HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
Trainor, ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield, Dina
1324 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,217
Posts195,995
Members1,324
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
kland 28
Rick H 18
Daryl 4
September
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
Member Spotlight
dedication
dedication
Canada
Posts: 6,610
Joined: April 2004
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
3 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, 1 invisible), 1,506 guests, and 6 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
New Reply
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 22 of 26 1 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Re: What if Jesus had failed? [Re: Daryl] #88222
04/25/07 01:55 AM
04/25/07 01:55 AM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
The following quotes make it clear that had our first parents successfully resisted Satan in Eden that they would have been as eternally secure as the loyal angels. This insight leads me to ask, "What would have been the purpose in further delaying the punishment and destruction of the evil angels in the lake of fire?"

The reason God did not punish and destroy the evil angels is because it would have caused the seed of rebellion to ripen within the loyal angels. They did not understand Satan's accusations and needed time to watch them unfold and mature. Had our first parents resisted his initial attack it would have served to convince the loyal angels that their allegiance was not misplaced.

When Adam and Eve failed, Jesus promised to disprove Satan's accusations and to confirm the faith of the loyal angels. The "last link of sympathy" the loyal angels had for the evil angels was severed when Jesus succeeded on the cross. However, if Jesus had failed, that last link of sympathy would have ripened into open rebellion, thus forcing God to destroy all FMAs.

 Quote:
The kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of man, when a plan was devised for the redemption of the guilty race. It then existed in the purpose and by the promise of God; and through faith, men could become its subjects. Yet it was not actually established until the death of Christ. Even after entering upon His earthly mission, the Saviour, wearied with the stubbornness and ingratitude of men, might have drawn back from the sacrifice of Calvary. In Gethsemane the cup of woe trembled in His hand. He might even then have wiped the blood-sweat from His brow and have left the guilty race to perish in their iniquity. Had He done this, there could have been no redemption for fallen men. But when the Saviour yielded up His life, and with His expiring breath cried out, "It is finished," then the fulfillment of the plan of redemption was assured. The promise of salvation made to the sinful pair in Eden was ratified. The kingdom of grace, which had before existed by the promise of God, was then established. {GC 347.2}

If they steadfastly repelled his first insinuations, they would be as secure as the heavenly messengers. But should they once yield to temptation, their nature would become so depraved that in themselves they would have no power and no disposition to resist Satan. {PP 53.2}

Even when he was cast out of heaven. Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan. Since only the service of love can be acceptable to God, the allegiance of His creatures must rest upon a conviction of His justice and benevolence. The inhabitants of heaven and of the worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin, could not then have seen the justice of God in the destruction of Satan. Had he been immediately blotted out of existence, some would have served God from fear rather than from love. The influence of the deceiver would not have been fully destroyed, nor would the spirit of rebellion have been utterly eradicated. For the good of the entire universe through ceaseless ages, he must more fully develop his principles, that his charges against the divine government might be seen in their true light by all created beings, and that the justice and mercy of God and the immutability of His law might be forever placed beyond all question. {PP 42.3}

Satan's rebellion was to be a lesson to the universe through all coming ages--a perpetual testimony to the nature of sin and its terrible results. The working out of Satan's rule, its effects upon both men and angels, would show what must be the fruit of setting aside the divine authority. It would testify that with the existence of God's government is bound up the well-being of all the creatures He has made. Thus the history of this terrible experiment of rebellion was to be a perpetual safeguard to all holy beings, to prevent them from being deceived as to the nature of transgression, to save them from committing sin, and suffering its penalty. {PP 42.4}

Our first parents, though created innocent and holy, were not placed beyond the possibility of wrongdoing. 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. They were to enjoy communion with God and with holy angels; but before they could be rendered eternally secure, their loyalty must be tested. At the very beginning of man's existence a check was placed upon the desire for self-indulgence, the fatal passion that lay at the foundation of Satan's fall. The tree of knowledge, which stood near the tree of life in the midst of the garden, was to be a test of the obedience, faith, and love of our parents. While permitted to eat freely of every other tree, they were forbidden to taste of this, on pain of death. They were also to be exposed to the temptations of Satan; but if they endured the trial, they would finally be placed beyond his power, to enjoy perpetual favor with God. {PP 48.4}

If God had exercised His power to punish this chief rebel, disaffected angels would not have been manifested; hence, God took another course, for He would manifest distinctly to all the heavenly host His justice and His judgment. {SR 17.1}

