Review: God of the possible

This book, written by Gregory A. Boyd, is an biblical introduction to the view that the future is partly open aswell as partly determined. There are four chapters aswell as an appendix and each chapter considers one aspect of this view. The first one considers such biblical examples which are used to support the classical view of divine foreknowledge. Examples are Isaiah 48:3-5

I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth,...

Ezekiel 26: 7-21

For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon,...

And yes, God did foreknow these events. But the question is asked, does the fact that God foreknows some things mean that He foreknows all things? The evidence in chapter two suggests that this is not the case. Boyd writes, ”For example, I am at the present time deliberating about whether or not I should travel to San Diego next month. In deliberating about this matter, I asume that it is up to me to decide,when, where, and how I will travel. How could I honestly deliberate about this decision if I didn't believe this? But notice, I also assume that much of the future is already settled and not up to me to decide. To deliberate about whether I should travel to San Diego or not, I have to assume that (among many other things) San Diego will exist next month, that the laws of physics will operate as they do today, and that I will be basically the same person then as I am now. I cannot deliberate about issues that are up to me to decide without presupposing the settledness of many other issues that are not up to me to decide.
This example illustrates that we cannot consider choices without presupposing that the future is partly open and partly settled-- the very position that the open view advocates. If we believe that all of the futre was open, we could not decide between options. If we believed that none of the futre was open, we could not decide between options. Hence, the fact that we obviously do decide between option s suggests that at some level we all assume that the future is partly open and partly closed.”

In the second chapter, Boyd presents such biblical examples which support the future being partly open. Among the examples are Genesis 6:6 and 1 Sam 13:13 where God regrets making mankind and Saul king respectively. Boyd asks, ”We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did.”
Another example is found in Isaiah 5 where the Lord expresses suprise in an analogy of a wineyard he planted. The Lord asks ”4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? ”
The appendix chapter contains many other examples, aswell as the rest of chapter two.

The third chapter explores the practical differences made by espousing the open view rather than the classical one. Boyd argues that it is more rationally coherent, increases the clarity of Gods Word aswell as positively affect our core view of who God. Boyd also argues that it places the urgency back in prayer. This because if the future is exhaustively settled, one may wonder what difference prayer does make. But if God can yet change his mind in answere to prayer, as he indeed is recorded as doing on many occations in the bible (several of the conversations between God and Moses come to mind), then prayer does make a difference. Boyd also argues that the open view brings some resolution to the problem of evil.

The fourth and last chapter gives answers to 18 common questions regarding the open view. Here, questions such as ”Why do you think God can't foreknow future free actions?”, ” Isn't Gods wisdom diminished by claiming he can't foreknow everything about the future?” and ”How can you claim that the future is partly open and partly settled? It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too”.

In conclusion, I found this book easy to read and well written. All may not agree with the conclusions made but that should not be a reason to avoid reading it if the questions it works with are interesting to you. And as Boyd points out in the foreword, this theology is peripherical and should not be allowed to come in the way of our unity in Christ.

Nice job, Thomas.

We've been having a discussion on these ideas in the foreknowledge thread. I've suggested a link to some of Dr. Boyd's writings on line, where he explains some of the concepts, but the book goes into much more detail. It's an inexpensive book, and I agree with you that, regardless of one's view, it would be worth taking a look at if one has an interest in the subject.

What Dr. Boyd writes makes perfect sense to me.

By the way, he has another book on the subject which goes into a lot more detail called, "Satan and the Problem of Evil." This is not only about foreknowledge, but is about what we, as Adventists, would call "The Great Controversy". However, he goes into a lot of detail regarding the foreknowledge question. In this book he considers the philosophical arguments in a lot more detail.

He also had another book called "God at War" which discusses the Great Controversy theme (but doesn't go into the foreknowledge question much, since he already covered it in the "Satan and the Problem of Evil" book.)

I found it interesting that some non-SDA's accuse Adventists of believing something that is not in Scripture, but just based on the writings of EGW (i.e., the Great Controversy theme), but here is a non-SDA that wrote over 1,000 pages on the theme!

I got "God at war" too and it awaits reading. I heard that Dr Boyd makes theology where Ellen made story. Both have their place and I expect them to be mutually complementary.

Having thrown an eye on the foreknowledge thread, Im not sure it has moved all that far from where it was a year ago when I participated in it. Noone can accuse you and Mike of being hasty or of lacking commitment and endurance.

Also looking into "The God who risks" right now. I understand that is presently the textbook on the subject. Lets see what I can find there.

Does Boyd's material cover God's omnipresence in relation to our time and space continuum? If so, what does he say about it?

In other words, some people believe God is not bound by our time and space continuum, that our yesterdays and tomorrows are, for God, now and always.

He sees our past happening now. He sees our tomorrow happening now. He sees our today happening now. None of which prevents Him from relating to us the way we relate to one another regarding time and space.

Time and space, as we know it, do not exist for God. He has no beginning or end. He is everywhere at the same time, and yet we will be able to climb up on His lap and snuggle close as He tells us sweet stories.

At any rate, Does Boyd address this aspect of God?

Yes, he covers it. You could look at the questions and answers portion of the book to see what he says. I don't have the book with me right now, or I could find a specific question to look at.

If you don't have any way to look at the book, I'll see if I can write something down, although it would be preferable to read what he actually said.

The "Satan and the Problem of Evil" goes into great detail about the different theories people have had. The God of the Possible doesn't go into as much detail, but still a decent amount, and the idea you are asking about is a fairly common one, so it covers it.

The following quotes are not by Boyd, but other authors who share a similar viewpoint to Boyd's.

Boyd gets into this and then he rejects it. God knows everything that there is to know, but the future does not yet exist and that which does not exist cannot be known. In the future, some things are determined, such as Gods plan for the church and the continued existance of the universe and such, and some things are not determined, which would include most everything involving choises of creatures with the power of choise. That would include humans and angles. That which is not determined is known by God as posibilities, which are perfectly known and out of which one present will chrystalize and turn into a past in time.

Question 7 in the QnA chapter is as follows:

Thanks Thomas!

I agree completely with Boyd's point (which Hasker alludes to, but Boyd is more explicit) regarding the logical inconsistencies of trying to apply principles which imply an impersonal being to a being who is actually personal.

Does Boyd analyze the examples in Scripture which provide evidence that God knows exactly how the future will play out? For instance, 1 Kings 13, where God sends a prophet to Bethel with a message against the idolatrious worship established by Jeroboam:

"And the man cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, 'O altar, altar, thus says the LORD: "Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and he shall sacrifice upon you the priests of the high places who burn incense upon you, and men’s bones shall be burned upon you"'" (v. 2).

God prophesied the name of a king and what he would do about 360 years in advance. Did God know 30 years ago if I would marry? If I would have a son? And, if so, how I would call my son? What my son would do? How then could the details mentioned in the prophecy, which of course depended entirely on human free will, be known by God almost four centuries in advance?

Yes. The first chapter of the book presents Scriptures which speak of God's view of the future as settled. That's one way of putting it. Basically texts that those advocating the traditional view would present.

Boyd's position is that the future is partially settled and partially open, and that there are texts which suggest God see the future in both of these ways. He says the traditional view throws out the open texts as being anthropomorphic, but there is nothing in the text itself to suggest this. Rather than throwing out the texts (by throw out, I mean throw out in the sense of being evidence that the future is partially open) he suggests that the future is partially settled and partially open, so both sets of Scripture apply.

It's not an either or, but both.

This isn't really doing justice to what he wrote, but that's a quick general idea.

The prophecy I mentioned could not fit in the part of the future which is settled, for its fulfillment depends entirely on human free will. How is it then classified?

My question is the same as Rosangela's. If free will limits God's ability to know how certain aspects of the future will play out ahead of time, how can He predict precisely how an unborn person will behave hundreds of years before they are born?

Boyd does analyze the example of 1 Kings 13 in the first chapter. He says as follows;



The full argument is a book long, and I think I am already starting to near the borders of acceptable quoting. Please obtain the book for further questions as to what Boyd has written.

I could never accept this as a valid view. I much prefer the view I defend. The author is saying that God restricts the free will of people, so that these people don't have a choice as to fulfilling His purposes. How can this be acceptable? How can then be said that Judas' free will wasn't also restricted so that he could fulfill the prophecy?


Does the word "foreknow" here mean God can know how the future will exactly play out if He wants to? That is, that He is able to see the future as a rerun whenever He wants to? Or is "foreknow" here just related to what He predetermines?

Well, the one view God restricts one aspect of the free will in specific cases, and in the other free will is a logical oxymoron. In Judas case the prophecy was that someone would betray Jesus. If Judas would not have done it, someone else would. We are disagreed about this, and I guess that will have to be ok. Moving on.The whole paragraph is clear I think. But to specify, God "foreknows" that which he makes come true. God "foreknows" that which he intends to do, and since he is God, he can come trough with it.

I prefer Tom's opposing argument. This other guy doesn't present a viable argument, that is, it doesn't hold water with me. God is not arbitrary like this guy proposes.

Have you read the book? No good saying an argument i viable or not unless one has acctually heard it. Then again, it is much easier to have strong oppinions about that which one does not understand.

And no, reading 4-5 paragraphs out of a book does not qualify as understanding the book.

Thanks so much, Thomas, for presenting the excerpts from the book. Are these on line somewhere? Or did you type them in yourself? If so, that's a lot of work, and much appreciated.

Rosangela, God did not restrict free will in any way. God does not do that. However, God can influence free will, and God can foresee the results of that influence.

There's a real logical problem with the idea that the future is exhaustively settled. It's really surprising to me that this isn't easily seen.

If the future is exhaustively settled, then we cannot act other than what that future holds.

Boyd presents this point very well, in the answer to one of the questions in chapter 4 I think. The last paragraph. I don't have the book with me right now, so I can't quote it, but it's at the end of the question where Boyd presents the philosophical argument involving "God's book of facts" I think he calls it. Thomas, if you can type that it, it would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise I'll do it when I get a chance.

Mike and Rosangela have already rejected that argument. But your off course free to quote it if you wish.

Ok, here it is:

"Open theists rather maintain that God can and does predetermide and foreknow whatever he wants to about the future. Indeed, God is so confident in his sovereignty, we hold, he does not need to micromanage everything." (Boyd)

Tom, do you agree with Boyd that God can know whatever He wants to know about the future, that He chooses not to know certain details, but that it doesn't mean He couldn't know them if He wanted to?

"Our future must be, at least in part, in the realm of possibilities." (Boyd)

Tom, do you agree with this statement? If so, how does it apply to the future after the GC is over? In other words, how can God say with certainty that the possibility of rebellion occurring again is zero? How can He know such a thing if having free will means the possibility of rebelling?

Maybe God through middle knowledge knows all possible choices we could make and at the same time still knows which choices we will make without actually effecting our free will choice. Of course we should reject classical theology brought about by neo-platonic thought. God is outside of time and yet clearly enters it. God is not stuck inside our cause and effect relationship. I believe since the Bible teaches both foreknowledge and free will that for God foreknowledge must be descriptive instead of prescriptive.

Boyd doesn't discuss middle knowledge in the "God of the Possible" book, but he does discuss it in detail in the "Satan and the Problem of Evil" book.

One of the points Boyd makes is that what is being disagreed is not that God has perfect foreknowledge (everyone agrees with that) but as to what the content is of the future that God perfectly sees. Under the Open View, the future is not the one single thing that actually plays out, but the sum of all the possible things that can happen.

The problem of saying that foreknowledge is descriptive (assuming this means foreknowledge of the one actual thing that will play out) is that if what will play out is known before it happens, then it is certain to occur before it happens. That is, before the FMA (a term of MM's, meaning "Free Moral Agent") makes a decision, that decision is already settled.

Here's an example to see the problem involved here. Say God wrote down in a book of facts what Aaron will do next week in "Aaron's book of facts" and published that book 11/22/63. The content in the book of facts book is just as much a part of the past as Kennedy's assassination. Aaron would have no more ability to change an event written in the book regarding Aaron's future decision than to change what happened to Kennedy.

You're misquoting him here. He does not say that God chooses not to know certain details of the future.

Please consider the subject matter that Boyd was discussing when he wrote what you quoted; that is, what point Boyd is trying to make and what question he is trying to answer.



God sees every possible future. Given that in no possible future after the judgment does an FMA sin, God can know with certainty that sin will not arise again.

Here's an example. Consider a certain chess position, where the rest of the moves can be seen until checkmate. I could say I know, for example, that White will win, even though I don't know what moves will be played. Regardless of the series of moves actually chosen, the end result will be the same.

I dont see it as a problem that God happens to know that Im about to write this sentence before I even read your comment. I dont see His knowing that as having forced me to write it. The problem is that we are looking at it as a time issue because thats how we experience it here on earth. A cause happens THEN an effect. Thus, it is assumed that God's knowledge BEFORE acts in this way, that it is somehow effective to our future decision, that it is somehow causative. But this assumes earthly concepts of time and cause and effect. Why cant Gods foreknowledge itself derive from future free decisions? What if God's knowledge is able to transcend time to make this possible? Sorry if this is off the topic of Boyds book which does sound interesting. I always liked him since I read about him in Strobel's "A Christ for Christ"

No, it's not off topic.

In the book of facts example, the problem is not that God saw what would happen, but that what decisions you will made was written in a book. The problem is not that you are forced to do something, as if there were some force outside of yourself making you think or do certain things, but there is a logical problem involved here. If the decisions that you will make in the future were written in a book at some time in the past, then you cannot change what will happen. Once again, this is a problem of logic, not one of God's knowing what will happening forcing you to do something.

Changing subjects, I've read a number of Boyd's books and liked them all. If you're interested in really getting into the subject, I'd try to find "Satan and the Problem of Evil." The book "God of the Possible," is less detailed, but easier to read, and also an excellent book.

If God knows every beings every action that will ever be taken before it has been done, then that suggests that the future is not open and that true choise does not exist. It is this view of the future that is the problem.

I have started reading another book on the topic, John Sanders "The God Who Risks". He has some interesting things to say. A good read.

First I'll compliment Tom and Vaster for the excellent presentations of Open Theism they are making. I'll just make a few comments here, though probably won't be able to come back very often on this.

Next, moving to MM's first question.... please note that the syntax of that sentence you quoted from Boyd uses an "and" to join the two verbs, "predestine and foreknow". ("God can and does predetermine and foreknow whatever he wants..."), which means that "whatever he wants" has to include both of the verbs together... not one or the other separately. Thus yes, God foreknows everything absolutely which he predestines absolutely.

And by far the vast majority of what will happen in the future God can know because he ordains and determines that it will happen. The laws of our physical universe, for example. The outcome of the "Great Controversy" for another example. The ONLY part of the future which Open Theists such as myself hold to be unknown by God is that part which He puts under the partial control of his intelligent through their exercise of the measure of free will that He has given to them.

As to your second question... one does not have to move to Open Theism for the answer to that... the standard Great Controversy theme includes the purpose and the working out of the results of God giving freedom of choice to his creatures. And one of the reasons for this is so that the lesson as to whether God is the best choice of rulers will be adequately shown so no one will ever feel the need for experimenting again. So God's promise that affliction shall not arise a second time has two bases... both of which Open Theists as well as standard GC doctrines teach... that God has determined this to be so... and that God also determined that his intelligent creatures would be allowed the freedom to make every mistake that could be made before He called "closing time". But when they have done that... at a time of God's own choosing... he will bring to an end the experimentation with sin. That is NOT the same as bringing an end to free will. What it means is that our will be completely freed from the temptor and the temptations to rebell against God. We will still be able to make meaningful choices about what we do in the endless time available to us.

