten the coming of Christ?

Because we can and should.

Tom: This is a contradiction to your statements above. For example: "He has already seen everything play out exactly the way it will happen." Note especially your last three words "it will happen." If the future can only happen in one way, then we cannot hasten the coming of Christ. It's like saying that 2+2 cannot equal 5 if 2+2 = 4. Either the future is fixed, or we can hasten Christ's coming. They can't both be true.

MM: 4)How can it be said that Christ could have come before now, in the 1888 era for example?

Because what could have been should have been.

Tom: In your paradigm "should have been" is a non-sensical phrase. There is only what would inevitably happen.

Tom, we are absolutely free to choose. It’s just that God knows in advance what we will choose. His knowing it before we choose it doesn’t rob us of our freedom to choose. From God’s perspective, from the standpoint of hindsight, the choices we end up making are as though they have already been decided and played out. Hindsight and the future are one and the same from God’s point of view.

I believe God sees and knows the end from the beginning, which, in my mind, is an expression that means God can look back at the beginning of history from the end of history, like rereading a history book. Whatever way history plays out, whatever way people choose, all these things are known to God as if it was already the end of time.

It’s no different when we study what has already transpired in the past. Whenever we read a history book we are reading about things that have already happened. The past is fixed. It is what it is, and our knowing about it doesn’t change what happened. Nor does it rob them of their freedom to choose. God has access to a history book that we cannot read. That book records the history of time from the beginning to the end. That book is in the mind of God.

Tom, we are not going to agree on the risk and eternal loss quote. I suggest we come back to it later on. The Bible nowhere implies the Father wasn’t sure if Jesus would sin and die. Until it can be proven, from the Bible, that the Father couldn’t be sure Jesus would succeed on the cross until after the fact, I am not comfortable interpreting the risk and eternal loss quote to unequivocally mean Jesus might have sinned and might have died eternally. Risk doesn’t necessarily mean sin or death, and eternal loss doesn’t necessarily mean sin or death. Neither sin, nor death, occurs in the context of the quote.

“… if He created creatures which could only do one thing.” Could and would mean two entirely different things, right? They could sin, that is, they were created with the ability, and the freedom, to obey or disobey. God knew ahead of time, from the standpoint of hindsight, that they would sin. Therefore, God is not to blame. Knowing they would sin is not same thing as saying they had no choice. The fact they chose to sin is evidence they were able to sin and free to sin.

Just because we are admonished to look for and to hasten the coming of Christ it does not mean God doesn’t know the exact day and hour Christ will return. Besides, what can we do to hasten or hinder the coming of the Lord? God knows no haste and no delay. He promised if we refuse to preach the gospel to everyone everywhere, according to our unique giftedness, that He would command the rocks to proclaim it. Whatever we do in response to the admonition to hasten the coming of Christ is already known to God. He’s already watched it play out. He knows the end from the beginning.

What could have been should have been is true. This principle applies to everything from the fall of Lucifer to the failure of Adventists in 1888 to grasp the third angel’s message and to proclaim it to the world. But saying so doesn’t make it so. Nor does it imply God does not know the exact day and hour Jesus will return. God has known from forever when Jesus will come again. Besides, the Adventists rejected the message, so it wasn’t possible for Jesus to return back then. Yes, if they hadn’t rejected it, Jesus would have returned. But God knew from the foundation of the world that they were going to blow it.

Sorry, MM but I never said you had a "wicked understanding"; those are your words alone.

No need to apologize; I can handle it, even though that is "bearing a false witness against your neighbor", in my opinion, wouldn't you say?

[ July 22, 2005, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Phil N. D'blanc ]

Yes...friends...I admit I do write sharply when it comes to several topics that are warped out of all biblical reality, in my opinion.

Here's why:

In Asia I do not have the luxury of evasion or squeamishness.

In the missionfield I cannot avoid answering the nitty gritty questions about family deaths, disasters and fate.
I am the only christian that hundreds of people know persoanlly; I am the only white Adventist on an island of millions. Whether anyone likes it or not, I must represent God's Last Message of Mercy.

I am always asked by Muslims, Buddhists and pagans in bold confrontations:

"Was the Acheh tsunami God's will?"

"Is your wife blind because of sin or is it God's doing?"

"Phil: Why did your christian God let 9/11 happen to His christian nation?"

If I have no answers that are any different than their fatalistic religious leaders; if I give them false comfort, homilies or guesses, I have the blood of souls on my hands. And God does not ordain that.

