God knows the end from the beginning....or does He?

[tall73]

You continue to ignore the issues I raised to you.

Does the bible have apparent contradictions???

If yes, could they be:
1. result of our limited understanding
2. non-consequential and non-salvational

I apply the same rules to the spirit of prophecy.

I did not duck it at all. I already responded to it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7629290-3/#post59714818

 

[tall73]

Knowing the result equals no risk?

Lets suppose you bought a lottery ticket yesterday. Then today you found out you didn't win.

What's the chance of winning for you before and at the time of purchase? Did the result make the chance of winning zero?

Absolutely not! If you had not brought the ticket, your chance of winning would have been zero. If you had brought all the tickets that covered every possible combination, your chance of winning would have been 100%.

But everything else is in between. The result has nothing to do with the probability in the process.

Furthermore, while we are doing the text proving, I'd like ask for the text where the bible says knowing the end from the beginning is the same as no risk.

Is there such a text?

Your lottery ticket is a bad example.

God knew what would happen BEFORE He "bought the ticket". Or to put it another way, if God knows the winning lotto number in advance He is going to choose the winning lotto number.

If God knew in advance that a given course of action would fail He would not take it.

If He knew in advance that it would work, the where is the risk? Unless you believe God can be wrong of course.

 

[tall73]

So you must believe Christ didn't have free choice? Can we get that out of the way? Yes or no.

Sure He did.

And BEFORE He went on His mission it would be quite clear what He would choose and that it would be successful.

And if it would not be He wouldn't go.

zero risk.

 

[tall73]

Tall,

You are attempting to show EGW's writings say God does not know the end from the beginning.

I put a couple of key words (God knows end) in the White Estate search engine. It returned 83 matches. Here are some examples that contradict what you said.

'God knows the end from the beginning. He is acquainted with the hearts of all human beings. He reads every secret of the soul. He knows whether those for whom prayer is offered would be able to endure the trials that would come upon them should they live.' ---The Ministry of Health and Healing, p. 125.2

'The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning.... Therefore redemption was not an afterthought ... but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created.' --Gods Amazing Grace, p. 129.2

But does not God know? Is there not knowledge with the Most High? Our God sees our hearts in a different light from that in which we see them. He is acquainted with our secret thoughts. He searches into the hidden recesses of our nature. He sends answers to our prayers, when we are filled with uneasiness and distress. He gives ear to our inward groanings, and reveals to us the plague spots in our characters, that we may overcome defects, instead of being overcome by them. When unknown chapters in regard to ourselves are opened before us, the test and the trial come; and the question is, whether or not we will accept the reproof and the counsel of God. Will we cling to our own ideas and plans, and value ourselves more highly than we ought? God knows better than we do what is good for his children; and if they could see their real necessity as he does, they would say that the Lord had dealt most wisely with them. The ways of the Lord are obscure to him who desires to see things in a pleasing light to himself. God can discern the end of his purpose from the beginning; but because the Lord’s ways are not man’s ways, they appear dark, severe, and painful to our human natures. But God’s ways are ways of mercy, and their end is salvation and blessedness. -- RH July 3, 1888, par. 6

Peter saw the error into which he had fallen, and immediately set about repairing the evil that had been wrought, so far as was in his power. God, who knows the end from the beginning, permitted Peter to reveal this weakness of character in order that the tried apostle might see that there was nothing in himself whereof he might boast. Even the best of men, if left to themselves, will err in judgment. God also saw that in time to come some would be so deluded as to claim for Peter and his pretended successors the exalted prerogatives that belong to God alone. --The Acts of the Apostles, p. 198.1

You try to mud the water and misinterpret what she wrote. You are saying if you knew the result, there would be no risk. But God doesn't look at the time the way you do because He is not confined to the time dimension as you and I are and He does not perceive things the way a finite man does.

And in plain language, her writings are in harmony with the bible on this subject.

Ah the old "balancing statement" explanation.

Ellen Whites two things that are opposite and it makes "balance" .

Her statements here are not the same as when she says there is risk in the other.

One shows God knows the future. The other says He does not.

 

[tall73]

It's science. 1+1=2 is not in the bible but it's still universal truth that can not disproved.

You look at space with a point of reference. You look at time with a point of reference. God live outside these dimension and yet He is at every point of reference.

It's pointless to argue with you. I've shown you in my previous post EGW's writing glorify God as the one who knows the end from the beginning. That's all it matters what it clearly says not what's interpreted.

That's the old adage: don't tell me what it means, tell me what it says.

the 1 +1 equation is demonstrable. Your take on what God's perception of time means to this question is just that--your take.

If God is outside of time then He could see all along that there was no risk. It would work, it did work, it was going to work, because It was His plan and He knew what would happen.