Yes... the real difference between standard GC theology and Open Theism is not in the view of the future so much as it is in the nature of time itself. The Open Theist sees time as duration and sequence of events which move in a cause and effect order. Those who oppose Open Theism usually have a concept of time that makes it into a static "thing"... thus making possible such esoteric sci fi excapades as "time travel"... and putting some very severe limitations on both God and his creatures who are said to have "free will" but in fact are locked into the static "time grid".

The books mentioned here have all been very good. Boyd is especially good for introducing the concepts in an easily readable form in relatively few pages. Another introductory book, which is of special interest to SDAs because one of the five authors is Richard Rice (an SDA theologian and biblical scholar), is _The Openness of God_, edited by Clark Pinnock.

For an indepth treatment of the subject from all angles... biblical, historical, theological, philosophical... however, the book that you mention by John Sanders is certainly one of the best... maybe THE best. The thing that makes it so good... the depth and breadth of its comprehensiveness... as might be expected also makes it a much slower read than Boyd. And one really needs to keep a marker in the endnotes section, for he includes much information there that is best to read along with the main text.

Tom,

First, it’s not this that Boyd says. I’ll quote him again:

“This decree obviously set strict parameters around the freedom of the parents in naming these individuals (see also Luke 1:11-23). It also restricted the scope of freedom these individuals could exercise as it pertained to particular foreordained activities.”

Second, if God could influence free will without being accused by Satan, He would have done so in Adam and Eve’s case.

Besides, almost four centuries in advance God couldn’t even dream who was the person He was speaking about. How could He foresee the results of His “influence” on someone He didn’t even know?

The idea that God can now know FMAs will not rebel in future because the outcome of the GC convinces them He is trustworthy, begs the question - Was the GC necessary? Why didn't FMAs, before the GC, chose not to rebel?

It also begs the question - If angels, before rebelling, were already convinced of God's trustworthiness (to the point there was nothing God to do save them when they rebelled) why did they rebel? That is, if believing God is trustworthy is what it takes for God to know FMAs will not choose to rebel, why didn't it work for Him in the beginning? Why didn't it prevent the angels from rebelling?

DA 761, 762
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. {DA 761.5}

Maybe you did not see the presented idea that in adition to Gods trustworthiness, the worthlessness of the alternative is what the GC is exploring. Gods trustworthiness could be known before. The true character of the alternative can only be known after.

Thanks for your compliment, wb, and also for your contributions.

I don't agree with your statement here, although this is rather insignificant to the overall context of the discussion taking place here. But I decided I'd still mention it, because I had an insight about this idea I like, that I thought you might appreciate, if you haven't thought of this before.

If you consider the behavior of subatomic particles, these particles are described by laws of probability. The idea physicists have is that this is the way the particles actually work; it's not a matter of not having enough information or not knowing enough about physics. That is, if you asked God what a certain particle would do, He would reply the same way as the physicist, that it has an x% chance of doing this, a y% chance of doing that, and so forth.

Now consider chaos theory. In chaos theory, a very small happening can have huge repercussions. For example, a puff of wind comes up at just the right time, which gives more force to a building system, which eventually turns into a hurricane. The ol' butterfly flaps its wings idea.

There's lots of chaos ideas like this. For example, the way a fire burns or moves.

The old physics ideas were deterministic. The idea was if we just had enough information, we could determine exactly what will happen. But now it appears that things are not that way. There is a lot of uncertainty and spontaneity built into many physical systems, it appears.

I find the idea that God created a universe that could be spontaneous and not determined, even at the inanimate level, to be very appealing.

One more example. Consider animals. Do animals have free will? Of course not, in the sense of making moral decisions. However, an animal can choose to eat this leaf instead of that leaf. I'm not so sure that there are deterministic reasons for all these types of events.

The upshot of all of this is I think that God loves spontaneity, and I suspect that the unsettledness of the future may be much more pervasive than is commonly supposed.

I'm virtually positive that Boyd would agree with what I wrote. If he weren't so busy, I'd ask him. You'll notice in what you quoted from him, he is choosing his language carefully.



God influences free will all the time. Surely you agree with that. When the Holy Spirit moves upon our hearts and minds, this is exactly what is being done.

Also choosing someone's name is not a moral decision. I don't think Satan's accusation that God unduly influenced some parents to give their child a certain name would carry much weight with anyone.



I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Let's take the case of Cyrus, as this will work for other similar cases. God knew things would be right for the Persian empire to develop into the power it would become. It wouldn't take the intelligence of God to figure this out. God knew this empire would want to expand in certain directions. He knew it would have a leader. When things got close to happening, the possible leaders that God foresaw could become the leaders whittled down to where God knew it would be Cyrus. God influenced the parents to name their child Cyrus.

Similar scenarios can explain other similar events.

Do you agree with what he wrote?


Under your view He can’t know the result of this influence, since accepting or rejecting it is a matter of free will.


Of course you know that the prophecy includes much more than that. God is saying, almost 400 years beforehand, that a specific king from Judah would profane an idolatrous altar in Israel, burning human bones on it. Showing zeal for the Lord and indignation against idolatry certainly is a moral decision. Besides, extending one’s efforts beyond one’s territory is certainly something very unusual. No king has ever done that. Remarkable details for God simply to have guessed almost four centuries in advance.


First, how did God know that pagan parents would respond positively to His influence? Second, does God really need to “set strict parameters around the freedom of the parents in naming these individuals” just to fulfill a prophecy? God knows what will happen; He doesn’t need to restrict the freedom of anyone in any sense just to fulfill a prophecy.

It is sometimes said that the first thing to do for successfully argue a case that is contested is to understand the other argument. Making up strawmen and keeping to them stubbornly in the face of being told they are not true will not help with that. And if you do not wish to understand my/our point of view, maybe you could say so and we would all save time to be used in more fruitfull ways.
So, all of us arguing for Open Theism have said that guessing is not part of Gods prophecies. Yet you cling to claiming it. Why?
Also, who is it that would have extended his efforts beyonds his territory? God who made the prophecy and caused a child to be named Cyrus? Are you saying that there is a place somewhere around that is outside of Gods territory?
And since when would it be unusual for a king to extend his efforts outside his territory? Every king in the history of the world with a desire to increase his territory has done so.
This is true, if the future is of such a kind that it can be perfectly known, the God doesnt need to restrict anyones freedom. In fact, if this is the character of the future, God could not restrict anyones freedom even if He would want to (unless of course He already foreknows that He would do so, in which case He cannot not restrict the freedom).

I guess an observation of what we get if we join the book of Jonah with Ezekiels 18th chapter, and then especially from verse 21 and forward, would be interesting. But I also dont think it would be accepted by critics of OT.

Because for God to predict something which depends on free will almost 400 years in advance can only be an act of guessing. The alternative is that God forced people to fulfill the details of the prophecy.


Thomas,

Wise up! You are mixing things. Have you read what I said? You quoted me as saying:

"God is saying, almost 400 years beforehand, that a specific king from Judah would profane an idolatrous altar in Israel, burning human bones on it."

Nobody is speaking about Cyrus in this paragraph. I just mentioned Cyrus in the next paragraph because Tom introduced him into his argument. I'm speaking about 1 Kings 13, and there is no mention, besides this one, of the interference of a king of the south, Judah, in the idolatry of the kingdom of the north, Israel. That's why I said he extended his efforts against idolatry beyond his territory, something completely unusual.

Rosangela, surely you are not suggesting that Gods sovereignity is of such a kind that God could not name a human if and when He so chooses? I didnt know you to be limmiting God.
Hmm, it seems I did mix things here.
Anyhow, you now write that "there is no mention, besides this one, of the interference of a king of the south, Judah, in the idolatry of the kingdom of the north, Israel." Neither is this one an example of such interferance. The last king of Israel, Hosea, was hauled off to whereever the assyrians banished Israel in 723 BC, whereas Josia ruled Juda from 640 BC and 31 years after that. Whatever nation ruled over those altarhills in Josias time, it was not Israel.

Thomas,

You will notice that Tom’s point had been similar to that. He had said: “Also choosing someone's name is not a moral decision.”

To which I had replied:
“Of course you know that the prophecy includes much more than that. ... Showing zeal for the Lord and indignation against idolatry certainly is a moral decision.”

So, my point was that the prophecy involved actions against idolatry, which of course involve moral decisions - involve free will.

I would also ask, How could God know four centuries beforehand that someone would choose to profane that idolatrous altar and burn the bones of the idolatrous priests on it (instead of just breaking the altar in pieces, for instance)? How could God know, just before the child was born, that that child would choose to follow Him, and that he was the child who would profane the altar burning bones on it, so that the name Josiah could be given to him?


That’s precisely the point. This interference at other times would have been impossible. When the prophecy was made, centuries before, God would have to have a knowledge of the local context at the time of its fulfillment. God would have to know that a king of Judah would be able to do what at other times couldn’t have been done without precipitating a crisis – entering the territory of Israel and profaning one of its most venerated altars. God would have to know that a king of Judah would bother to do that – profaning an altar beyond the confines of his borders. God would have to know that, at a time near the end of the kingdom of Judah itself, when idolatry was rampant, there would arise a king whose zeal for God and indignation against idolatry would lead him to do exactly that.

I agree with what I'm quite sure he meant. I might not have worded it the same way.




No, this isn't true. Under my view, God *might* not know the result of His influence, not can't. It depends upon how the individual might respond.

Here's a simple example. Say you are offered vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry ice cream. You hate vanilla and chocolate, but love strawberry. It's easy to foresee that given these choices, you will opt for strawberry. However, maybe you like cherry just as well as strawberry. In this circumstance, you're future decision might not be known.

So depending on the circumstances, how an individual may respond to God's influence could be known with certainty.



As I said, I didn't look to see what exactly was being referenced. I laid out the general principles that could be used.



Whether parameters would need to be set (this expression is a bit ambiguous, I think) would depend on the parents. Some parents would for sure name their child in a certain way, after the father, or some other relative, or something like that. For others, their choice would be more fluid, so it would depend upon the situation as to what influence God might need to use.

If God knew who the parents were going to be, it seems to me that it would be easy for Him to know how a given set of parents could respond to a specific situation.

One of the points of the book is that certain aspects of the future are certain, or settled, and others not. In the first chapter of the book, he goes throw texts which give weight to this first point. In the second chapter he discusses texts which indicate the future is not settled (such as God's regretting a decision, speaking of the future being maybe this or maybe that, God's changing His mind regarding a decision, things like that).

His point is that both sets of texts are true.

If I already exist and God knows me. Of course, under your perspective, this is impossible to know almost 400 years before my existence.


How could God know who the parents of Cyrus would be 200 years in advance?

So you and Tom were talking about two different prophecies?After the zealous rampage Josia had had in Juda with the remains of idolatry there, it wouldnt have taken a very large nudge by God to get Josia to burn bones on the altar. In fact, as the text reads, Josia saw graves on the site and acted on impulse to burn the bones on the altar.
How God could know that Josia would be a godly king in the first place is the better question. But when one sees his history up to that point, with rebellion against his father and Josia being made king at an early age, Gods providential action to make sure Josia was tutored by men who led him on the right paths can be an explanation.Remember that this is not a case of God knowing everything about the future or God knowing nothing about the future. Even humans have invented methods for predicting the actions of large groups of people. The arts of advertisement and crowd controll are based on such methods. While they cannot predict that any single individual will buy Aunt Ann's Apple Sauce, they can predict that with the right adds, 35% of all who see the adds will buy it.

Therefore, the GC was necessasry, right? Without it, God cannot guarantee FMAs will never rebel again, right?

Thats the general idea, is it not?

The same one, but he was focusing just on the aspect of the name of the person, while I was focusing on the aspects which depended on the free will of the person.


So the basic difference between your view and mine, in what respects prophecies, is that mine emphasizes God’s knowledge of how the future will play out, while yours emphasizes God’s power to make the future play out in the way He said it would. The problem I see with this, even considering that God influences free will instead of forcing it, is that, logically, the same must be applied both for good and for bad actions. For instance, David, almost 1,000 years before the fact, says that an intimate friend of the Messiah would betray Him. How did this happen?

So depending on the circumstances, how an individual may respond to God's influence could be known with certainty.

If I already exist and God knows me. Of course, under your perspective, this is impossible to know almost 400 years before my existence.

God would certainly know of your possible existence. By the way, I looked up Boyd's comments on 1 King 13. I found it as a footnote in "Satan and the Problem of Evil." I'm not sure if it's the "God of the Possible" book. Unfortunately, I've slept since I read it, so I can't remember the wording he used. But the general idea is that God foresaw what the result of His influence would be. He also makes the point that it's a big jump to go from God's knowing that the outcome of one specific event will be to concluding that all future history is already settled.



Quote:
If God knew who the parents were going to be, it seems to me that it would be easy for Him to know how a given set of parents could respond to a specific situation.

How could God know who the parents of Cyrus would be 200 years in advance?

God would have known all the possible parents of the leader who would become Cyrus would be, and how each set of possible parents would react to God's influence.

Thomas' point about knowing how a group will react without knowing who the specific individuals will be to take the given action is an important point, and finds application to many situations. It makes it possible, for example, to be certain how chemical actions will behave, without knowing what specific sub-atomic particles will behave. Also many chaotic systems can be understood in this way (i.e., what will generally happen when water is brought to a boil, although not the specific "whirls" if that's the right term; lots of examples of this can be given.)

In the Josiah case, for example, Thomas' point is correct. The real question is how God knew there would be a godly king. That's the most challenging part. Once you have a godly king, then, of course, a person under the guidance of the Holy Spirit will do whatever God wants.

Well, that would be the basic difference in regards to the symptoms. The real difference of course is our different views of what time is and what the future is.
If Judas would have choosen not to betray Jesus, someone else would have done it instead. Jesus had no lack of enemies nor of "friends" with ulterior motives. This can be seen with the crowd wanting to crown Jesus king on the Jerusalem road, hoping for a military hero to throw out the Romans from Israel and restoring the kingdom in that way.

Parts of the sermon I posted here http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92964#Post9296
illustrates the differences in our views of reality and other things.

It had to be someone from Christ's inner circle of friends, for the prophecy says: "Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me" (Ps 41:9).
How would God make the future to play out in the way He had said it would? By influencing the person to betray Christ, or in what other way?

Even if God knows of the possible existence of every future person in the world (in fact this does not make sense), He has no way of knowing how each person will respond to His influence. He can only have an idea about this if the person is alive and He knows the person, but He can have no idea about how a person who still doesn't exist will respond to His influence. After all, if He had any idea about this He wouldn't have created Lucifer nor Adam and Eve, would He?

MM: I do not believe the GC was "necessary" in order for God to be able to guarantee FMAs will never rebel again. Instead, I believe GC was inevitable because God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing some of them were going to rebel.

Even if we agree with Tom Ewall, that is, if we believe God chose to create FMAs knowing they might rebel but hoping they wouldn't, we are forced to conclude God thought the risk was worth it, that even if FMAs chose to rebel He would deal with it. He would implement the plan of salvation, eventually win the GC, and in the end the remaining FMAs will live happily ever after.

But to say the GC was "necessary" is drawing conclusions that misrepresent the character of God. Why FMAs chose to rebel is unexplainable. It is mysterious. God foresaw it (my perspective) or He foresaw it as a possibility (Tom's perspective), either way God chose to create FMAs and ended up having to deal with the GC. But the GC was not "necessary" in order to safeguard the future.

Do you agree?

R: After all, if He had any idea about this [how a person who still doesn't exist will respond to His influence] He wouldn't have created Lucifer nor Adam and Eve, would He?

MM: Good question, Rosangela.