The Father consulted His Son in regard to at once carrying out their purpose to make man to inhabit the earth. He would place man upon probation to test his loyalty before he could be rendered eternally secure. If he endured the test wherewith God saw fit to prove him, he should eventually be equal with the angels. He was to have the favor of God, and he was to converse with angels, and they with him. He did not see fit to place them beyond the power of disobedience. {SR 19.2}

When Adam and Eve were placed in the beautiful garden they had everything for their happiness which they could desire. But God chose, in His all-wise arrangements, to test their loyalty before they could be rendered eternally secure. They were to have His favor, and He was to converse with them and they with Him. Yet He did not place evil out of their reach. Satan was permitted to tempt them. If they endured the trial they were to be in perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels. {SR 24.2}

They told them that Satan purposed to do them harm, and it was necessary for them to be guarded, for they might come in contact with the fallen foe; but he could not harm them while they yielded obedience to God's command, for, if necessary, every angel from heaven would come to their help rather than that he should in any way do them harm. But if they disobeyed the command of God, then Satan would have power to ever annoy, perplex, and trouble them. If they remained steadfast against the first insinuations of Satan, they were as secure as the heavenly angels. But if they yielded to the tempter, He who spared not the exalted angels would not spare them. They must suffer the penalty of their transgression, for the law of God was as sacred as Himself, and He required implicit obedience from all in heaven and on earth. {SR 30.2}

Could one sin have been found in Christ, had He in one particular yielded to Satan to escape the terrible torture, the enemy of God and man would have triumphed. Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10. {DA 761.1}

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. {DA 761.2}

Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}

In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed; man could not be forgiven. Because he, after his rebellion, had been banished from heaven, Satan claimed that the human race must be forever shut out from God's favor. God could not be just, he urged, and yet show mercy to the sinner. {DA 761.4}

But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. {DA 761.5}

Through Jesus, God's mercy was manifested to men; but mercy does not set aside justice. The law reveals the attributes of God's character, and not a jot or tittle of it could be changed to meet man in his fallen condition. God did not change His law, but He sacrificed Himself, in Christ, for man's redemption. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Cor. 5:19. {DA 762.1}

Memory recalls the home of his innocence and purity, the peace and content that were his until he indulged in murmuring against God, and envy of Christ. His accusations, his rebellion, his deceptions to gain the sympathy and support of the angels, his stubborn persistence in making no effort for self-recovery when God would have granted him forgiveness --all come vividly before him. He reviews his work among men and its results--the enmity of man toward his fellow man, the terrible destruction of life, the rise and fall of kingdoms, the overturning of thrones, the long succession of tumults, conflicts, and revolutions. He recalls his constant efforts to oppose the work of Christ and to sink man lower and lower. He sees that his hellish plots have been powerless to destroy those who have put their trust in Jesus. As Satan looks upon his kingdom, the fruit of his toil, he sees only failure and ruin. He has led the multitudes to believe that the City of God would be an easy prey; but he knows that this is false. Again and again, in the progress of the great controversy, he has been defeated and compelled to yield. He knows too well the power and majesty of the Eternal. {GC 669.2}

The aim of the great rebel has ever been to justify himself and to prove the divine government responsible for the rebellion. To this end he has bent all the power of his giant intellect. He has worked deliberately and systematically, and with marvelous success, leading vast multitudes to accept his version of the great controversy which has been so long in progress. For thousands of years this chief of conspiracy has palmed off falsehood for truth. But the time has now come when the rebellion is to be finally defeated and the history and character of Satan disclosed. In his last great effort to dethrone Christ, destroy His people, and take possession of the City of God, the archdeceiver has been fully unmasked. Those who have united with him see the total failure of his cause. Christ's followers and the loyal angels behold the full extent of his machinations against the government of God. He is the object of universal abhorrence. {GC 670.1}

Satan sees that his voluntary rebellion has unfitted him for heaven. He has trained his powers to war against God; the purity, peace, and harmony of heaven would be to him supreme torture. His accusations against the mercy and justice of God are now silenced. The reproach which he has endeavored to cast upon Jehovah rests wholly upon himself. And now Satan bows down and confesses the justice of his sentence. {GC 670.2}

"Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? for Thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy judgments are made manifest." Verse 4. Every question of truth and error in the long-standing controversy has now been made plain. The results of rebellion, the fruits of setting aside the divine statutes, have been laid open to the view of all created intelligences. The working out of Satan's rule in contrast with the government of God has been presented to the whole universe. Satan's own works have condemned him. God's wisdom, His justice, and His goodness stand fully vindicated. It is seen that all His dealings in the great controversy have been conducted with respect to the eternal good of His people and the good of all the worlds that He has created. "All Thy works shall praise Thee, O Lord; and Thy saints shall bless Thee." Psalm 145:10. The history of sin will stand to all eternity as a witness that with the existence of God's law is bound up the happiness of all the beings He has created. With all the facts of the great controversy in view, the whole universe, both loyal and rebellious, with one accord declare: "Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints." {GC 670.3}

Reply Quote
Re: What if Jesus had failed? [Re: Tom] #88223
04/25/07 02:36 AM
04/25/07 02:36 AM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
 Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
1. According to you, risk involves uncertainty. If the outcome of something is known with 100% certainty then no risk is involved.