And it is nothing new in Ellen White debates for her to say one thing in one place then another somewhere else.

The God who in her quotes you gave now knew and carried out the plan of salvation is not the same one she pictured taking "risk" with His Son because His plan might not work.

 

[tall73]

I don't disagree and EGW's writings agree with Daniel 2. But it says the end result and the interpretation is sure, but it doesn't say there is no risk.

No risk that it might not be sure? Huh?

 

[tall73]

Let's discuss this view that since God is outside of time it somehow produces risk.


A. If God had known the end from the beginning, BUT was in time like us, then when He was about to send His Son He would know that either it would or would not work. He could see what would happen. And on that basis He would or would not send Him. There is no risk because He need only send Him if it would in fact work.

B. However, you are saying that because God is not limited to one point in time His perception is somehow LESS, and now there is risk? That makes no sense.

If He can see from all points of time it is still the same winner plan that does not fail. He would still see the plan in all its points--working, not a failure, just as He planned it. There is still no risk.

God doesn't become more subject to risk by transcending our view of time. It is almost as though you are saying by seeing more God becomes more subject to risk.

 

[Pythons]

Perhaps we could ponder this spectacle from another direction...
...By contemplating the probability of Napoleon Bonaparte leading Lucifers army.
...When it attacks the holy City subsequent to the 2nd Coming of Christ.

Ellen White
Then Jesus and the holy angels, accompanied by all the saints, again go to the City, and the bitter lamentations and wailings of the doomed wicked fill the air. Then I saw that Satan again commenced his work. He passed around among his subjects, and made the feeble and weak strong, and then he told them that he and his angels were powerful. He then pointed to the countless millions who had been raised. There were mighty warriors and kings who were well skilled in battle, and who had conquered kingdoms. And there were mighty giants, and men who were valiant, and had never lost a battle. There WAS the proud, ambitious Napoleon whose approach had caused kingdoms to tremble. There stood men of very high stature, and of dignified, lofty bearing, who had fallen in battle. They fell while thirsting to conquer. As they come forth from their graves, they resume the current of their thoughts where it ceased in death. They possess the same spirit to conquer which ruled when they fell. Satan consults with his angels, and then with those kings and conquerors and mighty men. Then he looks over the vast army and tells them that the company in the City is small and feeble, and that they can go up and take that City, and cast out its inhabitants, and possess its riches and glory themselves. Satan succeeds in deceiving them, and all immediately commence to fit themselves for battle. They construct weapons of war; for there are many skillful men in that vast army. And then with Satan at their head, the multitude move on. Kings and warriors follow close after Satan, and the multitude follow after in companies. Every company has a leader, and order is observed as they march over the broken surface of the earth to the holy City

I would be interested in hearing from Seventh-day Adventists about the percentage of probability...
...That Napoleon Bonaparte will participate in the battle of the holy City - on the side of Lucifer.
...And if the probability is 100%, what in SDA theology and Biblical process - gifts what Ellen says - OVER Scripture?

If the probability is anything less than 100% that Napoleon Bonaparte will help lead Lucifer's army...
...What does that say for the other prophetic utterances issued from the mouth of Ellen?

 

[Kira Light]

That's the first I've heard of this Napoleon vision. It is odd on many levels. Napoleon probably has no idea the weapons and armor going into this on either side. Also, it seems as though they toss any strategy out the window and just charge the city.

Meanwhile the 144k SDAs are just sitting around bored while all this is happening because they know exactly what to expect. Major spoilers for one of the best action sequences.

 

[JohnMarsten]

Perhaps we could ponder this spectacle from another direction...
...By contemplating the probability of Napoleon Bonaparte leading Lucifers army.
...When it attacks the holy City subsequent to the 2nd Coming of Christ.

Ellen White
Then Jesus and the holy angels, accompanied by all the saints, again go to the City, and the bitter lamentations and wailings of the doomed wicked fill the air. Then I saw that Satan again commenced his work. He passed around among his subjects, and made the feeble and weak strong, and then he told them that he and his angels were powerful. He then pointed to the countless millions who had been raised. There were mighty warriors and kings who were well skilled in battle, and who had conquered kingdoms. And there were mighty giants, and men who were valiant, and had never lost a battle. There WAS the proud, ambitious Napoleon whose approach had caused kingdoms to tremble. There stood men of very high stature, and of dignified, lofty bearing, who had fallen in battle. They fell while thirsting to conquer. As they come forth from their graves, they resume the current of their thoughts where it ceased in death. They possess the same spirit to conquer which ruled when they fell. Satan consults with his angels, and then with those kings and conquerors and mighty men. Then he looks over the vast army and tells them that the company in the City is small and feeble, and that they can go up and take that City, and cast out its inhabitants, and possess its riches and glory themselves. Satan succeeds in deceiving them, and all immediately commence to fit themselves for battle. They construct weapons of war; for there are many skillful men in that vast army. And then with Satan at their head, the multitude move on. Kings and warriors follow close after Satan, and the multitude follow after in companies. Every company has a leader, and order is observed as they march over the broken surface of the earth to the holy City

I would be interested in hearing from Seventh-day Adventists about the percentage of probability...
...That Napoleon Bonaparte will participate in the battle of the holy City - on the side of Lucifer.
...And if the probability is 100%, what in SDA theology and Biblical process - gifts what Ellen says - OVER Scripture?

