I find the expression that "God is in control" to be very ambigous. I'm not aware that Phil, or anyone else, has intimated that God is not in control. I do not know why you (MM) keep brining up this point, or even what you mean by the phrase "God is in control." Of course God is in control; He's omnipotent. The universe is His. How could He not be in control? Noone disputes this fact.

The issue Phil, myself and others have been dealing with has to do with God's will. Was it God's will that the tsunami happened? I would say absolutely not. It came about because of Satan, the author of sin. Every evil thing that happens in this world can be traced back to him; sin and death was Satan's invention, not God's.

To know what God's will is, we have but to look at the life of Christ, who came not to destroy, but to heal.

Tom, I'll address your posts when I have more time, but for now, what do you make of these quotes:

DA 32
But like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path, God's purposes know no haste and no delay. . . . Providence had directed the movements of nations, and the tide of human impulse and influence, until the world was ripe for the coming of the Deliverer. {DA 32.2}

PP 88
Satan was urging upon men the belief that there was no reward for the righteous or punishment for the wicked, and that it was impossible for men to obey the divine statutes. {PP 88.2}

PP 96
As sin became general, it appeared less and less sinful, and they finally declared that the divine law was no longer in force; that it was contrary to the character of God to punish transgression; and they denied that His judgments were to be visited upon the earth. {PP 95.3}

PP 103
In Noah's day philosophers declared that it was impossible for the world to be destroyed by water; so now there are men of science who endeavor to show that the world cannot be destroyed by fire--that this would be inconsistent with the laws of nature. But the God of nature, the Maker and Controller of her laws, can use the works of His hands to serve His own purpose. {PP 103.2}

Sigh...here we go again!

Wrapping your opinions within questions cannot hide your viewpoints; rather they expose them more than most of your statements, pastor.

MM said:

"Phil, if it's not the will of God, and if God is not in control of such things - then who is?"
By this quip I assume you mean that you are saying that the old ladies who died in the Arizona heat-wave died by God's design. Now, friend: that is cold fatalism by anyone's definition. That is laying the death of everyone at God's feet. But that's your choice. Sorry to see you admit this.

"What is God doing while bad things are happening?"
That depends on who the person is: a rebel at enmity with God or His born again child. He will not violate His laws of free will or force Himself where He is not wanted. Never.

"Has He no control over what happens?"
He controls the right way, not man's way. God is no dictator. He comes to the aid of His redeemed ones when and if they call upon Him and obey Him. That's His program: "Turn to Me and obey Me, and I can help you." Ya gotta actually do both. No pretending allowed.

"Are the angels releasing their hold on the four winds? If so, why? Who told them to loosen their grip?"This is too fustian to take as a serious question. You assume that God creates the winds of strife and war! "Hold back" means to prevent. Your theories make it sound like God is arm-wrestling Himself...I see that you have a habit of down-playing Satan in the Controversy to a minion's role. Satan is the author of strife, not God! How sad.

"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?" AGAIN, one cannot assume God controls evil, sinful servants of Satan and sin. If my friends are born again, yes, God is in harmony with their lives to just the degree they let Him be, and no more. If they step out of His protection, they are Satan's prey. This is not God's fault, but their own. They understand this, and do not manufacture complex responsibilty shifting, face saving excuses.

Phil, it would appear that you do not agree with the view of God's sovereignty (control) that I have embraced. Thank you for sharing the view you have embraced. Happy Sabbath.

And a happy and enlightening Sabbath to you too, MM I pray the Master shows you His true character someday, when you are more willing.

No, I do not embrace your views of God in this regard at all. I did once, but no more. I have tasted of the fruits of the Promised Land and will never trade ot for the wax fruit of Earth, as God empowers me.

Tom, did you overlook my reply to you on page 3 (posted July 22, 2005 07:27 PM)?

It looks to me like the truth lies somewhere in between the views you two fellows (Phil & MM) are proposing.

Old Tom: The issue is not God's foreknowledge, but the nature of the future.

MM: Since God’s knowledge of the future is perfect, as you and I both agree, in what way, in your opinion, do we disagree?

Tom: We disagree regarding the nature of the future. You think it's fixed. I don't.

MM: What do you mean by the nature of the future?

Tom: I mean its characteristics, what is it like. Is it fixed, or not fixed. That's what I mean.

If the future is fixed, then there is only one path it can take; there's only one possible way things can happen. If the future is not fixed, then there are many different possibilities.

How is God’s foreknowledge, or hindsight, different than, or unrelated to, the nature of the future?

MM: Is the future fixed? Yes, from God’s point of view, it is. The future is history.

Tom: The future is fundamentally different than history, because history has already happened whereas the future is yet, well, future. That is, it is yet to be determined. It hasn't happened yet. So there are many different paths it can take. The past, OTOH, is prologue. It's done. There's only one possible path.

MM: God sees tomorrow from the perspective of yesterday. He views history from the end of time. God knows the beginning from the end. But just because God reads the future like a history book doesn’t mean we are robots.

Tom: Same comment I've made dozens of times. The issue is the nature of the future, not God's foreknowledge. Is it fixed? That's the question.