Risk has to do with the possibility of loss. If there is not possibility of loss, there is no risk. If the outcome of the given event is known to be positive, there is no risk involved. If the outcome of the given event is known to be negative, then there is a risk involved.

2. In the case of Jesus, however, the outcome would have been the same if He failed or succeeded. That is, He would have died.

If Christ had failed, He would not have been resurrected. He came at the risk of "failure and eternal loss." The difference between Christ succeeding and failing is the "eternal loss" part of the phrase.

3. Either way, therefore, the death of Jesus was 100% certain. Using your limited definition of “risk”, therefore, there was no risk.

Christ's physical death was not what the risk entailed, but "eternal loss." You would need to rephrase your previous two points to speak of "eternal loss" rather than "death."

EGW wrote that God sent His Son "at the risk of failure and eternal loss" not "at the risk of failure and physical death."


4. Divinity, or Deity, cannot die. Thus, only the humanity of Jesus would have died had He failed or succeeded. So, again, using your limited definition of “risk” there was no risk.

The definition of risk I'm providing is simply the definition of risk. It's not limited. Anyone who deals with risk knows what it is. If you have any acquaintances who deal with risk, such as an accountant, or actuary, or someone who deals with risk management, finances, or investments, you can verify with them what the meaning of risk is. Or you could look at a dictionary.

I'm not sure why your rambling off course here. What Ellen White wrote was very specific. She wrote "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss." The risk that she is speaking of has to do with failure and eternal loss. Not physical death.


5. What did the “risk” involve? What would the consequences have been if Jesus had failed to save us?

According to Ellen White, the consequences would have been "failure and eternal loss." She also writes that "heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption."

What would the consequences have been if Jesus had not volunteered to save us?

The human race would have been lost without Christ.

(a) The “risk” Jesus took in volunteering to save us included at least two negative outcomes: 1) Jesus would have been banished from heaven, and 2) All created free moral agents throughout God’s vast universe would have been destroyed.

Christ had to convince the Father to allow Him to come. It was a struggle for God to agree. Your assertion that Christ would have been banished from heaven had He not volunteered certainly does not agree with these points.

(b) The “risk” Jesus would have taken if He had not volunteered to save us involved two negative outcomes: 1) All created free moral agents throughout God’s vast universe would have been destroyed, and 2) The Godhead would have been lonely.

Why are you putting "risk" in quotes? That's not necessary, and misleading. Ellen White did not write, "God sent His Son at the 'risk' of failure and eternal loss" but "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss." No quotes.

There's no reason for the unfallen worlds to have been destroyed had Christ not volunteered to save us. That would be unjust. They had done nothing wrong. Why are you asserting this? Also, this appears to me to have nothing whatsoever to do with the point we are discussing, which is that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. I'm not seeing why your bringing up the subject of what would have happened to unfallen worlds had Christ not volunteered to save us.

Tom, the fact Deity cannot die begs the questions, What does “risk” imply? What does “eternal loss” refer to? You have not improved upon your position by insisting “risk” doesn’t imply or include death. It undermines the importance of His death.

I assume you agree that since Jesus’ “death” was inevitable whether He failed or succeeded that, according to your view, there was no risk involved, so far as death is concerned. Do you agree? You might be tempted to ignore this point, but please humor me. Thank you.

……………………………

“If the outcome of the given event is known to be positive, there is no risk involved.” Jesus’ death on the cross was positive, therefore, there was no risk. Right?

…………………………….

“If Christ had failed, He would not have been resurrected.” Are you suggesting that Deity can be entombed in a way that Jesus would have ceased to exist?

………………………………

“The risk that she is speaking of has to do with failure and eternal loss. Not physical death.” You have yet to describe what you think failure and eternal loss entails.

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

 Quote:
(a) The “risk” Jesus took in volunteering to save us included at least two negative outcomes: 1) Jesus would have been banished from heaven, and 2) All created free moral agents throughout God’s vast universe would have been destroyed.

TE: Christ had to convince the Father to allow Him to come. It was a struggle for God to agree. Your assertion that Christ would have been banished from heaven had He not volunteered certainly does not agree with these points.

