Kevin,

Maybe we are just talking past each other, but I didn't understand what you meant when you said that Christ could have reigned as a literal King in the literal Jerusalem, or that Christ's second coming could have been in 70 AD.

Tom,

I’m definitely in favor of logic, for it was God who has given us the ability to reason and think, but God transcends human logic. We cannot try to place the Deity inside the box of human logic. So, saying that all God can do is what He has already seen He would do, may be humanly logical, but it poses a conflict between omniscience and omnipotence, and God cannot be in conflict with Himself.

Omnipotence has to do with having the power to do what it possible to do. Some things are not possible. For example, you can't force someone to love you. Not even God can do that. God cannot make a square triangle. God can not see the future in some way it is not. Iow, if the future is not single-threaded, God doesn't see it that way. There's no conflict here. Neither God's omniscience nor His omnipotence is limited.


Some concepts cannot be completely understood by us, and that’s the reason why we are having this discussion.

I don't think the concepts we are discussing here are particularly difficult, but I know that many do find them difficult. Part of what I hope to accomplish in these discussions is discover better ways of communicating ideas.

Quote:
sometimes He has a purpose in mind whose time is affected by the self-determining creatures He has created, such as Christ's second coming.

But this is not what Ellen White says. She says, “Like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path, God's purposes know no haste and no delay.”

In relation to the first coming. In relation to the second she write, "It is the privilege of every Christ to not only look for but to hasten His Coming" (from memory, that's very close). You're trying to force Ellen White to say something she had no intention of saying. Just look at how Ellen White's contemporaries interpreted her words. These is not a contemporary of Ellen White who believed that Christ's coming was fixed.

She didn’t say “some of God’s purposes,” nor “God’s purpose in relation to Christ’s first coming,” but “God’s purposes”.

This is a poor argument. Let's apply this to one's personal decision to accept Christ. It's God's will that everyone be saved, right? Yet some aren't. This is a purpose of God, right? Here's it's not only delayed but thwarted altogether. Is it possible for God's purposes to be thwarted?

Ellen White makes specific statements regarding Christ's Second Coming. She says many times that it could have happened earlier than when she was writing. She says that we can hasten it. She says that it was delayed by the actions of those who did not accept the message of Jones and Waggoner. She says Christ was disappointed He could not come. These writings make clear that she did not believe the concept you are trying to make her say. She did not believe that Christ's coming was fixed.


Quote:
If the future is single-threaded, then there is only one possible future, which is what will happen.

This is how you see the matter: if God knows that things will happen in a certain way, then things must happen in that way. Like Arnold, this is how I see the matter: if things will happen in a certain way (for whatever reason), then God knows that things will happen in that way.
We simply can’t see things in the same way.

Take the God seeing part of the way for a moment, and perhaps that will help. If the future is single-threaded, then that is what will happen. That someone knows this to be the case, or sees it to be the case, is irrelevant. We will do whatever the single-threaded future holds, because there's only one future that can happen.

The logical problem really doesn't have to do with what God sees or doesn't see.

Yes, we did get to where we were speaking past each other. Those are examples of times where God lead us to the border of the true promised land, where some of the highlighted "The Lord could have come err this" times.

Once again, I understand that as we study what could have happened at these "come err this" time. How is it similar and different from other "err this" times, and why didn't the Lord come then, and we can learn the lessons so that when we come to another time that the Lord would see that it is indeed the cycle where instead of returning to the wilderness, that it is time for the Lord to come and take us home.

I hope this helps.

TE: In fact, it addresses the issue so well, you have no response for it.

MM: Tom, I hope you are not reverting back to your old rude ways? Please.

TE: In which case it is 100% certain it will occur on the day and hour God has known from all eternity, right?

MM: Amen!

TE: In which case, it can't be changed, either hastened or delayed.

MM: Just like a rerun.

TE: I haven't claimed that God does not know when Jesus will return.

MM: What? Then why are you arguing God does not know the precise day and hour Jesus will return?

TE: Again, the issue is ontological, not epistemological. You keep wanting to frame the issue epistemologically, but that's not the issue!

MM: Labeling it one way or another doesn't change the fact God has known for eternity the exact day and hour Jesus will return.

TE: God knows things perfectly, as they are. Now how God sees the future is not necessarily according to how you envision the future. You envision the future as fixed, like a T.V. rerun. But God is not limited to your understanding of the future; He has a broader vision.

MM: Because God is God He sees the future like a rerun. But from our perspective most of the future is wide open. It isn't fixed. I suppose one could argue that those parts of the future that are described in unconditional prophecies are "fixed". That is, they will play out precisely the way God says it will. However, the prophecies do not rob us of our ability and freedom to choose. They simply reveal what we are free to do.

TE: In fact, it addresses the issue so well, you have no response for it.

MM: Tom, I hope you are not reverting back to your old rude ways? Please.

I was hoping the same thing about you! I notice you still did not respond. I don't understand why my pointing out that you have no response to the argument I made is rude.

TE: In which case it is 100% certain it will occur on the day and hour God has known from all eternity, right?

MM: Amen!

TE: In which case, it can't be changed, either hastened or delayed.

