MM: Well, I was kind of hoping you would respond to the idea I presented. Do you agree the ways start on the other side of the gates and go on from there? Or, do you the ways end at the gates? The distinction might effect what we believe about the ways, whether there are two ways or many ways. Do you see what I mean?

Or if God stood outside of time and looked at the whole thing at once, if He'd always know that Saul would loose his way after becoming king, why did God make Saul king?

Hmm, thats what I would have said. Makes perfect sence if God changes His plan after circumstances change. But if God knew from before it happened that Saul would defect, why didn't God choose someone like David right away? Or if God stood outside of time and looked at the whole thing at once, if He'd always know that Saul would loose his way after becoming king, why did God make Saul king?

TV: "According to Jesus' words, quoted above, there are two general directions, lets say north and south. If Jerusalem is to the north and Babylon to the south, it would be a detour to go south if aiming at Jerusalem. However, any of the many roads leading north would do the job."

MM: We agree there are two gates and two ways. Jesus named them 1) the strait gate, and 2) the wide gate. Life begins after we enter the gate. The way beyond the wide gate is broad and full of death, whereas the way beyond the strait gate is narrow and full of life.

Matthew
7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

MM: Are you going to address this post?

TV: Is there something in that post that beggs to be adressed?

MM: Well, I was kind of hoping you would respond to the idea I presented. Do you agree the ways start on the other side of the gates and go on from there? Or, do you the ways end at the gates? The distinction might effect what we believe about the ways, whether there are two ways or many ways. Do you see what I mean?

TV: Well, my mental image of the narrow way and the broad gate comes from Bunyans Pilgrimms Progress. It all starts at the City of Destruction and ends at the pearly gates of Sion. The path can be lost but one must always resume travel on it if one hopes to reach mount Sion. One must also go past wicket gate and the mount Calvary. Any other entry on the way would be illegal.

But this is one thing, and the number of choises in daily life is another thing. There is no reason to believe that a medic who chooses between work in a US emergency hospital or with the Médecins Sans Frontières in Sudan by this choise is making a choise between the broad and the narrow way. Both the US emergency hospital and the MSF in Sudan fit perfectly within the narrow way.

Or let me put it in this way. The broad way and the narrow path applies to moral choises. Standing before the choise of murdering someone or not murdering someone, there is a right choise and a wrong choise. Or standing before the choise of commiting adultery or not, there is a right choise and a wrong choise.

But if the choises you are pondering are wether to murder by poison or by stabbing, thats not a broad way/narrow way situation. Nor is it if you are considering wether to join the fire department or the ambulance services. In the first case both options are broad way and in the second both options are narrow way.

But then we have the difficult situations. If your choise is to either kill an arson or let the arson live knowing that he will burn your house and your wife and kids to death. Which is the right choise in that situation?

Or you are in the area of a famine and you have just enough food to last for yourself until you get to areas where you can resupply and you meet a starving youth who beggs you for a bit of bread. If you give him some bread, you both starve to death later on, if you dont give him any bread, youll live knowing that you left the youth to die to save your own skin. What is the right choise?

MM: Tom, in light of what you posted above, do you still think God would have decided against creating FMAs if He had known ahead of time that they would rebel?

TE: I've said a number of times I don't believe God would create beings He knew was certain to sin.

MM: Also, in light of the following insight - "Man's repentance implies a change of mind. God's repentance implies a change of circumstances and relations." - do you still believe the phrase, "It repenteth me", means God regretted creating mankind, or that He regretted a particular decision He made?

TE: Yes. When a man repents, it is because He made some mistake, and is acknowledging the mistake. God made no mistake. He is perfect. He would have made the same decision in the same circumstances. It seems to me this is what EGW's point is. God had no change of mind regarding His decision.

This explains why I prefer to believe knows precisely how the future will play out, that He makes certain decisions in spite of knowing how they will play out, that He isn't surprised when they turn out the way they do.

TE: You're using a different basis than I use, and not a good one, I don't think, to determine that God's word is trustworthy. You are basing it, it appears to me, on the basis of His being able to see the future in a certain way, and are saying you couldn't trust Him if He didn't see the future that way. I based it on His character, and His track record revealed in Scripture, revealed in Christ, on being trustworthy.

The problem with the attitude you have is that you couldn't possibly admit you were wrong, because to do so would make God untrustworthy. That's a terrible position to put yourself in! God would still be trustworthy, even if He didn't see the future the way you think He does.