Read it again. I am addressing what if Jesus had failed here on earth.

………………………………

“There's no reason for the unfallen worlds to have been destroyed had Christ not volunteered to save us. That would be unjust. They had done nothing wrong.” Please see my last post.

If Jesus had not volunteered to save us, several questions come to mind:

1. What would God have done with mankind? Would He have allowed them to live on in hopelessness until they self-destructed?

2. What would God have done with the evil angels?

3. How would God have disproven Satan’s accusations?

4. How would God have dealt with the link of sympathy to Satan that lingered in the minds of the loyal angels?

Reply Quote
Re: What if Jesus had failed? [Re: Mountain Man] #88226
04/25/07 04:02 AM
04/25/07 04:02 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered

The following quotes make it clear that had our first parents successfully resisted Satan in Eden that they would have been as eternally secure as the loyal angels. This insight leads me to ask, "What would have been the purpose in further delaying the punishment and destruction of the evil angels in the lake of fire?"

The same as it was before man was created. God determined to give time for the principles of Satan’s kingdom to be seen. Had man not fallen, that time would still have been needed.

 Quote:
God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.
It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe.
(DA 759)


The reason God did not punish and destroy the evil angels is because it would have caused the seed of rebellion to ripen within the loyal angels.

Right. Because if God had allowed Satan to reap the full result of his sin, it would have appeared that God was killing him rather than that his death was the result of his sin.

 Quote:
At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.
(DA 758)


The death of Christ made clear that death is the result of sin itself, not of God’s killing the one who sins.

They did not understand Satan's accusations and needed time to watch them unfold and mature. Had our first parents resisted his initial attack it would have served to convince the loyal angels that their allegiance was not misplaced.

The quotes you are using are from “It Is Finished” which explain that the death of Christ accomplished the things you are talking about. How would the obedience of Adam and Eve have accomplished what the death of Christ accomplished?

When Adam and Eve failed, Jesus promised to disprove Satan's accusations and to confirm the faith of the loyal angels. The "last link of sympathy" the loyal angels had for the evil angels was severed when Jesus succeeded on the cross.

You seem to be equating Jesus’ victory on the cross with Adam and Eve’s success (I’m referring to the success they would have had, had they not succumbed to Satan’s temptations) How would Adam and Eve’s success accomplished what Christ accomplished at the cross.

However, if Jesus had failed, that last link of sympathy would have ripened into open rebellion, thus forcing God to destroy all FMAs.

Why do you say this? The last link of sympathy would have been broken had God destroyed Satan. That’s from “It Is Finished.”

If Jesus had failed, that would have shown that Satan’s accusations were true, and that God was selfish. Is that what you have in mind? If not, why are you thinking FMA’s would have rebelled?

Reply Quote
Re: What if Jesus had failed? [Re: Anonymous] #88227
04/25/07 04:27 AM
04/25/07 04:27 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered

Tom, the fact Deity cannot die begs the questions, What does “risk” imply?
Risk implies the possibility of loss.

What does “eternal loss” refer to?
Christ’s, as a human being, could have been eternally lost. What else could it mean?

You have not improved upon your position by insisting “risk” doesn’t imply or include death. It undermines the importance of His death.

It cannot mean physical death for quite a number of reasons. If you don’t see this, I’m very surprised.

I assume you agree that since Jesus’ “death” was inevitable whether He failed or succeeded that, according to your view, there was no risk involved, so far as death is concerned. Do you agree? You might be tempted to ignore this point, but please humor me. Thank you.

No, I don’t agree. Instead of using the word “risk,” why don’t you try writing out your question with what risk means, which is the possibility of loss. If you write out your question in this way, I think the answer to it will be obvious to you.

……………………………

“If the outcome of the given event is known to be positive, there is no risk involved.” Jesus’ death on the cross was positive, therefore, there was no risk. Right?

Let’s address what you mean by risk. When you say, “there was no risk,” what do you mean? No risk of what?

…………………………….

“If Christ had failed, He would not have been resurrected.” Are you suggesting that Deity can be entombed in a way that Jesus would have ceased to exist?

Humanity can have been entombed. Diety cannot die, so has no need to be resurrected.
………………………………

“The risk that she is speaking of has to do with failure and eternal loss. Not physical death.” You have yet to describe what you think failure and eternal loss entails.

I wasn’t asked to do so, was I? So why should I have done so?

......................
Quote:
(a) The “risk” Jesus took in volunteering to save us included at least two negative outcomes: 1) Jesus would have been banished from heaven, and 2) All created free moral agents throughout God’s vast universe would have been destroyed.