MM: Just like a rerun.

TE: I haven't claimed that God does not know when Jesus will return.

MM: What? Then why are you arguing God does not know the precise day and hour Jesus will return?

TE: Again, the issue is ontological, not epistemological. You keep wanting to frame the issue epistemologically, but that's not the issue!

MM: Labeling it one way or another doesn't change the fact God has known for eternity the exact day and hour Jesus will return.

TE: God knows things perfectly, as they are. Now how God sees the future is not necessarily according to how you envision the future. You envision the future as fixed, like a T.V. rerun. But God is not limited to your understanding of the future; He has a broader vision.

MM: Because God is God He sees the future like a rerun. But from our perspective most of the future is wide open. It isn't fixed.

If our perspective is different than God's, who's is right, ours or His? Are you arguing that perception makes reality? Or is there an object reality which is what it is regardless of our perspective of it?

I suppose one could argue that those parts of the future that are described in unconditional prophecies are "fixed". That is, they will play out precisely the way God says it will. However, the prophecies do not rob us of our ability and freedom to choose. They simply reveal what we are free to do.

The problem is if the future is single-threaded, there's only one thing we can do. Our perception may be that we can do more than one thing, but our perception is simply wrong. Do you understand what I'm saying here? I'm asking because you've never given any indication that you have.

MM: Because God is God He sees the future like a rerun. But from our perspective most of the future is wide open. It isn't fixed.

TE: If our perspective is different than God's, who's is right, ours or His? Are you arguing that perception makes reality? Or is there an object reality which is what it is regardless of our perspective of it?

MM: Again, just because God sees the future like a rerun it does not effect the way it plays out. His foreknowledge or hindsight does not alter reality in the least.

.....................

MM: I suppose one could argue that those parts of the future that are described in unconditional prophecies are "fixed". That is, they will play out precisely the way God says it will. However, the prophecies do not rob us of our ability and freedom to choose. They simply reveal what we are free to do.

TE: The problem is if the future is single-threaded, there's only one thing we can do. Our perception may be that we can do more than one thing, but our perception is simply wrong. Do you understand what I'm saying here? I'm asking because you've never given any indication that you have.

MM: Our perception is not wrong. We are in reality free to choose Jesus, to abide in Him; the results are predictable, namely, if we are abiding in Jesus we will think, speak, and behave like Jesus. Just because God has seen it all play out after the fact does not mean the future is fixed. God's ability to "inhabit eternity" does not alter reality or the future in any way. Neither divine hindsight nor divine foreknowledge has anything to do with how and why the future plays out like it does.

MM: Because God is God He sees the future like a rerun. But from our perspective most of the future is wide open. It isn't fixed.

TE: If our perspective is different than God's, who's is right, ours or His? Are you arguing that perception makes reality? Or is there an object reality which is what it is regardless of our perspective of it?

MM: Again, just because God sees the future like a rerun it does not effect the way it plays out. His foreknowledge or hindsight does not alter reality in the least.

Which is what I've been saying. God's perspective of reality does not change it. So God will only see the future like a rerun if the future is single-threaded. Otherwise He will see it in a more complex way.

.....................

MM: I suppose one could argue that those parts of the future that are described in unconditional prophecies are "fixed". That is, they will play out precisely the way God says it will. However, the prophecies do not rob us of our ability and freedom to choose. They simply reveal what we are free to do.

TE: The problem is if the future is single-threaded, there's only one thing we can do. Our perception may be that we can do more than one thing, but our perception is simply wrong. Do you understand what I'm saying here? I'm asking because you've never given any indication that you have.

MM: Our perception is not wrong. We are in reality free to choose Jesus, to abide in Him; the results are predictable, namely, if we are abiding in Jesus we will think, speak, and behave like Jesus. Just because God has seen it all play out after the fact does not mean the future is fixed.

How can God see the future as fixed if it is not really fixed? You just said above that how God sees the future doesn't alter reality, but here this is just what you are suggesting, because, on the one hand you assert that God sees the future as fixed, like a T.V. rerun, but on the other you asser that the future is not fixed. You're contradicting yourself here.

God's ability to "inhabit eternity" does not alter reality or the future in any way. Neither divine hindsight nor divine foreknowledge has anything to do with how and why the future plays out like it does.

You are classifying the future in this view as single-threaded. I don’t agree with this. God just sees what you will choose, and you cannot choose two mutually exclusive options at the same time. Then, of course, God sees the only option you will choose, but this doesn’t mean the future is single-threaded.

“I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike with God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily.” {TMK 12.2}

This is so real that the prophets sometimes do not know if what they saw was past or present:

“I have been urged by the Spirit of the Lord to fully warn our people in regard to the undue familiarity of married men with women, and women with men. This lovesick sentimentalism existed in the [city] mission at _____ before you were connected with it. I was shown you with others manifesting the same; whether this was in the past or the future I cannot say, for often things are presented to me long before the circumstances take place.”--Letter 17, 1891. {3SM 54.6}

“In past ages the Lord God of heaven revealed His secrets to His prophets, and this He does still. The present and the future are equally clear to Him, and He shows to His servants the future history of what shall be. The Omniscient looked down the ages, and predicted through His prophets the rise and fall of kingdoms, hundreds of years before the events foretold took place. The voice of God echoes down the ages, telling man what is to take place. Kings and princes take their places at their appointed time. They think they are carrying out their own purposes, but in reality they are fulfilling the word God has given through His prophets. They act their part in carrying out God's great purposes. Events fall into line, fulfilling the word God has spoken.” {UL 96.2}

Seeing possibilities is not the same as seeing realities, and the present has to do with realities. If God sees the future as we see the present, how can He see only possibilities if we see realities?