Even if God knows of the possible existence of every future person in the world (in fact this does not make sense),

Sure it makes sense. If you have married someone else, and had children with that other person, God would know what those children would have been like. Why not?

He has no way of knowing how each person will respond to His influence. He can only have an idea about this if the person is alive and He knows the person, but He can have no idea about how a person who still doesn't exist will respond to His influence.

This doesn't make any sense. Of course God can know how a person will respond to His influence without the person existing.

Look at the resurrection for example. There's a whole group of people that do not yet exist, yet God knows how they will respond.

Why should a person have to exist in order for God to know something about that person? God knows all contingencies as well as if they were a reality. He sees any possible thing that can happen just as clearly as what is actually happening or has already happened.

After all, if He had any idea about this He wouldn't have created Lucifer nor Adam and Eve, would He?

First of all, there's no reason to assume that God had "no idea" how a creature He was going to create would respond to His influence. Just because God does not know exactly, specifically what a person will do in each and every decision that a person will ever make does not mean that God has "no idea" what a person will do in a specific circumstance. This is terrible logic.

Secondly, actually I guess there is no secondly. Your whole argument here falls apart because the hypothesis that God has "no idea" what the response to His influence will be has no foundation.

Butting in here, I agree from my perspective, but not from yours. From my perspective, it is possible (even likely) that FMAs could not sin. If FMAs had not sinned, I believe God could have safeguarded the universe in some other way than the Great Controversy (since there wouldn't have been any controversy).

However, from your perspective, sin was inevitable, and since the Great Controversy is the only way to resolve the sin problem, it was inevitable too, and therefore the only way to safeguard the future.

MM: Tom, you are assuming God was forced to implement the plan of salvation, as if there were no other options. In truth, though, He could have chosen, from your perspective, to allow A&E to suffer the immediate consequences of sinning - instant and eternal death. Thus, the GC was not necessary. He would have disproven Satan's accusations in some other way.

MM: Tom, if God can know precisely how certain beings will, hundreds of years before they exist, respond to His influence under certain circumstances, why can't He know it under all circumstances? What is the thing that prevents Him from knowing everything about everyone?

And, since, from your perspective, He knew there was a chance Lucifer and A&E would sin, why did He choose to create them? Why didn't He just leave them uncreated?

DA 22
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. {DA 22.2}

I dont know what way. However, considering that the option is that Judas would have been damned from his mothers womb (simmilar to Jeremiah being chosen as Gods prophet from his mothers womb), that simply does not fit with the God I see in the bible. God do not wish for anyones destruction. Judas always had a choise not to betray Jesus. A real choise which means that until the moment when he kissed Jesus in the garden, he could have ended his life not having betrayed Jesus. Maybe as did ten of the other diciples, through a persecution against the apostles or something.

It makes no less sence than having God sitting outside of time looking at it all in one eternal now. Like a frozen air bubble in a pice of ice.

There is a context to my sentence that you have missed here. What I agreed the GC was necessary for was the prevention of the reappearance of sin. Not until we had started exploring the alternative to Gods leadership were we forced to complete the investigation. If sin had never raised its ugly head, then of course no GC would ever have been needed. But now sin did happen and we are daily suffering for it. We are daily learning the futility of the ways opposed to Gods ways. We will remember for eternity. Yes, words to remember.

The Plan of Salvation was the only way to save man. I've not said other than this. I was explaining how, from your perspective, the GC was inevitable. That should be pretty easy for you to see, since you don't believe God has options.

Because sometimes decisions are uncertain while other times they aren't. For example, God could know that you would prefer strawberry to vanilla in a certain instance (because you always do this) but not that you will navy blue to black (because sometimes you do one, and sometimes the other).



Nothing. God does know everything about everyone.



Why are you asking this? If you are going to ask a question again which you've already asked several times before, and has been answered several times, please explain why you are reasking the question. Before knowing why you're asking this again, I'll just say my answer is the same as it was the other times.

Regarding the topic, it occurs to me that the idea that God doesn't have options is anti-freedom. I'll explain.

If God has no options, then the more we become like God, the fewer options we will have, until, when we become just like Him, we won't have any. This seems to be in harmony with Satan's arguments, which is that serving God is constricting while sin leads to freedom. I believe this is exactly backwards.

Beings that have greater power and greater intelligence have more freedom, more options, than beings with less power and less intelligence. Sin restricts a persons options and freedom. True freedom is to be found in the service of God. As we become more like Him, our options will increase, not decrease.

You know very well what I mean, and you did not answer my question. If God knows how someone will respond to His influence, how come He didn’t know that Lucifer and that Adam and Eve would respond negatively to His influence?

TV: If sin had never raised its ugly head, then of course no GC would ever have been needed.

MM: Amen!

TV: But now sin did happen and we are daily suffering for it. We are daily learning the futility of the ways opposed to Gods ways. We will remember for eternity.

MM: Amen!

---

MM: Thomas, there was something else I had in mind. At one point I wrote, "I do not believe the GC was 'necessary' in order for God to be able to guarantee FMAs will never rebel again." Of course, in the end, the GC will contribute to this effect.

However, it doesn't explain how or why God can know such a thing about the future, about eternity beyond the end of the GC. What is it about God that enables Him to look into infinity and know FMAs will never rebel again?

Neither does it explain why equivalent knowledge of God's character (according to Tom Ewall) did not prevent Lucifer and one-third of the angels from rebelling. Why not? What was it about God that prevented Him from knowing certain FMAs would rebel within a relatively short period of time?

---

MM: I also wrote, "Why FMAs chose to rebel is unexplainable. It is mysterious. If God foresaw it (my perspective) or even if He foresaw it as a possibility (Tom's perspective), either way God chose to create FMAs and ended up having to deal with the GC."

Why do you think God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing they would rebel or in spite of knowing they might rebel? Either way, why didn't He simply opt not to create them in the first place?

TE: The Plan of Salvation was the only way to save man.

MM: Tom, you seem to be saying God didn't have options. That "the" plan of salvation, as we know it, was God's only option. Is that what you're saying, that God didn't have any options?

From my perspective, however, there was at least a second option, albeit a theoretical one. God could have chosen not to implement the plan of salvation. He could have allowed A&E to die eternally the instant they chose to sin.

Then God would have been forced to disprove Satan's accusations some other way, that is, if He didn't want the loyal angels to serve Him out of fear only to eventually rebel. Of course, theoretically, He could have opted to just eliminate all FMAs and either leave it at that or start all over again with a fresh batch of FMAs.

MM: How can He know what we always do under certain circumstances hundreds of years before we are born? If He can know it about some things hundred of years before we are born, why can't He know it about all things hundreds of years before we are born?

By way, how far back does this go? Did God know these things about everyone dating back to eternity past? Or, is there a limit to how far back God can know these things? I seem to recall you saying there is no limit, that God has always known these things. So, please forgive me for asking it again.


MM: If God knows "everything" about everyone before they are born, why, then, do you insist there are certain things about people He cannot know ahead of time?


MM: I'm sorry for asking the same question again without explaining why. I used to think you thought God knew rebel might happen but that He didn't know ahead of time which FMAs would choose to rebel. Now it seems like you're saying God knows some things about everyone before they were created or born.

With this in mind, I would like know if you think God knew ahead of time that Lucifer and A&E were going to rebel? If so, why didn't He simply leave them uncreated?

If not, then why not? That is, if God didn't know they were going to rebel, why didn't He know? Since He knows perfect and sinless beings will not rebel in the future, why couldn't He know perfect and sinless beings were going to rebel in the beginning?

MM: That God had options is clear from the fact He created several different species of FMAs. But when it came to creating human beings God's options were two, 1) To create them and deal with the GC, and 2) Not to create them and not deal with the GC. I realize you believe there was at least one other option, namely, To create them knowing they might rebel but hopping they wouldn't.

And when it came to redeeming mankind after he rebelled I assume we both agree God's options were two, 1) Implement the plan of salvation, and 2) Not implement the plan of salvation. Or, do you believe there were other options? If so, what might they be?

Of course, I believe there was only one legitimate, viable option available to God. All options, other than the one God chose to go with, were only theoretical. Why? Because God is perfect, omnipresent, and omniscient. He can only do that which is right and best and perfect, and by virtue of the definition of "right and best and perfect" there can be only one right and best and perfect way.

The Holy Spirit appealed to Judas’ heart, as He appeals to yours. Jesus washed his feet to lead him to repentance. He always had a real choice. But he chose to resist God’s Spirit and reject salvation. The fact that God knew this beforehand didn’t deter Him from doing everything possible to save Judas. And it’s this that makes Judas’ choice inexcusable.
What does not fit with the God I see in the Bible is that He had to ensure that someone would betray Christ just to fulfill a prophecy.


I read an anology the other day, and found it interesting.
Say that human history is like watching a parade. We, finite people, sit and watch. What is in front of us is the present, what has already gone by is the past and the tail end of the parade is the future. So, we see in past, present and future.
God, however (remember, this is only an analogy), is watching the parade from a helicopter. He sees the whole parade - there is no past, present or future.

There is no theory that does not have its problems. I think the Open Theism describes reality better than does the other theory, despite of not being able to explain everything.

Its one of the mysteries of our faith. Together with the trinity, the incarnation, the creation is something we do not understand but believe explains reality non the less.

First of all, I quoted from "The Desire of Ages," a wonderful book, but one I cannot claim credit for having written.



This is what I have quoted.

Secondly, I've never said this is equivalent knowledge. I've pointed out that circumstances are different after the Great Controversy than before. God's character was revealed in a way it hadn't been before.

Thirdly, there was nothing about God from knowing what future decision a created being with free will would make. That's simply the way the future is. It is not comprised of the one thing that will happen, but of every possible thing that can happen, all of which God sees. Which future takes places depends upon decisions of FMAs which have not been made yet. When the decisions are made, then one of the possible futures becomes a reality.

To go from the idea that not every decision that an FMA will make is settled to God has "no idea" what will happen is quite a stretch.

In some circumstances God knows how someone will respond to His influence, or to the influence of others. The fact that some decisions can be predicted ahead of time with certainty does not mean that all can. For example, I may be able to say with certainty that you will choose strawberry over vanilla or chocolate, but not know if you would choose strawberry over cherry.

TE: The Plan of Salvation was the only way to save man.

MM: Tom, you seem to be saying God didn't have options. That "the" plan of salvation, as we know it, was God's only option. Is that what you're saying, that God didn't have any options?

Of course God had options.

From my perspective, however, there was at least a second option, albeit a theoretical one. God could have chosen not to implement the plan of salvation. He could have allowed A&E to die eternally the instant they chose to sin.

Right, that was an option. What I said was the Plan of Salvation was the only way to save man, something I'm sure you agree with.

Then God would have been forced to disprove Satan's accusations some other way, that is, if He didn't want the loyal angels to serve Him out of fear only to eventually rebel. Of course, theoretically, He could have opted to just eliminate all FMAs and either leave it at that or start all over again with a fresh batch of FMAs.

You are correct here in pointing out that God had options.

MM: How can He know what we always do under certain circumstances hundreds of years before we are born?

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at here. God sees every possible future, as I've explained many times. Why doesn't that answer your question?

If He can know it about some things hundred of years before we are born, why can't He know it about all things hundreds of years before we are born?

God does know all things hundreds of years before we are born. God has always known all things.

By way, how far back does this go? Did God know these things about everyone dating back to eternity past? Or, is there a limit to how far back God can know these things? I seem to recall you saying there is no limit, that God has always known these things. So, please forgive me for askig it again.

Yes, you asked this before. You're forgiven.

There's no time limit. How could there be? God doesn't age and become more forgetful. How could there be a time limit? Like God could remember 10 years, but not 11? I'm not understanding how you could think your question makes sense. (Perhaps I've misunderstood it(?))


Quote:
What is the thing that prevents Him from knowing everything about everyone?

TE: Nothing. God does know everything about everyone.

MM: If God knows "everything" about everyone before they are born, why, then, do you insist there are certain things about people He cannot know ahead of time?

I'm "insisting" that God knows the future as it is, which is comprised of things which are settled and things which are not settled. This line of questioning would be like if I kept asking you if God was all powerful. You say yes. I say, "so He can do anything?" and you say "yes." So I ask you, "Can He make a square trinangle? Can He make a rock so big He can't lift it? You're doing the equivalent here.

The mistake you are making is in framing the issue as if it had something to do with God. It doesn't. The issue involved regards the nature of the future.

Quote:
MM: And, since, from your perspective, He knew there was a chance Lucifer and A&E would sin, why did He choose to create them? Why didn't He just leave them uncreated?

TE: Why are you asking this? If you are going to ask a question again which you've already asked several times before, and has been answered several times, please explain why you are reasking the question. Before knowing why you're asking this again, I'll just say my answer is the same as it was the other times.

Quote:
Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. (COL 196)

MM: I'm sorry for asking the same question again without explaining why. I used to think you thought God knew rebel might happen but that He didn't know ahead of time which FMAs would choose to rebel. Now it seems like you're saying God knows some things about everyone before they were created or born.

The future is comprised of everything that can possibly happen. God sees all of this. As time goes on, the possibilities become realities as FMAs make choices.

With this in mind, I would like know if you think God knew ahead of time that Lucifer and A&E were going to rebel? If so, why didn't He simply leave them uncreated?

I've said many times that I believe that while sin was possible, it wasn't likely. God saw the possibility of man, and other creatures, sinning.

If not, then why not? That is, if God didn't know they were going to rebel, why didn't He know?

Why should He know? If God knew man would rebel, that would mean there was some reason why it should happen. That would mean that there would be an explanation for the existence of sin.

Since He knows perfect and sinless beings will not rebel in the future, why couldn't He know perfect and sinless beings were going to rebel in the beginning?

He knew of the possibility.

MM: That God had options is clear from the fact He created several different species of FMAs.

Right! It is clear that God had options.

But when it came to creating human beings God's options were two, 1) To create them and deal with the GC, and 2) Not to create them and not deal with the GC. I realize you believe there was at least one other option, namely, To create them knowing they might rebel but hopping they wouldn't.

What? God would hop? I haven't used the word "hope." I've used the word "expect," which is a better word, as well as being Scriptural. (e.g. Isa. 5)

From your perspective, I would add the possibility of creating as the first humans beings that God foresaw would not sin. Or do you think that any human being that God could possibly have created would sin?


And when it came to redeeming mankind after he rebelled I assume we both agree God's options were two, 1) Implement the plan of salvation, and 2) Not implement the plan of salvation. Or, do you believe there were other options? If so, what might they be?

The Plan of Salvation was the only way to save man.

Of course, I believe there was only one legitimate, viable option available to God. All options, other than the one God chose to go with, were only theoretical. Why? Because God is perfect, omnipresent, and omniscient. He can only do that which is right and best and perfect, and by virtue of the definition of "right and best and perfect" there can be only one right and best and perfect way.

First of all, there is no reason to believe that a perfect being only has one option available. This is just an assumption, and you have produced no evidence whatsoever why this should be true.

Secondly, you are contradicting what you yourself wrote in this very post! You just wrote above that God had options, which is "clearly seen" in that He created different types of FMAs. You're right! God has options.

Judas, if your perspective were true, would not have had a choice which could actually be made. This is easily seen from the following:

A.If God knows something is certain to happen, then it is certain to happen.
B.God knew Judas would not repent, so it was certain that Judas would not repent.

So Judas did not have a "real" choice in the sense of a choice that could actually be made, or, to say it another way, it is logically impossible that Judas could have chosen not to repent.

It's not that God's knowledge of what would happen forces Judas to make a certain decision, but making this assumption leads to the logical conclusion that Judas could not make the decision. It's a problem of logic, not of God's causing something to happen.