TE: Christ had to convince the Father to allow Him to come. It was a struggle for God to agree. Your assertion that Christ would have been banished from heaven had He not volunteered certainly does not agree with these points.

Read it again. I am addressing what if Jesus had failed here on earth.

You’re saying Christ would have been banished from heaven is He had failed here on earth? If that’s what you’re meaning to say, you’re using the word “banished” incorrectly. To say that Christ would have been banished from heaven implies that Jesus was in heaven. But if you are talking about Jesus’ failing while He was on earth, then He wouldn’t have been in heaven. I was assuming you were using the word “banished” correctly, which is why I interpreted what you wrote the way I did.

Are you suggesting that when Ellen White wrote, “God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss” that what she meant was “If Christ hadn’t succeeded, God would have destroyed all FMA’s”?

I’m having trouble following what you’re wishing to communicate here.


………………………………

“There's no reason for the unfallen worlds to have been destroyed had Christ not volunteered to save us. That would be unjust. They had done nothing wrong.” Please see my last post.

If Jesus had not volunteered to save us, several questions come to mind:

1. What would God have done with mankind? Would He have allowed them to live on in hopelessness until they self-destructed?

FW addresses this question, around pp. 18-21 I think (pretty sure)

2. What would God have done with the evil angels?

Allowed them time to develop the principles of their government, as DA 758 explains.

3. How would God have disproven Satan’s accusations?

We haven’t been given any light on this.

4. How would God have dealt with the link of sympathy to Satan that lingered in the minds of the loyal angels?

We haven’t been given any light on this.

Reply Quote
Re: What if Jesus had failed? [Re: Tom] #88228
04/25/07 04:32 AM
04/25/07 04:32 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered

MM, I demonstrated that you contradicted yourself. For you convenience, here are points A through B:

A.If God is 100% certain that a thing will happen, that thing is 100% certain to happen.
B.Risk means there is a chance of loss; that is, a greater than 0% chance that a given event will occur which results in loss.
C.Because God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, there was a greater than 0% chance that Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss.
D.Therefore it could not be the case that God was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure or eternal loss.

Here is your contradiction:

 Quote:
C, which you assert to be true, states "there is a greater than 0% chance that Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss."

If D. is False, as you assert, then we have the following:

i.God was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure and eternal loss.
ii.A) states "If God is 100% certain that a thing will happen, that thing is 100% certain to happen."
iii.Therefore is was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure and eternal loss.
iv.Thus the probability the Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss was exactly 0.

This contradicts C, so you have contradicted yourself, MM.


You responded to this simply “I disagree.” That’s not an adequate response.

The above argument is perfectly sound. If you disagree, you should demonstrate some fault with the argument.

Reply Quote
Re: What if Jesus had failed? [Re: Anonymous] #88242
04/25/07 03:22 PM
04/25/07 03:22 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
MM: The reason God did not punish and destroy the evil angels is because it would have caused the seed of rebellion to ripen within the loyal angels.

TE: Right. Because if God had allowed Satan to reap the full result of his sin, it would have appeared that God was killing him rather than that his death was the result of his sin. The death of Christ made clear that death is the result of sin itself, not of God’s killing the one who sins.

MM: Oh, that’s right, I forgot you believe sin, and not God or God’s glory, punishes and destroys sinners in the lake of fire. Because of our fundamental differences on this key point this aspect of the discussion is destined to be a dead end.

……………………….

MM: They did not understand Satan's accusations and needed time to watch them unfold and mature. Had our first parents resisted his initial attack it would have served to convince the loyal angels that their allegiance was not misplaced.

TE: The quotes you are using are from “It Is Finished” which explain that the death of Christ accomplished the things you are talking about. How would the obedience of Adam and Eve have accomplished what the death of Christ accomplished?

MM: If Adam and Eve had been successful, Jesus would not have died on Calvary. Are you suggesting that the evil angels would have someone accomplished what Jesus did on the cross? What other option is there?

I believe the success of Adam and Eve would have disproven Satan’s accusations. It would have proven that the law can be obeyed, that obedience produces peace and happiness, not unrest and discontentment.

It would have proven that obeying the law does not prevent us from realizing our full potential as FMAs. That’s what needed to be proven and demonstrated in order for God to punish and destroy the evil angels without causing the seeds of rebellion to arise in the hearts of unfallen beings.

………………………….

MM: However, if Jesus had failed, that last link of sympathy would have ripened into open rebellion, thus forcing God to destroy all FMAs.

TE: Why do you say this? The last link of sympathy would have been broken had God destroyed Satan. That’s from “It Is Finished.”