I do not believe in the worth of an objective, impersonal, detached christianity. I marvel at Adventists that gather their skirts around them when questioned too closely about their real lives, or real sinners, or real horrors of everyday life. Is life a marshmallow castle to some?

I admire men like Will, and Debbie's husband; who are short on words and long on shoe leather. I admire a poor Adventist who sent to our mission a "widow's mite" while out of work, because he knew that he could skip a meal, but couldn't withhold a SOP book to some poorer saint who didn't have the Bread of Life. I admire a certain Canadian that heard the Lord and acted immediately, to help the poor and the blind and the shepherdless.

So, yeah....I admit directness, but I will not admit to mean-spiritedness. If it's taken that way, I'm sorry for the tender-hearted child of God who thinks that. Simply consult with our Friend Jesus and he will explain the whole matter.

To me, the death of a heat victim is real, and demands real answers about God and His character.

Just today I consoled a young Muslim lady who just left London 3 days before the bombings: she is worried sick over her old friends there. Her imam (Muslim pastor) says it's all the will of God.

I will not lie to her.

Phil, if it's not the will of God, and if God is not in control of such things - then who is? What is God doing while bad things are happening? Has He no control over what happens? Are the angels releasing their hold on the four winds? If so, why? Who told them to loosen their grip? As your friends read the following insights in the books you give them to read, how do you explain it to them? Do you blame Satan? Or, do you tell them God is in control?

EW 38
I asked my accompanying angel the meaning of what I heard, and what the four angels were about to do. He said to me that it was God that restrained the powers, and that He gave His angels charge over things on the earth; that the four angels had power from God to hold the four winds, and that they were about to let them go; but while their hands were loosening, and the four winds were about to blow, the merciful eye of Jesus gazed on the remnant that were not sealed, and He raised His hands to the Father and pleaded with Him that He had spilled His blood for them. Then another angel was commissioned to fly swiftly to the four angels and bid them hold, until the servants of God were sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads. {EW 38.2}

HP 96
Were it not that God has commanded angelic agencies to control the satanic agencies that are seeking to break loose and to destroy, there would be no hope. But the winds are to be held until the servants of God are sealed in their foreheads. {HP 96.3}

MAR 243
Just before we entered it [the time of trouble], we all received the seal of the living God. Then I saw the four angels cease to hold the four winds. And I saw famine, pestilence and sword, nation rose against nation, and the whole world was in confusion. {Mar 243.4}

MAR 266
John sees the elements of nature--earthquake, tempest, and political strife--represented as being held by four angels. These winds are under control until God gives the word to let them go. There is the safety of God's church. The angels of God do His bidding, holding back the winds of the earth, that the winds should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree, until the servants of God should be sealed in their foreheads. {Mar 266.2}

ML 308
Four mighty angels are still holding the four winds of the earth. Terrible destruction is forbidden to come in full. The accidents by land and by sea; the loss of life, steadily increasing, by storm, by tempest, by railroad disaster, by conflagration; the terrible floods, the earthquakes, and the winds will be the stirring up of the nations to one deadly combat, while the angels hold the four winds, forbidding the terrible power of Satan to be exercised in its fury until the servants of God are sealed in their foreheads. {ML 308.2}

GC 614
The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2}

MM: Tom, we are absolutely free to choose. It’s just that God knows in advance what we will choose. His knowing it before we choose it doesn’t rob us of our freedom to choose.

Tom: You keep bringing up this point, but it's irrelevant. The issue is not God's foreknowledge, but the nature of the future. Of course there's no logical link of causation between God's foreknoledge and our actions. That's obvious. No one is arguing that.

MM: From God’s perspective, from the standpoint of hindsight, the choices we end up making are as though they have already been decided and played out. Hindsight and the future are one and the same from God’s point of view.

Tom: Only if the future is fixed, correct? God can't see something which isn't real, correct? So your presumption that from God's perspective everything has already been played out presupposes that the future, in its reality (not simply God's perspective), is fixed. Do you agree with this?

MM: I believe God sees and knows the end from the beginning, which, in my mind, is an expression that means God can look back at the beginning of history from the end of history, like rereading a history book. Whatever way history plays out, whatever way people choose, all these things are known to God as if it was already the end of time.

It’s no different when we study what has already transpired in the past. Whenever we read a history book we are reading about things that have already happened. The past is fixed. It is what it is, and our knowing about it doesn’t change what happened. Nor does it rob them of their freedom to choose. God has access to a history book that we cannot read. That book records the history of time from the beginning to the end. That book is in the mind of God.

Tom: Everything you're writing here is presupposing that the future is fixed, just like the past. Do you agree with this assesment?