There are other logical arguments that can be made in regards to why libertarian free will and the future being settled (which God's having exhaustive definite foreknowledge implies) is concerned, but this is the easiest one to follow, I think, so I'll just present this one.

I think it's tempting to reason along the lines of Judas could have chosen to repent, and in that case, God would have foreseen that. However, the problem with this line of reasoning is that what is known about Judas' decision occurs *before* Judas makes the decision.

Where, in the definition of free will, is it said that free will is tied to someone's (anyone's) knowledge? If I know beforehand what my choice will be, does this mean I don't have free will?

Free will is tied to the ability to choose between options. The logic runs like this:

a)If God knows with certainty something as of a certain time something will happen (or not happen), then it will certainly happen (or not happen)
b)It is known, or certain, as of this certain time that the given event will not happen.

Let's stop here a second. b) is the problem, not a).

It doesn't matter why b) is true. Given that b) is true, an event different than what is certain to happen logically cannot happen.

It's not an epistemological problem, but an ontological one.

Let's consider a specific example. As of 20 B. C., we will assume that God knew that Judas would not repent. ( this is a) from above). Therefore, as of 20 B. C. it was known, or certain, that Judas would not repent ( b) from above).

This is the problem. If it is certain that Judas will not repent for whatever reason (that the reason is because God knows this is what will happen is irrelevant; God can be taken out of the equation here. All that matters is that it is certain, as of 20 B. C., that Judas will not repent), then Judas does not have the option available to him of not repenting, because it is not possible to do something which cannot happen.

Again, the problem is not epistemological, but ontological.

Thomas, does this answer explain my view as well as yours?

1. Yes, I realize you base this particular insight on the DA quote.

2. Didn't you say that Lucifer's knowledge of God's character included those attributes demonstrated on the cross, therefore, the cross would not have served to save him, and neither was it necessary to pardon him?

3. Nevertheless, you also seem to believe God does know ahead of time certain choices and their outcomes, that of all the many possible choices and outcomes, He knows, in certain cases, precisely which one will play out. I would like to know - how?

But were they viable options? For examle, did God consider, even for a nonsecond, to let mankind perish in his sins?


What was the content and nature of God's struggle? Why did He struggle?

Tom,

If I know beforehand what my choice will be, does this mean I don't have free will?

MM: Here is what you said (above), "... God could know that you would prefer strawberry to vanilla in a certain instance (because you always do this) . . ."

This insight does not imply "God sees every possible future." Insteaad, it says there are times when "God could know". It was this insight that prompted me to ask, "How can He know what we "always do" [i.e. "prefer strawberry to vanilla"] under certain circumstances hundreds of years before we are born?"

Answering this question with "God sees every possible future" is confusing. Do you see what I mean?


MM: Does "God has alawys known all things" include the things you say He cannot know? For example, you say God cannot know ahead of time how everything will play out because He does not which choices will be made under all circumstances.


MM: So, in those cases where God knows ahead of time the choices that will (not might) be made and the outcome, He has known it for eternity. I agree.


MM: Sorry about the rocks and triangles, but I'm actually more interested in why you believe God can know some things about the future but not the rest of it. In other words, I'm asking about the "how" and "why". How can some things be "settled" (certain how it will play out) and the rest "unsettled" (uncertain how it will play out)? Why is it that way? What makes the future that way? I hope you see what I'm getting at. If not, I'll try to explain myself better.


MM: Again here's what you wrote (above), "... sometimes decisions are uncertain while other times they aren't. For example, God could know that you would prefer strawberry to vanilla in a certain instance (because you always do this) but not that you will [wear] navy blue to [or] black (because sometimes you do one, and sometimes the other)."

This insight leads me to think it has something to do with God. Do you see why it would?


MM: However, you also seem to believe God knows ahead of time which choices certain FMAs will make, and that He has known it for an eternity before they were created or born. Are you suggesting God didn't know ahead of time that Lucifer, in particular, would (not might) rebel and that he would deceive A&E, in particular, into sinning? YOu haven't answered this question, in particular, with a yes or no, so I don't know what you believe.

"From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate." (DA 22)


MM: Is that why He chose to create them, because He didn't know they were goig to rebel? Seems to me you've admitted that God knew they might rebel but that the likelihood was so slight He thought the risk was worth it, that is, He took the risk hoping they wouldn't rebel but kowing He could implement the plan of salvation to resolve the problem.


MM: So, did God know they might rebel or not? If He knew there was a slight chance they would rebel, does that mean there is a reason why they rebelled, namely, because God knew it might happen?


MM: Okay. But why? Why couldn't He know it would or would not happen? In the past you've suggested that the cross explains why God can know FMAs will not rebel in the future. However, you've also suggested Lucifer was, before he embarked upon his downward course, already familiar with the attributes of God's character that were demonstrated on the cross. So, why didn't it (Lucifer's comprehensive knowledge of God's character) enable God to know Lucifer wouldn't rebel? I'm asking this question again because I don't remember the answer.

MM: Hopping? Oops! Some typos can be incredibly embrassing, eh! Fortunately, this one was just funny.

Why isn't the concept of "hope" appropriate? "He hoped they would be sweet, but bitter grapes were all it produced." (CEV) If He knew FMAs might rebel, why wouldn't He hope they wouldn't?


MM: I've already explained why I believe the two options listed above were the ony ones available to God. It's just that you disagree.


MM: That's because you choose to believe it. How do you know there weren't other options God decided against? After all, wasn't it you that wrote, "First of all, there is no reason to believe that a perfect being only has one option available."


MM: Please read again what I wrote. I think you will find that I said God did indeed have options. Do you see what I mean? Here it is again:

"Of course, I believe there was only one legitimate, viable option available to God. All options, other than the one God chose to go with, were only theoretical. Why? Because God is perfect, omnipresent, and omniscient. He can only do that which is right and best and perfect, and by virtue of the definition of "right and best and perfect" there can be only one right and best and perfect way."

2. Didn't you say that Lucifer's knowledge of God's character included those attributes demonstrated on the cross, therefore, the cross would not have served to save him, and neither was it necessary to pardon him?

I don't think I said this in exactly these words, but I communicated this general idea. It stands to reason from the DA quote, it seems to me:



Here she says that to Lucifer was given a special revelation of God's love. She talks about the cross, and how man did not know God's love and character. So the implication is that Satan did know these things, isn't it?

3. Nevertheless, you also seem to believe God does know ahead of time certain choices and their outcomes, that of all the many possible choices and outcomes, He knows, in certain cases, precisely which one will play out. I would like to know - how?

God sees every possible future. Say you prefer strawberry to vanilla or chocolate. Every time in your life after the age of 5, you choose strawberry. God, seeing every possible future, would see that you always choose strawberry over chocolate or vanilla. So He could see that it would be 100% certain that you, given this choice after the age of 5, would opt for strawberry.

On the other hand, say you like strawberry and cherry equally well. God would see that you might choose strawberry, or you might choose cherry. So in this case your decision would not be certain.

But were they viable options? For examle, did God consider, even for a nonsecond, to let mankind perish in his sins?

Sometimes I wonder if you pay attention to the things I post. (In fairness, you may wonder the same thing about me.) I've posted the following quite a number of times:



Just previous to this, she speaks of how Jesus went in to the Father three times, and after the third time the Father agreed to let Christ come. Don't you remember this?

Quote:
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no. It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His beloved Son to die for him." {SR 45.1}

What was the content and nature of God's struggle? Why did He struggle?

Well, here it is! How about that! (I responded to the first part without reading all the way through).

Ok, in answer to your question, it was a real struggle, a normal struggle, just the sort of struggle that you and I have. Here, I'll quote the previous part that speaks of the meeting Jesus had with the Father.



Notice how before the resolution, on Jesus' face there was anxiety, and afterwards He was calm. Unless Jesus and the Father were just putting on a show for the angels, this was a real decision that was being made; a real struggle was going on.

It shouldn't be confusing. God sees every possible future. In 10,000 possible future, you choose strawberry over vanilla or chocolate, so God is sure you will do this. However, 50% of the time you have a choice between strawberry and cherry you choose one, and 50% of the time you choose the other. God sees all these possibilities as well.

So if God were asked what you would do, He could say that in a certain case you would be 100% certain to choose strawberry (when your choices are strawberry, chocolate, or vanilla) but in the other case He would say you would either choose strawberry or cherry.

I don't see what's confusing here.



Sure, when I say that God knows all things, I mean all things that it makes logical sense to say that he knows, exactly what you mean when you say the same thing. The difference between us has to do with what we think it makes logical sense to say that God knows.

This is what I've been saying for quite a while now. The difference between our views does not concern God in any way. It concerns the content of the reality which God foresees.



God knows all things about the future. There is nothing about the future which God does not know. God knows the future exactly as it is.

Your view (from my perspective) would have God know the future in some way which does not correspond to reality. It would be the equivalent of making God know white to be black. God cannot know white to be black because white is really white, not black. Similarly God cannot know the future to be like a T.V. rerun, something to be seen in hindsight, because that is not what the future is like.

As to why some things are settled, there are some decisions of which the result are certain. For example, if you say "I love you" to your wife, you may know with certainty that she will say, "I love you too." This would be an example of something settled.

Another example is that the sun will come up tomorrow.

A person's character may be such that it is certain how they will respond in a certain situation.

A person's preference may be such that it is certain how they will respond in a certain situation.



No, I don't see why you would think this has anything to do with God, when it seems clear that it has to do with you. God knows you perfectly. He sees everything you might do. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the confusion here.



I don't know what you're getting at in the first part of the paragraph. I don't understand why you're asking the second question. You should know, if you've been paying any attention, exactly what my response to this question would be. Why do you not know what my response would be? (Hint: I've said many times now I don't believe God would create a being He was certain would sin).



MM, you should really take into account *all* that EGW writes on a subject, not just consider one thing. She writes many things which make it very clear that her view of the future is not like yours. For example, she wrote that "all heaven was imperiled for our redemption." You, with your view, could not logically say such a thing.

She wrote that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. You, with your view, could not logically say such a thing.

She wrote that Christ could have come before now. She wrote that it is our privilege not only to look forward to his coming, but to hasten it.

You keep quoting this one thing from DA, but for this one thing, which you think supports her seeing the future like you do, I could quote 20 things (or more) which show she didn't see the future like you do.

But I'll just quote one, which is dealing with exactly the same subject that the DA quote is:



Please notice that she writes the plan that "should" be carried out upon the defection of "any" of the high intelligences of heaven. This is conditional language.

There is a plethora of evidence that EGW saw the future as conditional, not as settled.



God created beings to love and be loved. The creation of such beings necessitates that they be created with free will. Having free will, there was the possibility that His creatures might choose not to love Him. Love is risky.



I just said "Why should He know? If God knew man would rebel, that would mean there was some reason why it should happen. That would mean that there would be an explanation for the existence of sin."

Why is this not clear?



No.



He did know it would or would not happen.



God sees every possible future. In none of the possible futures do creatures rebel after the final judgment. As to why they don't rebel, we are told by Ellen White (not me!) that the cross safeguarded the universe.

As to why Satan rebelled, even though He knew God's love and character so well, I can't say. However, God foresaw the possibility that this would happen. (or, to say the same thing another way, there were possible futures which God saw where this took place).

MM: Hopping? Oops! Some typos can be incredibly embrassing, eh! Fortunately, this one was just funny.

Why isn't the concept of "hope" appropriate? "He hoped they would be sweet, but bitter grapes were all it produced." (CEV) If He knew FMAs might rebel, why wouldn't He hope they wouldn't?

"Hope" can be OK, depending upon what the intent is. A lot of time "hope" implies cluelessness, which would not be appropriate to apply to God. I think the CEV translation is fine. For our conversations, I would prefer "expect," (a point I first made a long time ago, but I won't hold you accountable because I forget a lot of things too).

TE: From your perspective, I would add the possibility of creating as the first humans beings that God foresaw would not sin. Or do you think that any human being that God could possibly have created would sin?

MM: I've already explained why I believe the two options listed above were the ony ones available to God. It's just that you disagree.

Could God have created a human being who wouldn't sin? That is, was it possible for Him to do so? Or would any human being that God created as our first parents have sinned?

MM: And when it came to redeeming mankind after he rebelled I assume we both agree God's options were two, 1) Implement the plan of salvation, and 2) Not implement the plan of salvation. Or, do you believe there were other options? If so, what might they be?

The Plan of Salvation was the only way to save man.

MM: That's because you choose to believe it.

Because inspiration says so!

How do you know there weren't other options God decided against?

I just know what inspiration says about this.

After all, wasn't it you that wrote, "First of all, there is no reason to believe that a perfect being only has one option available."

There was only one way to save man. That doesn't mean God didn't think about possible alternatives.

MM: Please read again what I wrote. I think you will find that I said God did indeed have options. Do you see what I mean? Here it is again:

"Of course, I believe there was only one legitimate, viable option available to God. All options, other than the one God chose to go with, were only theoretical. Why? Because God is perfect, omnipresent, and omniscient. He can only do that which is right and best and perfect, and by virtue of the definition of "right and best and perfect" there can be only one right and best and perfect way."

My points were valid, given what you wrote here. If God always has only one viable option, then He didn't have any other viable options in regards to creating other creatures as FMAs. But you said that God "clearly" had options available to Him, because He created different types of FMAs.

This is a contradiction.

Also, again, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that there cannot be more than one option which are both fine. For example, let's say you're going to have a child, and you can choose to have a boy or a girl. Why should only one choice be acceptable? Even if you were perfect, both choices would still be acceptable.

It's only in the case where one option is better than another that God must choose a given option.

I'm curious to know why you even think it makes sense to assert that there is only one viable option available to a perfect being in every situation. I understand the assertion that God never chooses something which is worse than a different available option, but I have no idea why you would think that there can never be more than one equivalent option.

What this answer explains is mainly that I given the answers I have thus far but that I still believe it to be true non the less.

No, not as long as you still can do something other than what you know beforehand. The reason for this difference is that your beforehand knowledge is not perfect as Gods is. You may for instance know beforehand that if the need ever arises, you would take a bullet to save your children. But when the day unfortunately arrived, you stumbled as you tried to throw yourself to shield the children and never ended up taking the bullet. You "knew", but it didnt go just that way.

Rosangela, the problem is not epistemological, but ontological. Knowledge does not affect free will in any way. The way things are in reality does.

Whether God, or anyone else, knows that there is only one thing you can do in the future does not in the least impact your free will. The fact that there is only one thing you can do does.

You may think and feel like there is more than one thing you can do, but this is just ignorance. In reality, there is only one thing you can do (which is what God has seen you will do; but, again, bear in mind the problem is not that God sees what you will do, but that it is seeable).

How did you come to the conclusion that there is only one thing that I can do? Wasn't it because God knows what I will do?


Seeable or knowable?

Well, suppose that my alarm clock will ring at 6 o'clock tomorrow morning, and that I know I will get up because I have to work. When I do get up at 6, did I have free will or not? Or suppose that I have to communicate my decision tomorrow if I will accept a new job or not. I've already decided to accept it, therefore I know my reply will be yes. When I do answer yes, did I have free will or not? I'm not speaking about my whole life, but just about a specific event.
In the example you gave, I threw myself. The fact that I stumbled has nothing to do with my decision. Free will has to do with the decision, not with the result.

Indirectly. The direct reason that you cannot do something different is because there is only one thing that can happen. Here's the logic:

A.If God knows something is certain to happen, then that thing is certain to happen.
B.If a thing is certain to happen, then you can't do something different than that which is certain to happen.