MM: Only if Adam and Eve had succeeded or if Jesus had succeeded. Did you mean to say, “The last link of sympathy would NOT have been broken had God destroyed Satan.”

TE: If Jesus had failed, that would have shown that Satan’s accusations were true, and that God was selfish. Is that what you have in mind? If not, why are you thinking FMA’s would have rebelled?

MM: Yes, that’s what I had in mind. “… if Jesus had failed, that last link of sympathy would have ripened into open rebellion, thus forcing God to destroy all FMAs.” Do you agree?

Reply Quote
Re: What if Jesus had failed? [Re: Mountain Man] #88247
04/25/07 05:03 PM
04/25/07 05:03 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
MM: What does “eternal loss” refer to?

TE: Christ’s, as a human being, could have been eternally lost. What else could it mean?

MM: What about His divinity? In what sense would Jesus as God have been eternally lost? What about the unfallen beings? How would Jesus’ failure have affected them? Would they have continued to serve God faithfully as if nothing had happened?

………………………….

MM: You have not improved upon your position by insisting “risk” doesn’t imply or include death. It undermines the importance of His death.

TE: It cannot mean physical death for quite a number of reasons. If you don’t see this, I’m very surprised.

MM: How can the risk of dying have nothing to do with it? The appropriate death of Jesus means everything to us and the rest of the universe. By disassociating the death of Jesus from the risk He took you are undermining His great sacrifice.

………………………….

MM: I assume you agree that since Jesus’ “death” was inevitable whether He failed or succeeded that, according to your view, there was no risk involved, so far as death is concerned. Do you agree? You might be tempted to ignore this point, but please humor me. Thank you.

TE: No, I don’t agree. Instead of using the word “risk,” why don’t you try writing out your question with what risk means, which is the possibility of loss. If you write out your question in this way, I think the answer to it will be obvious to you.

MM: My point is simple. According to your view of risk there is no risk if the outcome is known and negative. With this in mind you should be able to agree that since the death of Jesus’ humanity was inevitable there was no risk or possibility of loss. Do you? I am talking about His death as a loss, not about the resulting eternal loss. His death and His eternal loss are two different, albeit related, aspects of risk.

……………………………

MM: “If the outcome of the given event is known to be positive, there is no risk involved.” Jesus’ death on the cross was positive, therefore, there was no risk. Right?

TE: Let’s address what you mean by risk. When you say, “there was no risk,” what do you mean? No risk of what?

MM: I am basing it on your statement - “If the outcome of the given event is known to be positive, there is no risk involved.” Based on this qualification, Jesus did not take a risk. Why? Because His death on the cross was known to be positive. Nowhere does the Bible or the SOP speak of Jesus’ death as negative.

…………………………….

MM: “If Christ had failed, He would not have been resurrected.” Are you suggesting that Deity can be entombed in a way that Jesus would have ceased to exist?

TE: Humanity can have been entombed. Diety cannot die, so has no need to be resurrected.

MM: What did you mean by - “If Christ had failed, He would not have been resurrected.” What does the resurrection of Jesus as God have to do with it? Deity did not die, was not entombed, needed no resurrection. Do you agree that if Jesus had failed He would have “shed” His human body and reverted back to His pre-incarnate divine self?

………………………………

MM: “The risk that she is speaking of has to do with failure and eternal loss. Not physical death.” You have yet to describe what you think failure and eternal loss entails.

TE: I wasn’t asked to do so, was I? So why should I have done so?

MM: After all this, are you going to make me ask? Didn’t my comment imply asking you to address?

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

MM: (a) The “risk” Jesus took in volunteering to save us included at least two negative outcomes: 1) Jesus would have been banished from heaven, and 2) All created free moral agents throughout God’s vast universe would have been destroyed.

TE: Christ had to convince the Father to allow Him to come. It was a struggle for God to agree. Your assertion that Christ would have been banished from heaven had He not volunteered certainly does not agree with these points.

MM: Read it again. I am addressing what if Jesus had failed here on earth.

TE: You’re saying Christ would have been banished from heaven is He had failed here on earth? If that’s what you’re meaning to say, you’re using the word “banished” incorrectly. To say that Christ would have been banished from heaven implies that Jesus was in heaven. But if you are talking about Jesus’ failing while He was on earth, then He wouldn’t have been in heaven. I was assuming you were using the word “banished” correctly, which is why I interpreted what you wrote the way I did.

MM: Interesting. What I mean is, if Jesus had failed here on earth He would not have been allowed to return to heaven. He would have been imprisoned here. Do you agree with points 1 and 2 above?