If the probability is anything less than 100% that Napoleon Bonaparte will help lead Lucifer's army...
...What does that say for the other prophetic utterances issued from the mouth of Ellen?

I think you have made my day...

Napoleon Bonaparte, huh?

I guess Hitler will be there as well... but EGW couldnt have known him so he is not in the vision.

Who else do you think will be there?

Stalin?

Gadaffi?

Saddam?

 

[tall73]

You all didn't read a lot of EGW huh?

Pythons of course we would expect that from, since he wasn't Adventist.

 

[Pythons]

I think you have made my day...

Napoleon Bonaparte, huh?

I guess Hitler will be there as well... but EGW couldnt have known him so he is not in the vision.

Who else do you think will be there?

Stalin?

Gadaffi?

Saddam?

I'm only interested in knowing the percentage of stock SDA's give Ellen's affirmation that Napoleon...
...Will be part of Lucifer's army of darkness that marches against the holy City.
...If the average SDA accepts Ellen's prophetic utterance in this 100%.

It becomes easily demonstrated just how much power they place in this woman prophet...
...Because an equally explicit affirmation by God "about God" in the Bible.
...Is questioned.

 

[tall73]

"Gabriel, have you got those revised forecasts we asked for?"

 

[Theofane]

If Christ had free choice such as we do, there was risk involved.

Jesus did have free choice as we do, but chose to be 100% obedient to His Father. He willingly went to His death on the cross.

 

[Pythons]

Jesus did have free choice as we do, but chose to be 100% obedient to His Father. He willingly went to His death on the cross.

According to Scripture this attitude of Jesus was / is "eternal"....
...In other-words Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever ( Eternally the same ).

 

[Stryder06]

Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow = there is no change in God...
...Jesus said He ALWAYS did the will of the Father.
...And unless something is twisted so that it's said Christ is always the same UNLESS He chooses to not be the same?

It appears to be the same type of question / reasoning used to validate....
....God knows the end from the beginning in everything except IF God would be able to complete His Salvic act?

Like I've aways said Stryder - as a Catholic Christian I believe that God can do ANYTHING....
...Except NOT BE GOD.

And from my perspective an eternally annihilated dead God isn't a God anyway....
...And according to what I'm reading in the Bible a conditional God isn't a God in the first place.

All of this and you couldn't just say "Yes, Christ had the freedom of Choice." or "No, Christ did not have the freedom of choice".

Yes Jesus did the will of His Father, but that wasn't because He had no option, but because He delights to do it.

 

[Stryder06]

Jesus did have free choice as we do, but chose to be 100% obedient to His Father. He willingly went to His death on the cross.

And I completely agree. This doesn't take away the risk assoicated with free will. Free will always has risk associated with it, just by nature. If Christ had free will, like we do, then, simply by nature, there was risk involved. The risk was negligible, but it was still there.

 

[Stryder06]

Sure He did.

And BEFORE He went on His mission it would be quite clear what He would choose and that it would be successful.

And if it would not be He wouldn't go.

zero risk.

Free will has risk assoicated with it. Christ was just like Adam. Adam didn't have to sin, but he did. Christ, could have but didn't.

 

[tall73]

Free will has risk assoicated with it. Christ was just like Adam. Adam didn't have to sin, but he did. Christ, could have but didn't.

Stryder, here your view is not making sense.

I answered your question plainly. Did Jesus have free will? Yes.

Now answer my question. Did God know BEFORE JESUS WENT that Jesus would choose the right way and the plan would be successful?

Did God know what Jesus would choose?

If so then there was no risk. There was pain, there was difficulty but there was no risk because it was already known that it would be successful.

Risk is if you don't know if something will be successful but you undertake it anyway.

There was ZERO doubt on God's part that it would not be successful. Or else you admit God doesn't know the end from the beginning.

 

[tall73]

God knew every decision Jesus would make to the last detail. And He knew the OUTCOME of each decision. And the plan He knew in advance to be a success. He knew in advance that the decisions of Jesus would succeed. Therefore undertaking the plan was not risk but certainty.