B. is why you can't do something different than what will happen, not A. A is just a way of getting to B. But it needn't be because God knows what you will do. If I could see the future, and see what you would do, then B would still be true, and the conclusion from B would follow as well. Or if nobody saw the future, B would still be true, and the conclusion from B would still follow, even if nobody knew about it.

Knowing that something is the way it is does not change the way the thing is. That God knows the future is a certain way is irrelevant. That the future is that way is the important thing.



Either. To see is to perceive is to know.

If the one thing that you will do is seeable, then it must be possible to see (or know) what that one thing you will do is. If it is possible to know what that one thing is, it must be the case that there is a one thing that you will do.

Free will has to do with the decision, correct. A future that is set has to do with results. You chose to throw yourself and you did, thats free will. The future contained that you would succeed, or not, and take the bullet, but you didn't, thats a future of posibilities. The future contained that you would succeed in taking the bullet and you did, thats a future set which must work out in one particular way rather than in any other way.

That you set your alarm clock at 6 am and promptly go up when it awakes you is a choise you do. Why is that? Because you could also chose to snooze or to turn the alarm clock off and stay at home all day. It is the options that make it into a choise. If you fell out of an airplane, continuing to fall down towards whatever land or water the plane was flying over is not a choise because there is nothing you can do to change the fact that you will continue to fall until you hit something solid. In a reality where the the future is all set, geting up when the alarm clock rings at 6 am is no different from continuing to fall once you jumped from the airplane. You could no less do anything else but get up just at that time than you could start to fall upwards or float freely in the air rather than continue downwards.

When you do answer yes, you do have a free will, because you have the option to drag your feet and fail to meet the deadline. You really wanted the job, but things just got so busy that you forgot to confirm your application and the job went to someone else who did not fail the deadline. In a future where every minute detail is allready known, if it is known that you will confirm your application on time, then you could not possibly fail to do it within deadline time.

I'm not understanding your point, or Thomas'. In the example I gave to Thomas, I know my answer will be Yes, therefore there is no way it can't be No, therefore the future is set. But I still have free will.

In your example the future is set because you have made up your mind about it. And if something happened to prevent you from getting your way, then something else would happen and not that which you had made up your mind about. A number of things could happen to keep you from having your will done, an example from the more unlikely part of the spectrum is a lightning striking you turning you into the human cucumber.

But if the future is set because it is the nature of the future to be set, then if a lightning struck you, it would trow you in the direction you have to go to accomplish that which the future contains for you, and you would land softly on a birdfeather pillow so you could easily get up going towards your goal again.

MM: I'm not so sure it is implied. Lucifer wrestled a long time with the new and strange thoughts and feelings that were tormenting him. If he was already thoroughly familiar with God's character, why did he struggle so hard and long to determine if such things were right and true?


TE: So He could see that it would be 100% certain that you, given this choice after the age of 5, would opt for strawberry.

MM: But this doesn't explain "how" God can know this an eternity before I am born, before there was a FMA. Also, the fact God knows it implies, using your logic, I do not have free will.

MM: Tom, you didn't address "why" God struggled. Why was it a struggle for God "whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His beloved Son to die for him"?

MM: It wouldn't be as confusing except for the fact I'm talking about God's knowledge of things an eternity before FMAs were created, before tastes preference have been demonstrated. You have yet to address this question.


MM: Does it make logical sense to say God knows an eternity ahead of time the flavor preferences of FMAs? If He knows such mundane things, why He doesn't know every choice and preference ahead of time? Why didn't He know Lucifer and A&E were going to rebel?


TE: God knows the future exactly as it is.

MM: Do you mean as many possibilities? If so, why, then, do you also say He knows ahead of time exactly how some things will (not might) play out?

TE: Your view (from my perspective) would have God know the future in some way which does not correspond to reality.

MM: Whose reality? Ours or God's? I cannot know with certainty what my wife is going to say or not say. But you say God does know with certainty, and that He has known an eternity before FMAs were created. How can God know a person's character an eternity before he/she is born?


MM: Tom, three times you refer to what God knows. And yet cannot understand why I think it has something to do with God? Why wouldn't I think it has something to do with God?


MM: Okay, so you do believe God has known for an eternity certain choices certain FMAs will make (i.e. flavor preferences) but that He definitely did not know Lucifer would rebel or that he would deceive A&E into rebelling.


MM: The problem I see with your logic is that it assumes your quotes prove God did not know beforehand how these particular events would play out. You believe this in spite of also believing God knows ahead of time how certain mundane events will play out. How can God know how mundane things will play out but not know how important things will play out?


MM: How does this answer explain why God chose to create them in spite of knowing they might rebel?


TE: If God knew man would rebel, that would mean there was some reason why it should happen.

MM: Consider the case of Judas. Jesus knew Judas was going to betray Him. Is this the reason why it happened? Based on your logic, we are forced to answer, Yes.


MM: Why, then, should we be convinced FMAs will not rebel in the future? Since it did not prevent Lucifer from rebelling, how can we be so sure it won't happen again? By the way, answering, "Because God said so", doesn't cut it. If that's all it takes, why didn't He just say so in the beginning and circumvent the GC?

MM: If He knew FMAs might rebel, why wouldn't He "hope" they wouldn't? How can He "not expect it" since He knew it was a possibility? How is "hope they wouldn't" and "not expect it" different in light of the fact God knew it might happen?


MM: According to you, possessing free will means sinning is possible, thus God cannot create a FMA He knows will not sin (although you do not apply this rule to post-GC FMAs, though I'm still not sure why). From my perspective, the way God did things was the right and best way. Other options were merely theoretical since God only doe that which is right and best.


MM: Possible alternatives! That's what I'm talking about. Why didn't God opt for one of those possible alternatives? Was it because they weren't viable options, that they were only theoretical options?

You say the reason you believe there was only "one" way to save man is because that's what Inspiration says. Well, with this answer in mind, why do you believe there are many possible ways the future can play out when Inspiration only tells us about one way?

For example, the Bible depicts Jesus succeeding on the cross. It doesn't tell us Jesus might fail. So, why do you believe God didn't know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross? Why don't you believe only what Inspiration says in this case?


MM: Speaking specifically of whether or not to create Lucifer and A&E, God's options were only two, 1) to create them and deal with the GC, 2) not to create them and not deal with the GC, with the second option being only theoretical since it wasn't the right or best option as evidenced by the fact God didn't opt for it.

MM: I'm not sure which way you believe, Thomas.

1. God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing they would rebel. Why didn't He simply opt not to create them in the first place?

2. God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing they might rebel. Why didn't He simply opt not to create them in the first place?

What you mean by this is that the future is determined by God, which is not what I believe.

Regarding taste preferences, I just gave that as an example. It seems possible to me that this could be something determined by one's DNA. God would know the DNA of a possible creature that would exist, as well as its parents and environment, which would allow Him to infer a great many things, while other things would remain yet to be determined.



Some things are known, or settled, and some not. For example, God knows the sun will rise each morning.



Reality is what it is. It is ontological, not epistemological, which is to say, it is what it is, not what one perceives it to be. Or to say it yet another way, perceiving reality to be a certain way does not change the way it really is.

There is only one reality, not billions of different reality corresponding to each person.

God, being perfect, perceives reality as it actually is.



God knows a person's possible character.



Because the issue is ontological, not epistemological.



You missed the point of my explanation, it looks to me. You were asking me how God could know certain things with certainty, but not others. I gave the flavor example of an explanation as to how this could be the case, and you went off on a tangent about how God could know flavor preferences, which has nothing to do with the point I was making or the explanation. I'm not saying anything at all about God's ability to know our flavor preferences. I'm simply providing an example so you can understand how God could know some things without certainty but not others.

Regarding Lucifer, God knew he might rebel, and might deceive Adam and Eve.



I'm not assuming the quotes prove God did not know definitely how these things would play out. I'm either making inferences from the quotes, or simply presenting the quotes to speak for themselves.

An assumption is something which accepted as unproved, like an axiom.



You'd have to be more specific here. God knows with certainty how some things will play out, because there is enough information to make that determination. Other things do not have as much information. Another way of putting it is that some things are settled, and some not. The things which are settled may be so because of the laws of physics, because God will take action and foresees what He will do, because a person's character is fixed, or for any number of reasons. It has nothing to do with an event being mundane or not.



You mean why didn't God decide not to create them, rather than take the risk involved in creating them? God preferred to have the created beings around than not, notwithstanding the risk involved.



Both your question and your reasoning make no sense to me here. Please flesh this out.

Look at what I wrote and what you wrote. I wrote "If God knew man would rebel, that would mean there was some reason why it should happen." You wrote, "Jesus knew Judas was going to betray Him. Is this the reason why it happened?"

There is no reason to conclude that because the fact that if God knows something will certainly happen, that means there is a reason that the thing certain to happen will implies God's knowing the reason the thing will happen is a cause for it to happen.

What are you thinking here?



God has told us sin will not arise again. Don't you believe Him? Why do you need to be convinced? Why isn't His word sufficient?



I don't know what you're talking about. Why didn't God just say what? That sin wouldn't arise again? How could the GC be circumvented when it is the very thing that made it possible for God to say that sin will not arise again?

Let's go back to the other point I've been making in response to this question. In regards to Lucifer, God foresaw that there were possible futures in which Lucifer would rebel. In regards to FMAs in the future, God does not foresee any possible future in which rebellion occurs again.

What is the difficulty in understanding this? I don't understand why you keep bringing this up. The situation after the Great Controversy has played out is obviously different than it was before it began. You see that, don't you?

Why would it be in the least surprising (given my perspective, of course) that God would foresee that sin will not arise again? That was the whole point of the Plan of Salvation!

Not at all. What I mean by that is that the future is (if it is of the kind that already exists perfectly) determined wether God exists or not.

God created, and God knew about the risk of rebellion. Despite of the risk for this unlikely event, God unilaterally choose to create for purposes which He has not revealed to us.

TV: God created, and God knew about the risk of rebellion. Despite of the risk for this unlikely event, God unilaterally choose to create for purposes which He has not revealed to us.

MM: Thomas, I also believe God has not clearly revealed to us why He created FMAs in spite of knowing they would rebel. Here's what I do know:

DA 22
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. {DA 22.2}

AG 129
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. {AG 129.2}

MM: There are trillions of possible DNA combinations. Multiply this by trillions of FMAs and you arrive at astronomical varieties and possibilities.

Yet you believe God knows, with settled certainty, not only the genealogy of everyone but also things unique to each one, knowledge which is based on the trillions of different DNA combinations they could inherit and the trillions of different character traits they could develop, and that He has known these things an eternity before anyone existed.

In spite of all this you also believe God did not know Lucifer and A&E would rebel. This anomaly blows me away, Tom. I don't see how anyone can believe it.


MM: The sun is not a FMA. So, how can this insight help me understand how God can know some things with settled certainty and not the rest of it?


MM: Since the future, as we know it, is not yet a reality, how can anyone know anything about the future in terms of reality? Unless, of course, they exist outside of time. God existed before the advent of time, therefore, He is not bound by it.

Time began the moment God created FMAs. The future, a form of time, did not exist before the creation of FMAs. The advent of time, however, did not alter God, that is, it did not alter His omnipresence, His ability to be everywhere eternally.

Because of these things, God's reality is different than ours, that is, His knowledge of the future is different than ours. The truth, true knowledge, is the basis of reality. Since God knows everything about the future, even from your perspective, means God's reality is different than ours. His knowledge of the future and our knowledge of the future is worlds apart. Thus, His reality is different than ours. Right?


MM: If God can only know ahead of time a person's possible character, not their actual character, how He know anything about anyone with settled certainty an eternity before they exist?


MM: Why, then, do you keep referring to God's knowledge of the future?


MM: Oh, okay, please forgive me. So, you believe God knows with settled certainty specific choices FMAs will make (i.e. flavor preferences) an eternity before they exist, but that He did not know with settled certainty Lucifer would rebel or that he would deceive A&E into rebelling.


MM: The problem I see with your logic is that it infers your quotes prove God did not know beforehand how these particular events would play out.


MM: I still don't know how can know some things with settled certainty an eternity before it happens and not other things. Your suggestion that it has to do with knowing their DNA and character an eternity before they exist doesn't make sense to me (from your perspective).



TE: You mean why didn't God decide not to create them, rather than take the risk involved in creating them? God preferred to have the created beings around than not, notwithstanding the risk involved.[/quote]
MM: I mean, why didn't God leave uncreated the FMAs He knew might rebel?


MM: You wrote, "If God knew man would rebel, that would mean there was some reason why it should happen." From this statement I hear you saying, If God knew man would rebel, that would mean there was some reason why it happened, that God knows the reason why they sinned, and if God knew why they sinned it would cease to be sin.

So, again, since Jesus knew Judas was going to betray Him, does it mean there was some reason why it happened, that Jesus knew the reason why, therefore, it ceases to be sin?


MM: If God saying so is all it takes to convince us "the wages of sin is death" why didn't He just say so in the beginning and circumvent the GC? Also, your words imply the GC was necessary to guarantee rebellion will not reoccur. Was there no other way?


MM: Your only legitimate basis for believing rebellion will not reoccur is God's saying so. Where you and I differ is how and why God knows it will not happen again.

To determine means "to establish or affect the nature, kind, or quality of; fix." This means that, for the future to be determined, someone has to determine it. The future cannot establish its own nature or kind, or fix itself. Someone has to do that, and this being could only be God. However I don't believe that the individual future is determined, that is, that God decides how the future will play out for each person.
If you mean predicted, OK, I believe the future can be predicted by God, but I don't believe this affects anyone's free will. Jesus predicted that Peter would deny Him, however Peter denied Jesus not because Jesus predicted it, but because he was overcome by Satan's temptation.
And of course I believe that God can really make me land softly on a birdfeather pillow, but miracles, also, don't affect free will. Jesus made dozens of miracles, but this didn't affect anyone's free will - some accepted Him, and some rejected Him.

I regard both determined future and a perfectly knowable future the same as you regard a determined future. You see a fundamental difference between a determined future and a perfectly knowable future while I do not. And we are not going to come to any other agreement than to disagree peacefully. Is there anything more to add?

MM: There are trillions of possible DNA combinations. Multiply this by trillions of FMAs and you arrive at astronomical varieties and possibilities.



The number of possibilities involved is irrelevant. It's as easy for God to see trillions of different possibilities as it is for Him to see one. I don't see why this should be difficult to understand.

Regarding why God wouldn't know that Adam and Eve would certainly rebel beforehand, the simple reason is that it is because they hadn't decided to rebel yet.

God saw all the possible futures, and in some of them A&E rebelled and in others they didn't. It was up to A&E to determine which of the possible futures would come to pass.

If you read the account of what happened in Early Writings, it's obvious A&E's sinning was not a foregone conclusion. Just look at what happened!



There's no way EGW could have written this if A&E's sinning was something certain. How could God have taken Jesus' going into see Him 3 times to decide what He was going to do? Notice that she wrote that Jesus "obtained permission." That was the whole purpose of their meeting. He obtained permission because He didn't have it yet. He didn't have it yet, because Adam and Eve hadn't sinned yet, and it wasn't certain that the plan of salvation would be necessary.

The whole account is nonsensical if everything that happened was a foregone conclusion.



The principle is the same. God sees every possible future. Some things happen in every possible future.



No. God's *perception* of reality is different than ours, but reality itself does not change depending upon who is observing it. Reality is what is, not what someone thinks it is (except in the case of God, because what is is what God thinks it is).