TE: Are you suggesting that when Ellen White wrote, “God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss” that what she meant was “If Christ hadn’t succeeded, God would have destroyed all FMA’s”? I’m having trouble following what you’re wishing to communicate here.

MM: What I am attempting to communicate is that if Jesus had failed here on earth, there would been at least two negative results: 1) Jesus would not have been allowed to return to heaven, and 2) God would have been forced to eliminate (not punish) all FMAs. Do you agree?

………………………………

MM: “There's no reason for the unfallen worlds to have been destroyed had Christ not volunteered to save us. That would be unjust. They had done nothing wrong.” Please see my last post.

If Jesus had not volunteered to save us, several questions come to mind:

1. What would God have done with mankind? Would He have allowed them to live on in hopelessness until they self-destructed?

TE: FW addresses this question, around pp. 18-21 I think (pretty sure)

MM: I assume you are referring to the following quote. If this is the quote you have in mind, how does it address my point?

FW 21
And the reason why man was not annihilated was because God so loved him that He made the gift of His dear Son that He should suffer the penalty of his transgression. {FW 21.2}

…………………………….

2. What would God have done with the evil angels?

TE: Allowed them time to develop the principles of their government, as DA 758 explains.

MM: Are you suggesting that evil angels would have accomplished what Jesus did on the cross?

Reply Quote
Re: What if Jesus had failed? [Re: Anonymous] #88248
04/25/07 05:18 PM
04/25/07 05:18 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
 Originally Posted By: Anonymous
MM, I demonstrated that you contradicted yourself. For you convenience, here are points A through B:

A.If God is 100% certain that a thing will happen, that thing is 100% certain to happen.
B.Risk means there is a chance of loss; that is, a greater than 0% chance that a given event will occur which results in loss.
C.Because God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, there was a greater than 0% chance that Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss.
D.Therefore it could not be the case that God was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure or eternal loss.

Here is your contradiction:

 Quote:
C, which you assert to be true, states "there is a greater than 0% chance that Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss."

If D. is False, as you assert, then we have the following:

i.God was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure and eternal loss.
ii.A) states "If God is 100% certain that a thing will happen, that thing is 100% certain to happen."
iii.Therefore is was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure and eternal loss.
iv.Thus the probability the Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss was exactly 0.

This contradicts C, so you have contradicted yourself, MM.


You responded to this simply “I disagree.” That’s not an adequate response.

The above argument is perfectly sound. If you disagree, you should demonstrate some fault with the argument.

Tom, the risk of failure and eternal loss that Jesus took was real. No doubt about it. The fact both God and Jesus knew ahead of time that He would succeed does not in least diminish the risk Jesus took. Such knowledge is based on God's divine ability to know the future like He knows the past, and as such has no bearing on the experience as it is happening. I see no contradiction with "C" because it does not address God's ability to know the future like a rerun.

Reply Quote
Re: What if Jesus had failed? [Re: Mountain Man] #88256
04/25/07 06:33 PM
04/25/07 06:33 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
There is no contradiction with "C". C just asserts what follows from the definition of risk. You agreed that C is true.

The contradiction occurs because of your asserting that C is true while D is false. That's not logically possible, as the argument demonstrates.

The argument is sound. In order to logically disprove the argument, you would either have to argue that the premises are false, or that the reasoning from premise to conclusion is not valid.

You have done neither of these things. You have accepted the premises, A through C, but denied the conclusion, without making any attempt to demonstrate that the reasoning above is not valid.

As of now, the contradiction stands, as demonstrated, and still hasn't been addressed.

To repeat, in order to address it, you either need to show how one of the premises are not true, or show how the reasoning from premises to conclusion is not valid.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Reply Quote
Re: What if Jesus had failed? [Re: Tom] #88257
04/25/07 06:47 PM
04/25/07 06:47 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
MM: The reason God did not punish and destroy the evil angels is because it would have caused the seed of rebellion to ripen within the loyal angels.

TE: Right. Because if God had allowed Satan to reap the full result of his sin, it would have appeared that God was killing him rather than that his death was the result of his sin. The death of Christ made clear that death is the result of sin itself, not of God’s killing the one who sins.

MM: Oh, that’s right, I forgot you believe sin, and not God or God’s glory, punishes and destroys sinners in the lake of fire. Because of our fundamental differences on this key point this aspect of the discussion is destined to be a dead end.

This is a poor response. Above all, it's sarcastic. Secondly, it's wrong, and since we've already discussed this in such detail, you must know this to be the case. It's hard to believe that you could forget what my position is. How many times have I quoted DA 107 to you?

 Quote:
To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. Jacob, after his night of wrestling with the Angel, exclaimed, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Gen. 32: 30. (DA 107)


Why are you misrepresenting my position?

