TE: The difference between what you meant and what you said? Yes, I see the difference. Not being able to divine what you really mean when you say things, my point is that that what you actually said was false. Do you agree with this?

MM: Tom, I reposted the history of my comment above. I said, “That's why He can tell us precisely what will happen before it happens.� In response to this you posted, “The future could be mult-threaded, God can see that, and tell us precisely what will happen. God is not dependent upon the future being single-threaded in order to tell us about it.�

In response to that comment I wrote, “But that’s not what He does, is it? Instead, God tells us precisely what will happen before it happens. He doesn’t tells us ‘Now, this or that could happen.’� In response to this you switched gears and listed places where God shared different options and opposing outcomes. So, as you can see, you are the one who got off topic, not me.

In the context of our discussion I posted nothing that was off topic or false. You were arguing that God knows the future as multi-threaded and not single-threaded. We were not talking about those times when God shared options and alternate outcomes.

All along I was arguing against the idea that God does not know precisely what will happen before it happens, that He sees the future as a myriad of possibilities. I was arguing that God knows ahead of time precisely how the future will play out. I did not switch gears or say anything false.

…………………………..

MM: Let’s look at it from a different angle. God knows the end from beginning. For example, He knows the USA is going to influence the rest of the world to enforce resting on Sunday and working on Saturday. He knows there will be many martyrs. But after probation closes He knows none of the 144,000 is going to die. Does God's foreknowledge of their success mean there is no risk, no peril, no danger?

TE: Yes, of course. If God knows none of the 144,000 is going to die, then there is no chance that any of them will die, and hence no risk, peril, or danger. How could there be? Risk/peril/danger means "the possibility of loss" or "the possibility of harm." Without the possibility of loss or harm, there is no risk, peril or danger.

MM: I find it difficult to believe that anyone can read the description of the experience of the 144,000 during the last days and conclude “there is no risk, peril, or danger�. Certainly that is not how they feel about it. Again, here is how it is described:

“Their confidence in God, their faith and firmness, will be severely tested. As they review the past, their hopes sink; for in their whole lives they can see little good. They are fully conscious of their weakness and unworthiness.�

“… the anguish which they suffer is not a dread of persecution for the truth's sake; they fear that every sin has not been repented of, and that through some fault in themselves they will fail to realize the fulfillment of the Saviour's promise … it is with a keen sense of self-reproach that they themselves have no more power to resist and urge back the mighty tide of evil … suffering the keenest anxiety, terror, and distress …�

TE: If God knows none of the 144,000 is going to die, then there is no chance that any of them will die, and hence no risk, peril, or danger. How could there be? Risk/peril/danger means "the possibility of loss" or "the possibility of harm." Without the possibility of loss or harm, there is no risk, peril or danger.


Tom, perhaps it was typo because earlier you posted – “If God knows none of the 144,000 is going to die, then there is no chance that any of them will die, and hence no risk, peril, or danger. How could there be? Risk/peril/danger means "the possibility of loss" or "the possibility of harm." Without the possibility of loss or harm, there is no risk, peril or danger.�

Then later on you wrote – “If God saw that you would die, then you would be incurring risk, since it would be possible (100% chance in fact) that you would die.� Did you mean “then you would be incurring no risk�? The reason I suspect a typo is because you argued before and after it that there is no risk when the outcome is known with certainty.

…………………………

TE: No one is talking about there being a risk of Jesus' dying, so I don't know why you're bringing this up.

MM: Okay. So what risk, peril, threat, or danger did Jesus face? That He might sin and fail to save us, fail to demonstrate the law and love of God? If so, where is the evidence that such was the case? Is there any proof that Jesus nearly failed? If not, then how real was the threat of failure? What was the percentage of chance that He might fail?

……………………………….

TE: By the way, when speaking of an event which is certain to occur, such as death, risk is usually used in the context of time. That is, one would speak of the risk of death occurring, for example, before one turns 70, or within one year, something like that. In the context of Rosangela's question, she was speaking of death occurring in the context of a specific dangerous event.

MM: How does this apply to your theory that God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross? Simply saying the fact risk was involved proves God didn’t know seems weak to me. Is there any evidence that Jesus almost failed? Or, does “risk� mean something else?

In what way? Would it change the outcome?


What? Feeling afraid is not a reality? How can you say that? Jesus experience fear even though He knew He was going to succeed.


I agree that God knows the outcome, but I disagree that it means feeling afraid is unnecessary or “simply wrong�. Knowing the outcome of something doesn’t mean feeling afraid is wrong or an indication that we lack faith. Again, Jesus Himself felt fear.


I agree. But I do not agree that it eliminate feeling anxious or afraid.


I totally disagree. The inspired description portrays them full of fear and anxiety, which is not a sin.


Are you misapplying the risk concept she introduced? Are you drawing the wrong conclusions?