Old 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?

MM: Yes, I see it. In your opinion, what does it mean – "I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done." Also, how do interpret the following insights:

Tom: The context of that actual quote is dealing with God's ability to bring about that which He says will happen. However, even thought this is not the context of this actual quote, I do believe God sees the future. I don't see how He couldn't. I just don't believe the future He sees is like a T.V. rerun. I believe it is vastly more complicated than that.

MM: DA 606
God counts the things that are not as though they were. He sees the end from the beginning, and beholds the result of His work as though it were now accomplished. {DA 606.1}

PP 43
He that ruleth in the heavens is the one who sees the end from the beginning--the one before whom the mysteries of the past and the future are alike outspread, and who, beyond the woe and darkness and ruin that sin has wrought, beholds the accomplishment of His own purposes of love and blessing. {PP 43.1}

SD 119
He whose servant you are, knows the end from the beginning. The events of tomorrow, which are hidden from your view, are open to the eyes of Him who is omnipotent. {SD 119.2}

3SG 113
God knows the end from the beginning. He knew before the birth of Jacob and Esau, just what characters they would both develop. {3SG 113.1}

UL 102
God's purposes are often veiled in mystery; they are incomprehensible to finite minds; but He who sees the end from the beginning knows better than we. {UL 102.4}

Regarding the differences between could and would. Again, God knew in advance that men and angels would sin. Do you agree with this insight?

Tom: He knew what would happen if they chose to sin. He knew that was possible. He also knew what would happen if they didn't sin. That was also possible.

MM: Yes, they were free to obey or disobey. “God made them free moral agents, capable of appreciating the wisdom and benevolence of His character and the justice of His requirements, and with full liberty to yield or to withhold obedience.” (PP 48) But God knew they would sin, but it doesn’t mean they weren’t free to obey.

Tom: If your statement implies it was inevitable that they would sin, then you have a logical impossibility. It's not possible for something to both be inevitable and yet maybe not happen. You agree with that, don't you?

Old Tom: That is, what could have happened, should have happened. Is that what you meant? Or something else?

MM: Yes, that’s what I mean, which is also a truism. Do you agree?

Tom: From your perspective, it doesn't make any sense. If only one thing can happen, then something else can't happen.

Old Tom: But saying what is so doesn't make what so? IOW, what is the "so" referring to?

MM: The fact Jesus could have, and should have, come back in 1888. Yes, the day and hour of Christ’s coming is fixed, therefore, Jesus has not returned yet.

Tom: This "therefore" doesn't follow. The reason the SOP gives that Christ didn't come is because the message God sent was not accepted. She says nothing about it being because the future is fixed , which idea would be impossible, given her viewpoint on things. For example, she wrote that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption, and that God sent Christ at the risk of failure and eternal loss. These ideas are antithetical to the idea that the future is fixed.

MM: God knew from eternity that Adventists would not be ready for Jesus to return in 1888. The church and the world will not be ready for the second coming until the day and hour Jesus returns. The date is fixed, and the fixed date is based on divine hindsight.

Tom: If the date is fixed, then it can't be altered, correct? If it can't be altered, then it can't be hastened, right? So, under your point of view, there's nothing we can do to hasten or delay Christ's coming.

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

MM: Correct.

Tom: Ok, so there's only one time when Christ can return; hence it's impossible to hasten or delay Christ's coming.

MM: There are numerous dates since 1844 when Jesus could have, and should have, returned.

Tom: Oops! Logical overide! If there's only one possible time that Christ can return, then it is nonsensical to speak of "could have" or "should have". There is only what will happen.

MM: But neither the world nor the church was ready, therefore, Jesus was unable to return.

Tom: This is true. The reason neither the world nor the church was ready was because the leadership of the church resisted the message which would have prepared them.

MM: The only time it will be possible for Jesus to return is on the date God has set, a date set based on divine hindsight.

Tom: The only time it will be possible for Jesus to return is when His character is perfectly reproduced with his people. That's the reason inspiration gives. We're even told we can hasten His coming, or delay it (which we have), which would of course be impossible if it were fixed.

Old Tom: Was it God's will that the tsunami happened? I would say absolutely not. It came about because of Satan, the author of sin. Every evil thing that happens in this world can be traced back to him; sin and death was Satan's invention, not God's.

MM: I disagree. Satan is not in control.

Tom: Disagree with what? I never said Satan was in control. I disagree. Mars is not purple. I can play this game too .

MM: He received permission from God to employ the Asian Tsunami to cause devastation. What I mean by – God is in control – is nothing happens without God’s permission.

Tom: This isn't worth pointing out. Everybody knows this. Noone disputes it.

MM: “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.”

Regarding risk and eternal loss. Again, let’s come back to this one another time, okay? We seem to have reached an impasse.

Tom: I just respond to your posts as seems appropriate. You may discuss or not discuss whatever you wish, as you think is profitable.

I didn't respond earlier because I just missed this thread. I'm glad to have the opportunity to discuss these things. We seem to have chosen several subjects which are difficult to communicate on.