Another problem with your response is that it doesn't take into account the context of DA 764, which is the context of your comments and my response. It specifically says that "the glory of God, who is love, will destroy them."


……………………….

MM: They did not understand Satan's accusations and needed time to watch them unfold and mature. Had our first parents resisted his initial attack it would have served to convince the loyal angels that their allegiance was not misplaced.

TE: The quotes you are using are from “It Is Finished” which explain that the death of Christ accomplished the things you are talking about. How would the obedience of Adam and Eve have accomplished what the death of Christ accomplished?

MM: If Adam and Eve had been successful, Jesus would not have died on Calvary. Are you suggesting that the evil angels would have someone accomplished what Jesus did on the cross?

I'm not suggesting anything. I asked you a question about what you were suggesting.

What other option is there?

That you can't see another option doesn't mean that God couldn't see other options.

I believe the success of Adam and Eve would have disproven Satan’s accusations. It would have proven that the law can be obeyed, that obedience produces peace and happiness, not unrest and discontentment.

It would have proven that obeying the law does not prevent us from realizing our full potential as FMAs. That’s what needed to be proven and demonstrated in order for God to punish and destroy the evil angels without causing the seeds of rebellion to arise in the hearts of unfallen beings.

That's not what DA 764 is discussing, though.

………………………….

MM: However, if Jesus had failed, that last link of sympathy would have ripened into open rebellion, thus forcing God to destroy all FMAs.

TE: Why do you say this? The last link of sympathy would have been broken had God destroyed Satan. That’s from “It Is Finished.”

MM: Only if Adam and Eve had succeeded or if Jesus had succeeded. Did you mean to say, “The last link of sympathy would NOT have been broken had God destroyed Satan.”

No. I meant what I wrote (actually, what Ellen White wrote). She wrote that if God had allowed Satan to suffer the full result of sin, that would have resulted in an evil seed of doubt arising, because it would not have appeared that this was due to sin but rather due to God's destroying him. If God had actually destroyed him, it ceratinly would have appeared to the angels that God was destroying him, which would have resulted in an evil seed of doubt arising, as she stated. The death of Christ avoided the evil seed of doubt arising because it demonstrated, in a way that would not be misinterpreted by the holy angels, what the result of sin is.

TE: If Jesus had failed, that would have shown that Satan’s accusations were true, and that God was selfish. Is that what you have in mind? If not, why are you thinking FMA’s would have rebelled?

MM: Yes, that’s what I had in mind. “… if Jesus had failed, that last link of sympathy would have ripened into open rebellion, thus forcing God to destroy all FMAs.” Do you agree?

I agree that this MIGHT have happened. Actually, I don't this matters. If Jesus had failed, the results would have been unimaginably bad. It blows the mind to even think about it. God had sworn by Himself that Jesus would succeed.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Reply Quote
Page 22 of 26 1 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Quick Reply

Options
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
CAPTCHA Verification



Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
Third Quarter 2024 The Book of Mark
by dedication. 09/25/24 04:33 PM
Profiles Of Jesus In Zecharia
by dedication. 09/22/24 09:07 AM
Creation of the Sabbath at the Beginning.
by dedication. 09/22/24 02:05 AM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 09/11/24 05:20 PM
The Judgment of the Living
by kland. 09/10/24 06:13 PM
Fireballs in the Sky
by kland. 09/10/24 06:04 PM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 09/10/24 11:45 AM
The Gospel According To John
by dedication. 09/03/24 05:48 PM
Are All Born Saved and All Choose to be Lost?
by dedication. 09/01/24 04:02 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
The 1260 Year Prophecy & The Roman Catholic Church
by dedication. 09/26/24 06:13 PM
Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy
by dedication. 09/26/24 05:49 PM
Dr Conrad Vine Banned
by ProdigalOne. 09/23/24 12:28 PM
SDA Infiltration by Jesuits?
by kland. 09/17/24 11:30 AM
The church appears about to fall.
by dedication. 09/16/24 03:40 AM
A campaign against the church
by kland. 09/05/24 09:39 PM
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by dedication. 09/02/24 04:58 PM
Timeline of the Last Day Events
by Rick H. 08/31/24 04:28 PM
Is God letting loose the Four Winds of Strife?
by Rick H. 08/31/24 07:29 AM
Why Is Papacy Uniting COVID/Climate Change
by Rick H. 08/31/24 04:13 AM
Who is the AntiChrist? (Identifying Him)
by Rick H. 08/31/24 03:57 AM
What Does EGW Say About Ordination?
by Rick H. 08/30/24 08:22 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1