Tom, Jesus was by definition the one who would succeed. That is how God described it all throughout the OT and NT. How can you believe God knows ahead of time that the 144,000 will succeed and yet reject the idea that God knew ahead of time that Jesus would succeed? In both cases God plainly portrays them succeeding. How is Jesus’ case any different? How can God be so sure the 144,000 will succeed? Why didn’t He know Jesus would succeed?

Tom,

Again, risk has to do with the threat posed, not only with the final result. For instance, the fact that God's character will finally be vindicated doesn't mean the truth about His character has never been at risk, for Satan's charges posed a threat to it before the universe.

MM: Tom, what God knows about the outcome of a particular situation has no bearing on how we feel about it during the event.

TE: It could, if He shared with us what He knows.

In what way? Would it change the outcome?

You wrote that what God knows of a particular situation has not bearing on how we feel about it. I wrote if He shared with us His knowledge of the event, it could. The answer to "in what way" is found in your question; in how we feel (that's what you asked!).

Quote:
MM: The threat of failure or death is real.

TE: We may feel a threat of failure or death where none exists. If God sees there is no threat, that whas we feel does not correspond to reality. Reality corresponds to what God knows, not what we feel.

What? Feeling afraid is not a reality? How can you say that? Jesus experience fear even though He knew He was going to succeed.

MM, keep track of the context please. The context is the reality of death.

Quote:
MM: There is nothing imaginary about it.

TE: There's nothing imaginary about what we imagine to be the case; that is, we really perceive there to danger or risk. However, if God knows there is no possible chance of failure or harm, then there is none, and what we perceive is simply wrong. What God knows is right.

I agree that God knows the outcome, but I disagree that it means feeling afraid is unnecessary or “simply wrong�. Knowing the outcome of something doesn’t mean feeling afraid is wrong or an indication that we lack faith. Again, Jesus Himself felt fear.

You're going off on a tangent here. What is "simply wrong" is our perceiving that there to exist danger or risk when none exists. Please re-read what I wrote.

Quote:
MM: Even if God reveals to us that we will succeed or survive it in no way lessens the risk or threat or danger we experience during the event.

TE: That's correct. If God revealed to us we would survive, our probability of survival would be 100%, just as it would be if God didn't reveal what He knows to us. It would impact our perception of reality, however.

I agree. But I do not agree that it eliminate feeling anxious or afraid.

You keep asserting things which have no relation to what I'm saying. I never claimed anything in relation to our feeling anxious or afraid.

Quote:
MM: For example, in the following account of the 144,000 (quote below) they know they are going to succeed and be translated alive when Jesus returns. Do you think it lessens the risk or threat or danger they experience?

TE: No, there risk and danger is the same, regardless of what they know. God will deliver them, 100%. They are under no danger.

I totally disagree. The inspired description portrays them full of fear and anxiety, which is not a sin.

This really has nothing to do with what I've been talking about, but Scripture tells us that perfect love casts out all fear. God tells us, "Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD (Jer. 1:8). The 144,000 will trust God, and not be afraid.

You've misunderstood what EGW wrote. The fear and anxiety that is depicted is not of the selfish varitey; that is, they are not afraid for themselves, for their own safety. This would depict a lack of faith, which would be sin. They would willingly die for Christ, couragiously, without fear ("they would not shrink from torture or death" is how EGW puts it). Their fear and anxiety is in regards to their own character; they fear lest some sin be found upon them which would cast God's holy name be reproached.

Quote:
MM: Hopefully you don't, but if you do, then consider this: Both God and Jesus knew He would succeed on the cross. Did it lessen the risk or threat or danger He experienced?

TE: The precept of this question is contrary to what God has revealed to us. God has revealed to us that "heaven itself was at risk." God has revealed to us that "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen." God has revealed to us that God sent His Son at "a more fearful risk" (compared to our children). So I must reject the premise of your question, based on what God has revealed to us.

Are you misapplying the risk concept she introduced? Are you drawing the wrong conclusions?

How could the "risk concept" be "misapplied"? It's a very simple thing. She says that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. There's no need to "apply" a concept here. I simply believe what she wrote to be true.

Quote:
MM: Or, do you assume the 144,000 is a different situation, that God didn't know Jesus would succeed but that He knows the 144,000 will? If so, then how do you explain all the places in the OT and NT where God described Jesus succeeding on the cross? How is that any different than all the places in the OT and NT where God describes the 144,000 succeeding?

TE: The 144,000 are, by definition, those who succeed. Those who don't succeed are not a part of the 144,000.

Tom, Jesus was by definition the one who would succeed. That is how God described it all throughout the OT and NT. How can you believe God knows ahead of time that the 144,000 will succeed and yet reject the idea that God knew ahead of time that Jesus would succeed? In both cases God plainly portrays them succeeding. How is Jesus’ case any different? How can God be so sure the 144,000 will succeed? Why didn’t He know Jesus would succeed?

You are saying that Jesus could not have failed. Ellen White wrote, "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen." I believe she was right. We seem to be going in circles a bit here. You're not going to convince me that she was wrong on this point.