The possible futures change with time. For example, God always knew it was possible you would exist. However, if, for example, Christ had come in the 1850's, as He could have, then you would not have existed. Similarly, many things had to happen just so in order for you to be conceived. Once you were conceived, God knew a lot about you, as there is a lot one can know from the DNA code, things man is just beginning to discover.

I'm stopping here, to keep this from being too long.

Because from the way one perceives God to know the future, how one conceives of the future can be inferred.



I didn't say I believe God knows with certainty what specific choices FMAs will make an eternity before they exist. I gave an example, using the flavor preferences as a hypothetical, of how God could know with certainty what someone would do, assuming their existence.



You mean "imply," not "infer."

My logic doesn't imply the conclusions I stated; the quotes do, for the reasons I stated.

If you say you have a problem with the logic, then that *should* mean that you see something invalid in the argument I'm presenting, not that you disagree with the conclusion.

Of course you're free to disagree that the quotes imply what I say they do, which is what we are discussing.

Basically you are saying, "I disagree with your logic because I disagree with what you are saying," but that could just be because you want to believe what you want to believe. There might not be anything wrong with my logic. If there is something wrong with the logic, you should be able to point it out, rather than simply stating you disagree with it because it implies something you disagree with.



I didn't say some things with settled certainty an eternity before it happens were known. I don't know where you got this idea from. It's not even certain, from eternity, that a given person will exist, so how could something about that person be known with certainty?

What can be known from eternity are some things about the person, provided they exist.



God preferred to have the created beings around than not, notwithstanding the risk involved.



You're confusing the existence of sin with instances of sin.



We weren't talking about the statement "the wages of sin is death." We were talking about the statement that sin won't arise again.

Regarding the GC being necessary, once sin arose, it was necessary. If it weren't, God would not have allowed it.




No it's not. I've been consistently giving two reasons, one based on foreknowledge and the other based on logic. The foreknowledge reason is that God foresees every possible future, and in none of these futures does sin occur.

The logical reason is that the Great Controversy has answered the questions regarding God, and revealed things more clearly about His character that weren't known so well.

MM: You have yet to show precedence for the idea that knowledge of God's character guarantees rebellion will not happen. It didn't prevent Lucifer from rebelling. Nor have you proven God knows anything about the future with settled certainty save for how inanimate things will perform.

MM: You have yet to show precedence for the idea that knowledge of God's character guarantees rebellion will not happen.

It's impossible to show precedence. It's a situation that is will never have occurred until it occurs.

It didn't prevent Lucifer from rebelling. Nor have you proven God knows anything about the future with settled certainty save for how inanimate things will perform.

How did I prove that God knows something with settled certainty for inanimate things? Tell me, and I'll reuse the same proof. It's the same principle involved, so this will be easy.

I just thought of a simple way of explaining how the future is and how God sees the future, from the perspective I've been presenting.

Imagine that you knew everything about everybody and everything, and understood physical laws perfectly, could reason from cause to effect perfectly, and could consider and analyze a quintillion different complicated things as easily as 1, and could visualize things perfectly.

This is how God sees the future. Not by having some special crystal-ball like power, but by being able to reason from cause to effect, understanding everything about people and things, and being able to consider a quintillion different things as easily as 1.

Looking at things this way, it's easy to understand what the future is like. It's like it is for us, except with a lot less uncertainty, since we have such limited understanding about people, things, physical laws, and can't keep more than one complicated thing in our heads at a time, if that.

Has God decided when your discussion will end, or will you have the freedom to make that decision?

That's a whole another question!

How?

MM: I'm glad you agree there is no precedence for your position.


MM: I notice you didn't comment on this point. Why?


MM: You listed the rising and setting sun, an inanimate object, as an example of God knowing the future with settled certainty. But you have resisted the idea God can know the decisions of FMAs an eternity before they exist with settled certainty. For example, you maintain God did not know Lucifer would rebel and deceive A&E into rebelling.

MM: You have yet to show precedence for the idea that knowledge of God's character guarantees rebellion will not happen.

TE: It's impossible to show precedence. It's a situation that is will never have occurred until it occurs.

MM: I'm glad you agree there is no precedence for your position.

We're discussing a situation which hasn't happened yet. Your position wouldn't have any precedence either. Also, the position that the cross safeguards the universe isn't mine, but Ellen White's, which you should be aware of. If you're not, let me know, and I'll get appropriate quotes.

Quote:
MM: It didn't prevent Lucifer from rebelling.

TE:

MM: I notice you didn't comment on this point. Why?

You've made this point before, several times, and in response I commented each time. If you have some question about what I wrote, please ask.

Quote:
MM: Nor have you proven God knows anything about the future with settled certainty save for how inanimate things will perform.

TE: How did I prove that God knows something with settled certainty for inanimate things? Tell me, and I'll reuse the same proof. It's the same principle involved, so this will be easy.

MM: You listed the rising and setting sun, an inanimate object, as an example of God knowing the future with settled certainty. But you have resisted the idea God can know the decisions of FMAs an eternity before they exist with settled certainty. For example, you maintain God did not know Lucifer would rebel and deceive A&E into rebelling.

I'd suggest you take a look at the thread that Rosanegela has been participating on, where we're discussing this same subject. I've given a couple of analogies, one involving slides and the other involving a chess player making a move.

If you prefer, I could cross-post what I'm thinking of here. If you take a look there, I think you can find it pretty easily, but, again, I'd be happy to cross post here if you'd prefer.

MM: Yes it has happened. Lucifer's knowledge of God's character did not prevent him from rebelling.


MM: If I remember right you're comment had something to do with rebellion being an unexplainable mystery. What guarantee do we have a similar mystery will not happen?


MM: Actually, I would prefer inspired examples demonstrating the idea that God cannot know with settled certainty the future decisions of FMAs, and in particular that He did not know ahead of time Lucifer would rebel and deceive A&E into sinning.

If this is precedence for your position, this must mean you think rebellion will occur again.

You didn't answer my question as to whether you are aware that the position I was expressing from Ellen White, or if I should produce quotations for it.



I've answered this many times. I've made two points. First of all, God sees every possible future. In none of the futures does sin occur again. I'll stop there. Just this one point should be enough.



She talks about how the plan of salvation would go into effect should any creatures sin. Something like that. "Should" and "any" are conditional. I already produced this quote. Also there's the Education quote which speaks of the Plan of Salvation being like an organism's ability to heal itself should it be cut, which is also conditional.

She speaks of heaven being imperiled for our redemption, Christ's eternal existence being put at risk, which would not be possible for her to say given your view of the future. Clearly if there was no chance for Christ to fail, He could not have been at risk.

Also there's the account in Early Writings. I'll produce it here again for you, and I've gone through this in detail with you in the past, but you didn't respond.



This whole thing is unintelligible given the idea that the future is something seen like a T. V. rerun, something known to be in exactly one way from all eternity. Clearly God's dealing with an emergency is being described. Why 3 meetings? Why say that Jesus was pleading with God, who gave His Son permission? Surely if God had known from all eternity that man was going to sin at that precise moment, there would have been no need for Jesus to plead with Him for permission. You can see the incongruity here, can't you?

Why would the angel say that it was a struggle for God to allow Christ to come? If God lives in a timeless experience, as you have been suggesting, it would not be possible for God to struggle. You should be able to see this.

Does God's knowledge every change?

MM: My position is based on an entirely different precedence. God's knowledge of our future is based on His omnipresence, not on past experience or good guessing. Also, I am aware of what Sister White wrote about the cross. However, my question has to do with how and why God knows our future.


MM: My question concerns your idea that knowledge of God's character is what guarantees rebellion will not reoccur. If this is true, why didn't it prevent Lucifer and one-third of the angels from rebelling? Answering this question with, None of the possible futures God sees involves rebellion reoccurring, doesn't help me understand your idea. Here is the question again:

Why didn't knowledge of God's character prevent Lucifer and one-third of the angels from rebelling?


MM: I have two comments in response these insights and questions: 1) None of your examples prove God does not know the future decisions of FMAs with settled certainty, and 2) God is timeless, therefore, the way He behaves in our present time and space is how He thinks and feels at the time. Such an experience does not discount His omnipresence, His ability to think and feel a certain way in the past, present, and future at any given time.

We are talking about two different realities as it relates to our future. There's the future as God knows it, and the future as we know it. In reality it is the same future, but from God's perspective, our future is happening now. Whereas, from our perspective, our future has yet to play out. Knowledge, or the lack thereof, is what makes it two different realities.

Once, from our perspective, tomorrow is today, the two realities coincide. Until then, however, future realities, from our perspective, consist of unknowns. From God's perspective, however, the future is a reality. It is happening now. He knows the end from the beginning. In this way, His reality is different than ours.

If your perspective were true, God could not make a decision, nor think, nor experience emotions, as these are all things which are dependent upon a sequencing of events, or, to say it another way, a passing of time, as well as necessitating a change in knowledge.

I'm not seeing any question in what you quoted of our conversation, so I don't know what question you are referring to.



There's two questions involved here. One is how we can know that rebellion won't occur again, and the other is why it occurred in the first place. Regarding why it won't occur again, we are told that it is because of the revelation of Christ. This is not my idea. This is Ellen White's idea. I'm just expressing what she said in regards to the revelation of Christ safeguarding the universe.

It is worth nothing that Satan raised certain questions about God's character, and Jesus Christ answered those questions. He did so so thoroughly that they will never be raised again. When Satan first brought his deceptions, he was able to fool some beings. Those who chose to believe him will be no more. Those who chose not to will not choose to rebel in the future, having already decided not to in the past when it would have been much easier to do so.

Regarding why sin came up the first time, even though Lucifer knew God's character, the answer is there is no reason that can be given as to why this happened.



They all do. Your asserting they don't is as pointless as my asserting they do. If you disagree with an example, state why. You shouldn't just state it doesn't prove what I say it does without explaining why not.



This is contradictory. Consider the meaning of the words "timeless" and "our present time" and this should be easily seen.



There's just reality. There's aren't two realities. Reality is what is. "Two realities" is a contradiction in terms. You can have to perceptions of reality, but not two realities.



Knowledge doesn't affect reality in any way. Knowledge is an understanding of what is. Understanding a thing does not change the thing.



There is no such thing as "His" reality or "our" reality. There is just reality. There are perspectives of reality, but not multiple realities.

I'm curious, if you happen to know, where you got such an idea (that there is more than one reality). I suppose I should ask what you think reality is. I think, from what you are writing, that you must be confusing a perception of reality with reality, so that when you say "His reality" and "our reality" you really mean "His perception of reality" and "our perception of reality" in which case I would say (using your language) that His reality is the true reality, and our reality is false, and untruth, based on ignorance, and does not reflect the way things really are.

MM: Being omnipresent does not rob God of emotions. As to how and why He knows the future it is because the future is happening now. That’s how and why He knows the future. Which, I might add, is different than the rerun example. The rerun example assumes, to a degree, that God is bound by time and space, that yesterday, today, and tomorrow somehow happen sequentially. Whereas, in reality, it all happens simultaneously.


MM: Lucifer’s beef with God concerned the “preference shown to Christ”, the “rights” of angels, and his desire to “become equal with God Himself, and to be obeyed by the entire host of heaven.” Christ confirmed, yea, magnified His “preference” and “supremacy” on the cross, the very things that led Lucifer to rebel. Why wouldn’t they lead FMAs to rebel again?

PP 40
The preference shown to Christ he declared an act of injustice both to himself and to all the heavenly host, and announced that he would no longer submit to this invasion of his rights and theirs. He would never again acknowledge the supremacy of Christ. He had determined to claim the honor which should have been given him, and take command of all who would become his followers; and he promised those who would enter his ranks a new and better government, under which all would enjoy freedom. Great numbers of the angels signified their purpose to accept him as their leader. Flattered by the favor with which his advances were received, he hoped to win all the angels to his side, to become equal with God Himself, and to be obeyed by the entire host of heaven. {PP 40.1}


MM: They do not “prove” your assertions. Your saying so doesn’t make it so. None of them speak to the question. They are unrelated points. You might think they imply it, but is it nothing more than a opinion since they don’t say so.


TE: Reality is what is.

MM: I agree with this statement. Since the future, from our perspective, is not what is, it is not, therefore, reality. Yesterday and today are realities, it is what is, but the future is not reality because it is not “what is”. As such, the future is never, from our perspective, reality.

From God’s perspective, however, the future is what is, therefore, it is reality. From God's perspective, the future is happening, therefore, it is what is, that is, it is reality. So, reality is not the same for us and God.

Not that the essence of reality or the future is different; instead, it has to do with timing, that is, when reality is experienced. God experiences the future before we do, thus, He experiences it as reality before we do.

MM: Being omnipresent does not rob God of emotions.

Being timeless robs God of emotions. Without time, God cannot experience things that happen sequentially, which includes thought. Without thought one cannot experience emotions, or make decisions.

As to how and why He knows the future it is because the future is happening now. That’s how and why He knows the future. Which, I might add, is different than the rerun example. The rerun example assumes, to a degree, that God is bound by time and space, that yesterday, today, and tomorrow somehow happen sequentially. Whereas, in reality, it all happens simultaneously.

This again leads to the problems of God's not being able to think, emote, or make decisions.

MM: They do not “prove” your assertions. Your saying so doesn’t make it so.

This was my point. You're saying they don't is just as pointless as my saying they do. You should point out what you disagree with about the assertions.

None of them speak to the question. They are unrelated points. You might think they imply it, but is it nothing more than a opinion since they don’t say so.

You're speaking of the question of God's not seeing the future in a settled, definite way, correct? The episode in Early Writings is nonsensical looking at the future as happening now, as you are suggesting. I went through the passage in detail, and asked you specific questions. Why would Jesus have to go in to the Father three times? Why would He have to plead for permission to come? Why would God have had to struggle to decide to allow Jesus to come? The whole episode simply doesn't agree with your perspective of the future.

It's not my saying this is the case that makes the case. It's the way the story was written, and the different aspects of the future which are clearly written from the perspective of experiencing something as it is happening, not in a timeless way. In fact, I can't think of a single thing in Scripture which suggests that God experiences things in a timeless manner, yet I could present literally thousands of examples which suggest the converse.

TE: Reality is what is.

MM: I agree with this statement.

Good! Then you should be able to see there can only be one reality, since what is is, so to speak. You can't say what is are, which is what multiple realities would imply.

Since the future, from our perspective, is not what is, it is not, therefore, reality.

Excellent!! This is the point I've been trying to make for months now. I'm glad you finally agree!

Yesterday and today are realities, it is what is, but the future is not reality because it is not “what is”. As such, the future is never, from our perspective, reality.

From God’s perspective, however, the future is what is, therefore, it is reality. From God's perspective, the future is happening, therefore, it is what is, that is, it is reality. So, reality is not the same for us and God.

Not that the essence of reality or the future is different; instead, it has to do with timing, that is, when reality is experienced. God experiences the future before we do, thus, He experiences it as reality before we do.

Ok, I'm glad you've seen what I've been trying to say for quite some time now, which is that reality is what God perceives it to be, not what we perceive it to be. A consequence of this idea is that we cannot have free will, at least not according to the libertarian idea. I'll comment on that later.

MM: We're talking about God - not FMAs.


MM: I disagree.


MM: The EW account depicts God experiencing things in real time. But since God is timeless He experiences the past, present, and future at the same time.


MM: Reality is not what God "perceives it to be" as opposed to what we "perceive it to be" - reality is what is. Since God experiences the past, present, and future in real time, as it is happening, and not, as it were, before it happens, it does not prevent free will.

First of all, God is an FMA. Secondly, God is not exempt from the laws of logic. A timeless being does not experience things sequentially.