MM: Tom, we are not going to agree on the risk and eternal loss quote. I suggest we come back to it later on. The Bible nowhere implies the Father wasn’t sure if Jesus would sin and die. Until it can be proven, from the Bible, that the Father couldn’t be sure Jesus would succeed on the cross until after the fact, I am not comfortable interpreting the risk and eternal loss quote to unequivocally mean Jesus might have sinned and might have died eternally.

Tom: Is this a new doctrine? Should I ask you to quote all of your Spirit of Prophesy quotes from the Bible? Should we do away with all of them altogether?

MM: Risk doesn’t necessarily mean sin or death, and eternal loss doesn’t necessarily mean sin or death. Neither sin, nor death, occurs in the context of the quote.

Tom: What do you think "eternal loss" and "failure" means, MM? What do you think it means to say that all heaven was "imperiled"? ("Imperil" means "pose a threat to; present a danger to")

MM: “… if He created creatures which could only do one thing.” Could and would mean two entirely different things, right?

Tom: This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. I assert that God created creatures that *could* sin, not would. You assert that God created creatures that *would* sin. There's a big difference here.

MM: They could sin, that is, they were created with the ability, and the freedom, to obey or disobey.

Tom: Yes, but could they not sin? (i.e. refrain from sinning)

MM: God knew ahead of time, from the standpoint of hindsight, that they would sin. Therefore, God is not to blame. Knowing they would sin is not same thing as saying they had no choice. The fact they chose to sin is evidence they were able to sin and free to sin.

Tom: God's foreknowledge is not relevant to the nature of the future. It is what it is regardless of God's knowledge of it. God's knowledge simply *reflects* the reality which is.

If the future is fixed, then it is not possible that Adam and Eve could have acted any differently than they did. This should be clear. It's simple logic.

Let me put it another way. If Adam and Eve could have done something differently than what they did, then the future was not fixed for them. Instead, it was open, or dynamic, whatever synonymn you would like to use to signify the opposite of fixed.

MM: Just because we are admonished to look for and to hasten the coming of Christ it does not mean God doesn’t know the exact day and hour Christ will return.

Tom: What it means, MM, is that the future is not fixed, which was the subject at hand (at least the subject I've been talking about).

You keep talking about God's foreknowledge, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the nature of the future, which is what it is regardless of God's knowledge of it.

MM: Besides, what can we do to hasten or hinder the coming of the Lord? God knows no haste and no delay. He promised if we refuse to preach the gospel to everyone everywhere, according to our unique giftedness, that He would command the rocks to proclaim it. Whatever we do in response to the admonition to hasten the coming of Christ is already known to God. He’s already watched it play out. He knows the end from the beginning.

Tom: Is it possible for you to consider the future about from God's foreknowledge. I think your thinking of God's foreknowledge may be blocking your ability to see a simple logical construct, which is that the future cannot both be fixed and not fixed.

If Christ's coming can be hastened, then the future is not fixed. This has nothing to do with God's knowledge of the event.

MM: What could have been should have been is true.

Tom: "What could have been should have been is true." This isn't intelligible, is it? Did you mean, "What could have been should have been"? That is, what could have happened, should have happened. Is that what you meant? Or something else?

MM: This principle applies to everything from the fall of Lucifer to the failure of Adventists in 1888 to grasp the third angel’s message and to proclaim it to the world. But saying so doesn’t make it so.

Tom: But saying what is so doen't make what so? IOW, what is ths "so" refering to? Saying that Christ could have comed doesn't make His earlier coming a reality? Is that what you mean?

I think what you're saying is that earlier Adventists should have acted in a way in which Christ would have returned, but simply enunciating this fact does not make it a reality. Which is of course obvious. But it doesn't address the issue, which is that if the future is fixed, then they could have done no differently than what they did. The could only have acted differently if the future was open to multiple possibilities at the time they made the choices they did.

MM: Nor does it imply God does not know the exact day and hour Jesus will return.

Tom: This *would* imply that the future is fixed, if there is only one possible time Christ can come. You see that, correct?

MM: God has known from forever when Jesus will come again. Besides, the Adventists rejected the message, so it wasn’t possible for Jesus to return back then. Yes, if they hadn’t rejected it, Jesus would have returned. But God knew from the foundation of the world that they were going to blow it.

Tom: You seem to have the tacit assumption that God can know something from the beginning of time without that thing happening. This is a logical absurdity. If God has always known from the beginning of time that a certain thing will happen, then it *will* happen, without doubt. In this case the future is fixed, and it is not possible to anything to alter it. Do you see this?