TE: The difference between what you meant and what you said? Yes, I see the difference. Not being able to divine what you really mean when you say things, my point is that that what you actually said was false. Do you agree with this?

MM: Tom, I reposted the history of my comment above. I said, “That's why He can tell us precisely what will happen before it happens.� In response to this you posted, “The future could be mult-threaded, God can see that, and tell us precisely what will happen. God is not dependent upon the future being single-threaded in order to tell us about it.�

In response to that comment I wrote, “But that’s not what He does, is it? Instead, God tells us precisely what will happen before it happens. He doesn’t tells us ‘Now, this or that could happen.’� In response to this you switched gears and listed places where God shared different options and opposing outcomes. So, as you can see, you are the one who got off topic, not me.

In the context of our discussion I posted nothing that was off topic or false. You were arguing that God knows the future as multi-threaded and not single-threaded. We were not talking about those times when God shared options and alternate outcomes.

But that's exactly what multi-threaded means! God is sharing alternate outcomes precisely because the future is multi-threaded. He's doing the very thing you said He doesn't do. He is saying, "Now, this or that could happen."

All along I was arguing against the idea that God does not know precisely what will happen before it happens, that He sees the future as a myriad of possibilities. I was arguing that God knows ahead of time precisely how the future will play out. I did not switch gears or say anything false.

You said that God does not say, "Now, this or that could happen." But He does. I provided examples of that.

…………………………..

MM: Let’s look at it from a different angle. God knows the end from beginning. For example, He knows the USA is going to influence the rest of the world to enforce resting on Sunday and working on Saturday. He knows there will be many martyrs. But after probation closes He knows none of the 144,000 is going to die. Does God's foreknowledge of their success mean there is no risk, no peril, no danger?

TE: Yes, of course. If God knows none of the 144,000 is going to die, then there is no chance that any of them will die, and hence no risk, peril, or danger. How could there be? Risk/peril/danger means "the possibility of loss" or "the possibility of harm." Without the possibility of loss or harm, there is no risk, peril or danger.

MM: I find it difficult to believe that anyone can read the description of the experience of the 144,000 during the last days and conclude “there is no risk, peril, or danger�. Certainly that is not how they feel about it. Again, here is how it is described:

“Their confidence in God, their faith and firmness, will be severely tested. As they review the past, their hopes sink; for in their whole lives they can see little good. They are fully conscious of their weakness and unworthiness.�

“… the anguish which they suffer is not a dread of persecution for the truth's sake; they fear that every sin has not been repented of, and that through some fault in themselves they will fail to realize the fulfillment of the Saviour's promise … it is with a keen sense of self-reproach that they themselves have no more power to resist and urge back the mighty tide of evil … suffering the keenest anxiety, terror, and distress …�

You repeated this point in your next post (I responded in reverse order to your posts), which I responded to.

Regarding risk, it's not the final result which defines whether or not there is risk, but the possibility of harm or loss. If there is no possibility of harm or loss, then there is no risk.

For example, when EGW says that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, this means there was a possibility that Christ could have suffered failure and eternal loss. This is completely straight-forward. What else could it possibly mean?

No, there's no typo here. I've re-read this, and it seems to be very well explained, MM. I'm not sure where you're seeing a contradiction. In the case of the 144,000, God knows none will die. Hence there is not risk. In the hypothetical Rosangela case, God sees Rosangela died, so there is risk.

Did you notice that in one case the referenced party dies, and in the other it doesn't?

TE: No one is talking about there being a risk of Jesus' dying, so I don't know why you're bringing this up.

MM: Okay. So what risk, peril, threat, or danger did Jesus face? That He might sin and fail to save us, fail to demonstrate the law and love of God? If so, where is the evidence that such was the case? Is there any proof that Jesus nearly failed? If not, then how real was the threat of failure? What was the percentage of chance that He might fail?

As Ellen White wrote, "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen." I don't know why you keep asking the same questions over again. As I stated before, when you asked this question, it seems to me that what Ellen White wrote completely answers your questions here. I don't know what is lacking in her answer.

……………………………….

TE: By the way, when speaking of an event which is certain to occur, such as death, risk is usually used in the context of time. That is, one would speak of the risk of death occurring, for example, before one turns 70, or within one year, something like that. In the context of Rosangela's question, she was speaking of death occurring in the context of a specific dangerous event.

MM: How does this apply to your theory that God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross? Simply saying the fact risk was involved proves God didn’t know seems weak to me. Is there any evidence that Jesus almost failed? Or, does “risk� mean something else?

As you agree in the past, if God knows with 100% certainty that something will happen, then it is certain it will happen. Therefore if God knew with 100% certainty that Christ would succeed, then it is certain that Christ would succeed. Yet Ellen White wrote, "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen." This is consistent with what she wrote about God sending His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

"Risk" means the possibility of loss or harm. She is not using it to mean something odd.

Similarly when she wrote that "Christ could have fallen. He could have sinned" she is not using the phrase "could have" or the words "fallen" or "sinned" in any unusual way.

Was there a possibility for God to fail in the vindication of His character?