Regardless of your disagreement, this is still a logical problem with your approach. Again, a timeless being does not experience things sequentially, and so would not logically think, nor do things dependent upon thinking, such as making decisions, and having emotions.



You are here simply pointing out the problem with your approach. You are correct that the EW account depicts God experiencing things in real time. But if God is timeless, he doesn't experience things that way, as you point out. Thus your idea doesn't fit with the account of EW.

There's no way God could ever struggle with a decision under your view. There's no way He would need 3 meetings with Jesus Christ to decide to give Jesus permission to come here. If your view were true, there would have been no meeting, but simply God declaring to the heavenly beings, "We knew this was going to happen, and this is what we are going to do about it." Instead of this happening, which would have been logically consistent with your view, we see a series of meetings, the end of which God finally, after a struggle, finally decided to give Jesus permission to come to earth.



So you think God perceives reality to be different than what it really is? That is, the way things are is one way, but God perceives them to be another way?



How God experiences things is irrelevant. How things are is the important thing.

MM: Reality is not what God "perceives it to be" as opposed to what we "perceive it to be" - reality is what is.

TE: So you think God perceives reality to be different than what it really is? That is, the way things are is one way, but God perceives them to be another way?

MM: Nope. What I meant to say was - Reality is not what God "perceives it to be" as opposed to what we "perceive it to be" - reality is what is. It has nothing to do with perception and everything to do with the way things really are.

God is not like us in many ways. One way He is not like us is the fact He is omnipresent, that is, He is everywhere in time and space. Nevertheless, we will be able to sit on His lap, look into His eyes, and say, I love you, even though at the same time He is everywhere. How can you apply the same "logic" to such a God as you do to us?

This is correct, and this is the point I've been making for some time now. Again, I'm glad you are agreeing with this.

Do you agree that God's perception of reality is accurate? IOW, God perceives reality to be as it really is?



Right, and another point I've been making.



Logic has to do with factual statements and reasoning from cause to effect.

If God is timeless, for example, this has certain logical ramifications. One of them is that God could not think, as I've pointed out, since thinking requires a process to take place, and it makes no sense to speak of a timeless being in terms of a process.

God, under your presuppositions, would simply know everything, and have no need to think (let along not being able to).

Another logical ramification of your idea is that it is possible to exist at different moments of time simultaneously. If this is possible, that says something about sequential events, for example. If one is at every time all at once, then one cannot experience the sequence of events. Indeed, such a phrase "sequence of events" doesn't even make sense in such a setting.

Tom, can we really place God in a box and say, Since God is omnipresent He cannot experience thought processes like we do.

The problem is not His being omnipresent, but being timeless. We can certainly say that a timeless being cannot experience things that happen in sequence, because that would be impossible. It's a contradiction in terms.

The reason that Plato argued that God was impassible was exactly because of this problem. Plato's logic wasn't wrong, just the timeless/unchanging assumption.

Tom, God is omnipresent, which means He is not bound by our time and space continuum. We cannot apply the same logic to God as we do to ourselves. Nothing is impossible with God. He is everywhere at the same time. Is that logical? Not from our perspective. But it is, nevertheless, true.

Matthew
19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Luke
1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

The laws of logic and reason apply to God as much as to anyone else. There are some things impossible with God. He cannot create a square circle, He cannot create a rock so big He cannot lift it, and so forth. God can do anything that's possible to do, but some things are logical contradictions.

It seems to me that you are simply unaware of the implications of the ideas you have. For example, consider the idea that God is timeless and His knowledge perfect. What are the implications of this? It means His knowledge is changeless too. But if His knowledge never changes, then it doesn't make any sense to say that God figures any thing out, for example. He just knows. He couldn't think or make decisions in this scenario.

Do you understand this?

These implications follow from your presuppositions regarding God and timelessness. These are Platonic ideas. They are not Scriptural. Scripture presents God as a Being who thinks, who makes decisions, who grieves, who regrets, who reacts, not as a timeless, changeless, impassible Being.

Sister White does as well. For example, she speaks of God's struggling to make a decision. This is not congruent with your ideas. The whole of the account of Early Writings, I think page 120 which recounts what happened in heaven when man sin is not congruent with your ideas. This story demonstrates that there is such a thing as past, present and future even for God.

So does her statement that heaven was imperiled for our redemption, and Christ risked His eternal existence in coming here to save us. These would be ridiculous statements to make if Christ were a timeless being. You can see this, can't you? A timeless being ceasing to exist? That can't be.

Did you ever answer my question if God perceives reality as it is? I don't think you did. Please do. There's another implication I'd like to point out.

TE: The laws of logic and reason apply to God as much as to anyone else.

MM: Then how do you explain the fact God is everywhere at the same time?

TE: Did you ever answer my question if God perceives reality as it is? I don't think you did. Please do. There's another implication I'd like to point out.

MM: Yes, I did. It's at the top of this page.

I'm not seeing your answer, MM. Could you repeat it please? (the top of the page for you might not be the same as it is for me)

That God is everywhere at the same time is not illogical.

You didn't really address my post.

TE: I'm not seeing your answer, MM. Could you repeat it please? (the top of the page for you might not be the same as it is for me)


TE: That God is everywhere at the same time is not illogical.

MM: What is not illogical about it? How can someone be everywhere at the same time?

MM, this is not an answer to my question. It's an answer to a question you decided to ask yourself. My question is not if reality is what God perceives it to be as opposed to what we perceive it to be. My question is if reality is as God perceives it to be. There is no way to read the answer to the question you asked yourself and answered and no what the answer to my question is. It could be "yes" or it could be "no." I have no way of knowing.

Logic has to do with presuppositions and reasoning from cause to effect. Why would you think it is illogical to assert that God is everywhere at the same time? What logic do you think is violated here? (that is, what presupposition, what reasoning from cause to effect).

My point was that the laws of logic apply to God as much as to any other being. If they didn't, we couldn't talk about God at all, at least not in any reasonable or logical way.

I pointed out that a timeless being cannot experience things sequentially. This is simple logic. That God is God doesn't change this fact in any way. I also gave you specific examples to illustrate the fact. For example, if God's knowledge does not change (which must be the case if God is timeless) then God cannot decide anything because knowledge must change in order for a decision to be made.

Before a decision is made, one has not decided what one will do, and therefore one's knowledge will reflect that fact. After a decision has been made, one's knowledge will change, recognizing that a decision has now been made, when previous to the decision being made, that wasn't the case, which one's previous knowledge reflected.

Another example is EW 126, which depicts an event happening in real time, even for God. God the Father held meetings with God the Son, in which the Son pleaded for permission to come to earth. After three meetings, the Father finally agreed, though it was a struggle. There's no way this description of events can describe the interaction of two timeless beings.

TE: My question is if reality is as God perceives it to be.

MM: Reality has nothing to do with perception. Reality is what is.

TE: Why would you think it is illogical to assert that God is everywhere at the same time?

MM: I don't think it is illogical. I believe God is everywhere at the same time - even though I cannot explain it, even though it contradicts the laws of nature and logic as I know it. I assume, therefore, based on faith, that God's ability to be everywhere at the same time is consistent with laws and logic that apply to Him but not to me. He is God. I am not.

Consequently, He is able do things I cannot do, things that do not violate the laws of nature as they apply to me, even though they are things I cannot do and not violate them. For example, I cannot travel at the speed of light. The laws of physics disallow it. But God can, without violating them. Other laws apply which to conflict with our laws.

TE: I pointed out that a timeless being cannot experience things sequentially.

MM: I disagree. The fact God is not bound our time and space continuum in the same way we are does not mean He cannot experience real time (reality) like we do. Whether it is past, present, or future, God experiences things in real time (reality) which means at any given moment He is aware of events happening before and after.

For example, since God is everywhere at the same time it means I can be sitting on His lap in Phoenix while you are sitting on His lap in Topeka.

Is there any difference between what is and what God perceives things to be?



Then why did you ask, "What is not illogical about it? How can someone be everywhere at the same time?"



How can you say in one breath, "I don't think it is illogical" and in the next "it contradicts the laws of nature and logic as I know it"? Mind-boggling.



This is awful reasoning. Your "therefore" is based on your believing something which you say is both not illogical, and contradictory to logic. Then, on top of that, you conclude that, "therefore" there is logic that applies to God but not to you.

Logic is not something which applies to beings. Logic applies to propositions and reasonsing. The propositions can involve God or not, it doesn't matter. The rules of logic don't change.



I'm not seeing that this point has to do with anything.



No, it's not the fact that God is not bound by time and space that implies this, but the fact that He is timeless. You described God experiencing everything happening at the same time, all at once. You should be able to understand that a conclusion of this presupposition is that experiencing something sequentially is impossible. If it's all happening at the same time, it can't happen in sequence.



Sure, at the same time. But not at different times simultaneously.

Let's go back to knowledge changing, which may be an easier argument to understand. If God's knowledge is changeless, then He cannot make a decision, because making a decision changes your knowledge. Before you make a decision, your knowledge tells you you haven't made a decision yet and there is a decision that needs to be made. After you make a decision, your knowledge tells you you have made a decision. Also things changed based on your decision, which also changes your knowledge. Conversely, if your knowledge does not change , then you cannot make a decision, nor can you learn, or discover anything. You would just know. There is where the impassibility idea of the Greeks came from.

To summarize, if God's knowledge is changeless, then

a)God cannot learn anything.
b)God cannot discover anything.
c)God cannot think in any sense other than simply observing something, because to think in a way that involves a decision of some sort necessarily changes your knowledge.
d)God cannot make any decisions, because that would change His knowledge.

MM: For example, since God is everywhere at the same time it means I can be sitting on His lap in Phoenix while you are sitting on His lap in Topeka.

TE: Sure, at the same time. But not at different times simultaneously.

MM: True. God's interactions with us reflect reality whether we're talking about yesterday, today, or tomorrow, all of which are now and always for God (but not for us).

TE: If God's knowledge is changeless, then He cannot make a decision, because making a decision changes your knowledge.

MM: God knows the end from the beginning. His knowledge reflects not only His decisions but the decisions of zillions upon zillions of FMAs.

Is there any difference between what is and what God perceives things to be?

I'm really trying to get to a point, which I'm waiting for you to acknowledge that God perceives reality as it is to get to.

You're statement that reality has nothing to do with perception is not correct, in addition to not being a direct answer to my question. There is a correspondence between reality and perception. Reality is not necessarily identical to what it is perceived to be, but to say that they have nothing to do each other is just incorrect. We perceive there to be a chair in a room, which we can sit on, as well as see, because there really is a chair in the room.



He can't make any decisions if His knowledge is changeless. You in no way addressed this point. I explained in detail why what I am saying is the case.

TE: Is there any difference between what is and what God perceives things to be?

MM: If by perception you mean accurate knowledge of what is (the facts as they really are) then there is no difference. Do you have some other definition is mind?

TE: He can't make any decisions if His knowledge is changeless.

MM: God knows the end from the beginning. He is omniscient because He is omnipresent (in time and space). You seem to think God is only omnipresent in space. His ability to be omnipresent in time and space in no way means He cannot make decisions or experience sequential events in time and space. Unconditional prophecy is a point in case.

TE: Is there any difference between what is and what God perceives things to be?

MM: If by perception you mean accurate knowledge of what is (the facts as they really are) then there is no difference. Do you have some other definition is mind?

I wouldn't constitute reality as merely facts, but yes, that's the general idea. It's not a trick question. It just seems obvious to me that while our perception of reality may be off (and is off), God's is not. God perceives things as they are in truth. You would agree with this, wouldn't you?

TE: He can't make any decisions if His knowledge is changeless.

MM: God knows the end from the beginning. He is omniscient because He is omnipresent (in time and space). You seem to think God is only omnipresent in space.

]That's what "omnipresent" means. "being present everywhere at once."

His ability to be omnipresent in time and space in no way means He cannot make decisions or experience sequential events in time and space.

It does mean that, and I've explained why. Simply denying what I wrote is not an adequate response. I presented arguments. Please address the arguments.

Here's one argument: If God experiences everything happening as "now," then there can be nothing sequential. This is obvious. That everything is happening now means nothing is happening at some time other than now, which means there is no sequencing, because for something to be sequenced means there has to be things happening one after the other, which is to say at different times.

Unconditional prophecy is a point in case.

In prophecy, God states, "I will do this" "I will do that". If God experienced everything as "now," God could not say that. He would say, "I am doing this."

Also, if it is true that unconditional prophecy means that God can experience things sequentially (I have no idea why you made this assertion, since you didn't explain it, but let's assume it's true), this just goes to show that God does no experience everything as "now."

TE: God perceives things as they are in truth. You would agree with this, wouldn't you?

MM: I wouldn't include the word "perceive". God simply knows the truth as it really is. You are I disagree as to how and why.

TE: If God experiences everything happening as "now," then there can be nothing sequential.

MM: How do you know? You're not God. Are you assuming "now" means the same thing to God as it does to us? We are, after all, talking about God who can be everywhere at the same time. That means hundreds of planets involving zillions of FMAs; and you're having trouble believing He experiences sequential events yesterday, today, and tomorrow at the same time? I don't get it.

Ok, we'll use the word "know" instead of "perceive." You would agree that God knows reality as it is, correct?



Because I can use logic and reason.



I don't have to be. I just have to be able to think logically, because we're dealing with logical propositions and arguments involving cause and effect. To counteract the arguments, you need to show that either a presupposition I'm assuming is false, or that my reasoning is incorrect somewhere.



A timeless being cannot experience things sequentially. This is like saying that a circle cannot be a square. I explained why here:

TE: You would agree that God knows reality as it is, correct?

MM: God simply knows the truth as it really is. You are I disagree as to how and why.

TE: I just have to be able to think logically, because we're dealing with logical propositions and arguments involving cause and effect.

MM: You seem to think the same principles of logic that apply to us also apply to God. Which principles do you apply to explain how God can be everywhere at the same time? And, how do these principles apply to us?

TE: That everything is happening now means nothing is happening at some time other than now ....

MM: That's easy for you to say because you are not God. Do you apply this logic to the past and present, or just to the future? Please keep in mind, as you answer these questions, time and space relate to FMAs. Before God created FMAs, time and space did not exist, at least, not as we know it.

You would agree that God knows reality as it is, correct?



The principles of logic, as I've pointed out several times now, apply to propositions and reasoning from cause to effect. The propositions can apply to God or us, or other things.



You're confusing propositions with something else. If you can express yourself in terms of propositions and conclusions reasoning from cause to effect, we can discuss these using logic.



This doesn't involve being God in any way! It's like my saying, "2 + 2 = 4" and you respond, "That's easy for you to say because you are not God."



I'm apply the logic to your proposition. I'm demonstrating to you how what you are suggesting is impossible. As I stated:



Please note that "God" does not appear in this sentence. This is a question of logic. You are asserting something which is logically impossible.

Another logical problem with your position is that if God's knowledge is changeless, He cannot make decision, or think in any sense (other than as a passive observer) because is He did these things His knowledge would change.

Tom, your propositions, logic, and conclusions are not valid because they do not take into account God is omnipresent in time and space. Divorcing this from your proposition is fruitless and pointless.

MM, you didn't respond to my post. For example, I've trying to get an answer from you for about a week now to the first question on my post.

The propositions are assuming that God is as you are suggesting, so your criticism is ill-founded.

MM: What is the difference between truth and reality? In this context, aren't they one and the same?

If there's no difference, why not just answer the question, "yes."

Somehow I come to think of Platons Cave when reading the past pages of this discussion. That reality as it really is is unrelated to anything substantial on earth and what we percieve as reality is merely a broken shadow on a jagged stone wall. Somehow it fits, if we are to define God after Platons definition of deity, it seems fitting to define ourselves by Platons thoughts too.