We have already made a distinction between God’s purposes for individuals and God’s purposes for the race. Both the first and the second coming are included in the second category. God fixed a date for Christ’s first coming, and He fixed a date for Christ’s second coming. This is what Jesus said two thousand years ago - that God knew the day and the hour of His coming.

TE: How can God see the future as fixed if it is not really fixed? You just said above that how God sees the future doesn't alter reality, but here this is just what you are suggesting, because, on the one hand you assert that God sees the future as fixed, like a T.V. rerun, but on the other you asser that the future is not fixed. You're contradicting yourself here.

MM: God's ability to "inhabit eternity" does not alter reality or the future in any way. Neither divine hindsight nor divine foreknowledge has anything to do with how and why the future plays out like it does. Just because God knows the future like the past it does not mean the future is fixed as if we have no freedom to choose. Again, God's unique ability to know the future like the past does not effect the outcome of our choices (unless, of course, He reveals it to us first).

Omnipotence has to do with having the power to do what it possible to do. Some things are not possible. For example, you can't force someone to love you. Not even God can do that. God cannot make a square triangle. God can not see the future in some way it is not. Iow, if the future is not single-threaded, God doesn't see it that way.

You are classifying the future in this view as single-threaded. I don’t agree with this.

I'm trying to come up with a term which is easily understood which describes your view. Your view implies a future which is fixed, or determined, but I saw these terms were having some difficult in being understood, as they were wrongly being understood as if God was forcing the future to occur in a certain way, which the terms do not imply. So I switched to "single-threaded" to convery the idea of ONE possible future (the one which God sees) as opposed to MANY possible futures (all of which God sees).

If you want to suggest some other term, please do so, but the term certainly seems easily understood to me, and accurate. In fact, I'm not sure why you are taking exception with it. Nothing of what you wrote after "I don't agree with this" suggests ayou believe in a future which is not single-threaded.

God just sees what you will choose, and you cannot choose two mutually exclusive options at the same time. Then, of course, God sees the only option you will choose, but this doesn’t mean the future is single-threaded.

If there's only one possible future, then it's single-threaded. Is it possible for there to be some other future besides the one God sees will happen?

“I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike with God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily.” {TMK 12.2}

This is so real that the prophets sometimes do not know if what they saw was past or present:

“I have been urged by the Spirit of the Lord to fully warn our people in regard to the undue familiarity of married men with women, and women with men. This lovesick sentimentalism existed in the [city] mission at _____ before you were connected with it. I was shown you with others manifesting the same; whether this was in the past or the future I cannot say, for often things are presented to me long before the circumstances take place.”--Letter 17, 1891. {3SM 54.6}

“In past ages the Lord God of heaven revealed His secrets to His prophets, and this He does still. The present and the future are equally clear to Him, and He shows to His servants the future history of what shall be. The Omniscient looked down the ages, and predicted through His prophets the rise and fall of kingdoms, hundreds of years before the events foretold took place. The voice of God echoes down the ages, telling man what is to take place. Kings and princes take their places at their appointed time. They think they are carrying out their own purposes, but in reality they are fulfilling the word God has given through His prophets. They act their part in carrying out God's great purposes. Events fall into line, fulfilling the word God has spoken.” {UL 96.2}

Seeing possibilities is not the same as seeing realities, and the present has to do with realities. If God sees the future as we see the present, how can He see only possibilities if we see realities?

She says God sees the future will clarity, as clearly as *He* sees the present. She doesn't say He sees the future as we see the present. Of course that isn't true. We don't see anything clearly.

Quote:
This is a poor argument. Let's apply this to one's personal decision to accept Christ. It's God's will that everyone be saved, right? Yet some aren't. This is a purpose of God, right? Here's it's not only delayed but thwarted altogether. Is it possible for God's purposes to be thwarted?

We have already made a distinction between God’s purposes for individuals and God’s purposes for the race. Both the first and the second coming are included in the second category. God fixed a date for Christ’s first coming, and He fixed a date for Christ’s second coming. This is what Jesus said two thousand years ago - that God knew the day and the hour of His coming.

If the future were single-threaded, one could argue along the lines you are, that knowing the future and its being fixed are synonymous. However, you are assuming your conclusion here. I don't agree that the future must be fixed in order for God to know it. The fact that Christ's coming could be at different times, indeed, could already have occurred, makes it clear that the date is not fixed. Clearly if the date is fixed in the future, He could not have come in the past. Also, it is clear that if the date is fixed, we cannot hasten His coming, since to hasten His coming is to cause Him to come sooner than He otherwise would have come.