Our positions should be grounded on what they tell us about God's character, and nothing else. This idea just popped into my head, so I haven't thought about it a lot, but my initial impression is that it is correct. That is, if we took the position that all that matters is that we learn the truth about God's character, I think that would lead us to correct positions.

MM: However, it does not explain why God used words that indicate He was disappointed at how things turned out.

First of all, the fact God said He regrets how things turned out does not mean He had absolutely no idea it would turn out the way it did.

TE: No one has claimed God had "absolutely no idea" it would turn out the way it did.

MM: Even from your perspective, God knew it might turn out that way, thus, He wasn't totally surprised. Knowing ahead of time that it could go wrong means God had time to think about it, time to wrestle with strong feelings, etc.

But, in spite of these strong feelings, God chose to go through with it, with whatever decision He was dealing with at the time. Afterwards, when things did go wrong, His feelings would have intensified, would have gotten stronger.

TE: From my perspective, yes. But not for yours. From yours, God is above time, or not in time, or timeless, or beyond time (I'm not sure how you would want to express this, but you get the idea) so God's feelings would always be the same. They couldn't change, because changing feelings would mean that God is in time.

MM: It is these feelings, in this context, that God shared with His people. His feelings mean to Him what they mean to us. He felt sad and sorrowful.

TE: But no more sad and sorrowful than at any other time. You're not being consistent with your perspective here.

MM: However, given the context, the fact God knew things could go wrong, it is clear to me that His words do not mean He did not know things would turn out the way they did.

TE: I'm not following this. The fact that God knew things could go wrong does not mean He did not know things would turn out the way they did? This doesn't make any sense. Why would the fact that God knew things could go wrong imply He wouldn't know they wouldn't turn out the way they did?

MM: Thus, I cannot cite these kinds of passages, the ones where God says, "It repenteth me", and conclude it means He did not know ahead of that things would go wrong. Do you see what I mean?

TE: No, I'm not following this last part. It seems like you're arguing in a circle. It sounds like you're saying, "God knows exactly what will happen. Therefore passages that say that He doesn't can't mean what they say," which is circular, and the point I made before we even started considering the Biblical passages.

It's not possible for you to accept any Biblical passage (on this subject) that says something different than what you believe as meaning what it says. It must mean something different, because if it didn't mean something different, your presupposition would be wrong (in regards to how God sees the future).

I want to make clear what is circular here. I also have a strong conviction that God would not create a being that He knew would sin. But I don't start any argument with this as a presupposition. Therefore there's no circular reasoning. If I started an argument with, "God does not create beings He knows would sin. Therefore this passage cannot mean such and so" that would be circular.

MM: Good stuff, Thomas. Thank you. I agree with you, some choices are harder to make than others.

From what you wrote above, I take it you believe the gate is entered at the end of traveling the way. Seems to me, though, Jesus described it the other way around. That we must first choose which gate we want to enter before we can begin traveling the way. Once on that way, our choices are many.

TMK 304
A strait gate means a gate difficult to enter. {TMK 304.2}

TDG 155
We must enter in through the strait gate of self-denial, if we follow the Master. This strait, self-denying path is too narrow for many to walk in who profess godliness. {TDG 155.4}

UL 234
Gospel sanctification and transformation of soul, body, and spirit sends the feet of all such through the strait gate into the narrow way, the path cast up for the ransomed of the Lord to walk in. {UL 234.5}

5T 434
Self-love and selfish ambition cannot pass the strait gate and walk the narrow, upward way. {5T 434.3}

2T 479, 480
The agonizing ones are the only ones who will urge their passage through the strait gate and narrow way that lead to life eternal, to fullness of joy and pleasures forevermore. {2T 479.2}

As to those who will be lost, it will be demonstrated that perdition was their own choice, and that God did everything to save them. This proves to all the universe that God is love, and that those who will be lost didn't need to be lost, but chose to be lost and refused to be saved.

MM: In that post you wrote, "But God is perfect, and everything He does is wise and good." However, from your perspective, God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing they might rebel. In light of what happened, the fact they did rebel, can we say God's decision was "wise and good"? Was it a wise and good risk to take? I'm not much of a risk taker, at least not when it comes to
things that involve the health and welfare of other people, so I'm pretty sure I would not have taken the risk God did. I would not have considered it a wise or good risk.

What about you?

MM: Is that what you have been saying along, that "It repenteth me" does not mean God regretted the decision He made, or that He regretted creating mankind? I seem to remember you arguing it means God regretted His decisions.