If we start to give words separate meanings depending on if we apply them to us or to God, discussion becomes pointless. If we talk about God in time but with the condition that time in Gods perspective is not seconds, minutes and hours but some entity that we cannot understand. Then the word time becomes empty when we use it in relation to God, no more than spacefiller.

Agreed Thomas.

It's interesting that in this mode of thought, one feels free to construct "realities" which need not be tied to logic, which also makes conversation challenging.

Okay, Tom, God knows the truth as it really is, He knows reality as it really is. What is your point?

Hey, that only took about two weeks!

My point is that if God knows reality as it is, and what God knows is that everything is happening now, then, in reality, everything is happening now.

Unless it isn't like that for God. He is big enough to know and experience everything now in the same way He can be everywhere at the same time.

Can Christ also be everywhere at the same time?

You were the one who said it was. I was quoting you.



Experiencing everything as happening now doesn't have anything to do with being big. "Big" has nothing to do with "time."

Did the metaphor get lost on you?

Daryl, Jesus gave up His omnipresence when He became a man.

MM, you're contradicting yourself. First you wrote that God experiences everything as now. You agreed that God perceives reality as it is. I reasoned from this that if every time is now for God, then that is reality. You then responded, "unless it's not like that for God." But you were the one I was quoting! You were the one who said it *was* like that for God.

You're not being consistent in your position, which is making it difficult to carry on this conversation. But regardless of your position, my basic argument will hold, which is:

a)Reality is what God perceives it to be.
b)If reality, as God perceives it to be, is something different than the future is comprised of possibilities, fundamentally different than the past, which is accomplished fact, not possibilities, then we do not have (libertarian) free will.

This is because libertarian free will requires that there be options available to us, which is not possible if reality is such that the future is just like the past.

Regarding your metaphor, what you write appears to me to be quite vaguely put. Time and space are different things. "Omnipresent" has to do with space, not time. You can make up your word if you want, to communicate the idea that God exists everywhere at the same time, but please don't use the word "omnipresent" because that word already has a meaning, and it's just confusing if you have your own private definition for words.

Tom, you labored long and hard to get me to agree with you that God knows the truth as it is, as it really is. And now you are using it as a weapon agaisnt me? What's up with that? You came up with an unrelated conclusion. It doesn't fit.

Just because God has the ability to experience yesterday, today, and tomorrow now and forever it does not necessarily mean what you have concluded. It could be some other way. You have no way of knowing. It has nothing to do with free will as you have stated. The future is like the past in that it consists of the truth as it realy is - not how it will be.

Concerning time and space: We both agree people can sit on God's lap at the same time in different places throughout the universe. But what about the space in between people? Is God there too? If so, then space is made up of God's body. If not, then what occupies the space between people?

How can God carry on a conservation with everyone everywhere at the same time? Obviously, it has something to do with God's ability to transcend time and space as we know it. God can be everywhere at once because time means something different to Him. It only seems to us that God is everywhere at the same time when He reality He is not.

I'm not following this post at all, MM. If God perceives reality as it is, and God sees that only one thing can happen in the future, then only one thing can happen in the future. This shouldn't be hard to grasp. It's the same thing Luther asserted when he said that what God knows will happen must of necessity happen.

Regarding what you are asserting that if God is in the space between people then space is made of of God's body, this doesn't make any sense to me. Regarding what occupies the space between people, most likely air.

God doesn't see that "only one thing can happen in the future". He sees it happening as it is happening. When He reports it to us, in a prophecy or whatever, He is simply telling us what He is happening.

How do explain God being everywhere at the same time? How can He carry on a conversation with everyone everywhere at the same time?

Whatever. This comes to the same thing. There is only one possible thing, under your perspective, that can happen in the future, which is that which God sees (or saw, however you want to put it) will happen (or happened, or is happening).



Whatever. It really doesn't matter what tense you put things in. The salient point is that only one thing can happen in the future, as God perceives the future as consisting of only one possible thing, whether that thing is happening now, or in the past, or whatever tense you want to use.

God's ability to be everywhere at once in time and space does not rob us of our ability and freedom to choose as we please. Reporting what is happening now does not interfere with freedom of choice.

You haven't explained how God can be everywhere at the same time. How is it physically possible? How can He carry on a conversation with everyone everywhere at the same time?

God's perception of reality reflects reality as it really is. It's the nature of reality that makes it logically impossible for us to have options.

Do you understand this, MM?

I've pointed out to you quite a number of times that the issue does not (directly) involved God.

It's only that certain assumptions about God lead to certain logical conclusions, and *those* logical conclusions are what cause the contradiction to the definition of free will.

Let's try it this way.

a)Assume God perceives that there is only one thing that can happen in the future.
b)Since God perceives reality as it is, there is only one thing that can happen in the future.
c)Since there's only one thing that can happen in the future, there are not two or more things that can happen in the future.
d)Since libertarian free will is defined as having options available, not hypothetically or theoretically, but in reality, and since, in reality, there's only one thing that can happen (not two or more), it follows that, under the assumption of a), that man does not have libertarian free will.



This is not an epistemological issue, MM, but an ontological one. Do you understand the point here, MM?



Why do you think this is relevant? What sort of explanation are you looking for?

Your argument against God being everywhere at once in time and space does not make sense to me. It's like saying we do not have options if God is watching us ponder our options.

If you cannot explain how God can physically be everywhere at the same time, how can you say He cannot know and experience yesterday, today, and tomorrow now and always?

This isn't my argument. My argument is that reality is as God perceives it to be. If God perceives reality to be such that there is only one possible way the future can happen (which the different things you have been suggesting imply) then there is only one way the future can happen. If there is only one way the future can happen, then we don't have options, and don't have libertarian free will.

That's the argument.

I would recomend those of you who are interested in getting this together to read "The God who risks" by John Sanders, published by IVP Academic.

Tom, you can't even explain how God can be everywhere at the same time. Until you can, you have no right to reject anything else about God. Reality is not what God "perceives" it to be. Reality is what is. It has nothing to do with the "future" as we know it.

What are you talking about? This makes no sense. First of all, the issue has to do with the future. Secondly, I'm not rejecting anything about God. What are you talking about "reject anything else about God"?!?



You said earlier that you agreed that reality is what God perceives it to be. This should be really obvious. I don't know why you would deny this now.

If reality is not what God perceives it to be, in what way is it different?

Tom, please explain to me how God can physically be everywhere at the same time.

Also, reality has nothing to do with perception. I've made that clear. Reality is the truth as God knows it.

If reality is the truth at God knows it to be, and God knows the future to be just one thing, then the future is just one thing.

As Luther put it, what God knows will happen must of necessity happen. Man does not have free will.

This is simple to understand. If there is one thing that must of necessity happen, then that one thing must happen, and not some other thing. Free will depends upon the possibility of more than one thing happening.

For your position to be true, it must be possible to do something different from what God knows will happen.


Regarding God being present everywhere at the same time, first of all, this has nothing to do with anything. Secondly, what do you want me to explain? It seems like a silly question. It's like asking, how can God know everything? How can God be all powerful? How can God be so good? How can God be so smart? How was God able to create the universe?

How would you have any of these questions answered?

The reason God knows what will happen in the future is due to the fact He is watching it happen right now. This has no more impact upon free will than God watching things happen yesterday or today.

Tom, your unrelated questions do nothing to answer my question. That God is everywhere at the same time is just as difficult to explain as the fact He inhabits eternity. His ability to be everywhere at the same time is key to understanding His abiity to inhabit eternity - both have to do with God's relationship to time and space as we know it.

If God is watching he future happen right now, then there is only one possible future that can happen, the one which God is watching. If there is only one thing that can happen, then we cannot do something other than that, since there is only one thing that can happen.

I'm not following if you don't understand this, or what you're thinking is. This is very simple logic. It's the same logic Luther laid out. "What God knows will happen must necessarily happen." (Luther)

I'm also not following if you understand that the issue is ontological, and not epistemological. I'm guessing you don't understand this, because you wrote:



I don't know if I can explain things in a way that you can understand the issue. Given the time we've spent on this, perhaps not.

You're simply not talking about the same thing I am. You're not dealing with the issue of what the future is like.

Or like the question, "explain God and give two examples".

The problem isn't that free will is compromised if God knows which option, out of the all the options available, we are going to choose; instead, the question is - How can God be everywhere at the same time?

Being everywhere at the same time involves questions concerning time and space. What is about God that enables Him to be everywhere in time and space? What it is about FMAs that we cannot be everywhere in time and space?

If we can understand, or least accept, the fact God is everywhere at the same time, we might be able to explain why He knows which option, out of all the options available to us, we are gong to choose.

One thing is certain, though, just because God knows which option, out of all the options available to us, we are going to choose - it does not mean we are robbed of our ability or freedom to choose.

TV: Or like the question, "explain God and give two examples".

---

1. God is love.

John
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

2. God knows the end from the beginning.

Isaiah
46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Romans
4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Revelation
4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.

No, the problem is neither of these things. The problem is ontological, not epistemological, and the ontological question involves the future, not God.



Again, the problem is an ontological one regarding the future, not an epistemological question regarding God.

I'm saying this:

a)If we make certain assumptions about God's foreknowledge, that leads to certain conclusions regarding the future.
b)Certain conclusions regarding the future have implications regarding free will.

When you write something like:



this seems to indicate you're not understanding the question I'm raising.

Until you understand the question I am raising, there's no way we can intelligently discuss it.

TE: No, the problem is neither of these things. The problem is ontological, not epistemological, and the ontological question involves the future, not God.

MM: We cannot divorce God from the future. We would know nothing of the future were it not for the fact our future is happening now for God.

---

TE: a) If we make certain assumptions about God's foreknowledge, that leads to certain conclusions regarding the future. b) Certain conclusions regarding the future have implications regarding free will.

MM: This equation ignores the fact God is not bound by time or space. He is everywhere at the same time. Are we forced by this fact to rethink the laws of time and space because they do not apply to God in the same way they do to us? Of course not. Yet this is exactly what you seem to think.

TE: No, the problem is neither of these things. The problem is ontological, not epistemological, and the ontological question involves the future, not God.

MM: We cannot divorce God from the future. We would know nothing of the future were it not for the fact our future is happening now for God.

This is simply not true. There's a lot we know about the future which has nothing at all do with God's telling us something about it.

You throw in a lot of false premises in your posts, MM, (often questions, although not here) which make them tricky to respond to. For example, here you could have written something like "We would know nothing of the future were it not for the fact that God tells us about it." which would be acceptable way of putting things from either your position or mine. In order to respond to you, I have to both strip away your assumptions, and also deal with the issue at hand, which makes for extra work. You can facilitate our discussion be refraining from putting things in a needlessly provocative way.

I understand sometimes it's necessary to say things I will disagree with in order to make your point, but often it's not. In those times it's not, our discussions will flow more smoothly if you refrain from so doing.

The other point regarding divorcing God from the future is off base. The reason you give for not being able to divorce God from the future is an epistemological one, not an ontological one, which once more gets to the point that you are simply not discussing the same subject I am.

I am pointing out that if the future is ontologically a certain way, that has implications regarding our free will. *How* we know that the future is a certain way is not relevant. *That* we know it is a certain way is the salient point.


---

TE: a) If we make certain assumptions about God's foreknowledge, that leads to certain conclusions regarding the future. b) Certain conclusions regarding the future have implications regarding free will.

MM: This equation ignores the fact God is not bound by time or space. He is everywhere at the same time.

This isn't relevant, except as to how it ties ontologically to the future. That is, what is the future like, given whatever assumption you wish to take regarding God's knowledge or experience of the future?

Are we forced by this fact to rethink the laws of time and space because they do not apply to God in the same way they do to us? Of course not. Yet this is exactly what you seem to think.

Not "rethink," just "think." How time applies to God is irrelevant. What is relevant is ontological. What is the future like? Specifically, can only one thing happen in the future, or can more than one thing happen in the future? Is it possible for something to happen different than what God knows will happen? If not, there's only one possible future, and we have an ontological issue to deal with.

I'm not getting a sense that you're understanding what I'm saying. Are you?

Tom, the fact our future is happening now for God is an integral part of it. The future is what it is because it involves God in an intimate way. You do not believe our future is happening now for God, consequently, you are unable to understand how it fits into the picture. From your perspective it means our freedom to choose is limited to one outcome. From this you conclude free will is nonexistent. But this conclusion is no truer than saying free will doesn't exist since God knows today the choices we are going to make.

I understand what you are saying. It's just that I don't agree with it. Again, just because God experiences our future before we do, it doesn't mean the future is tainted or ruined or whatever. Nothing about the future has been changed. The future is what it is. The future will play out like any other block of time. We are free to choose as we please. Nothing hinders us or prevents us from choosing as we please.

If all understand eachother but choose to disagree, what more is there to talk about?

Ok, what am I saying?

When I need a good chuckle I read some of your posts. Thanks for the serious entertainment - which is very serious. And important!

Johann, do you find theological discussions in general amusing or just these ones that only move very slowly if they ever move at all?

Tom, you are saying if God is experiencing our future now it means free will is nonexistent because we cannot do anything different when that time arrives than what God sees us doing now.

It is how these dear saints manage keeping on disagreeing while agreeing on keeping up the discussion. This must be a patience of the saints in a nutshell.

You are saying if God is experiencing our future now it means free will is nonexistent because we cannot do anything different when that time arrives than what God sees us doing now.

What I'm saying is this:

a)If God knows with certainty that the future will be in a certain way, one certain way, then the future will be that certain way.
b)If the future is in one certain way, then the future cannot be in some other certain way.
c)Since free will necessitates the possibility of the future being in more than one certain way, free will cannot exist if the future is in one certain way.

Point c) depends on point b). Point b) here is implied by point a), but could be implied by other things; it need not be point a). For example, it's conceivable that some scientific discovery, in the field of physics, for example, could lead to the idea that the future is one certain way. In this case, the logic would look like this:

a)If science determines that the future will be in a certain way, one certain way, then the future will be that certain way.
b)If the future is in one certain way, then the future cannot be in some other certain way.
c)Since free will necessitates the possibility of the future being in more than one certain way, free will cannot exist if the future is in one certain way.

The crucial link is from b) to c). What causes b) to be true is irrelevant (this is why I say God's knowledge of the future is not the salient factor).

Writing something like, "God's knowing what we will do does not cause us to do that thing" is missing the point of the argument. You'd have to write something like "God's knowing what we will do does not mean we will do that thing." This statement would be challenging the validity of going from step a) to step b).

To disprove the argument you have three choices:

1)Disagree with the starting point (point a).
2)Disagree with the reasoning in point b.
3)Disagree with the reasoning in point c.

The proof is in the pudding. I feel totally free to choose as I please even though I know God already knows what I'm going to do. There is nothing about God's knowledge of my future choices that makes me feel like I do not truly have the freedom to choose as I please. This is true whether I look at it from your perspective or from mine, whether God knows it one minute in advance or an eternity in advance.

That is also true from the most strict calvinist point of view. In that theory, there is nothing about God's predestinating your future choises that makes you feel like you do not truly have freedom to choose as you please. You will still feel totally free to choose as you please even though God has already decided what you are going to do.

MM, the key question is whether you simply "feel" that you can do what you want to do, or whether you really are free to choose between different choices.

To say "the proof is in the pudding" and then write out what you feel is not in the least any sort of logical proof.

Please address points a, b, or c.

I feel free because I am free; otherwise, I would feel imprisoned. Just because God knows my choices it doesn't mean He forces me to choose accordingly.

I totally disagree with your ABC formula. It doesn't apply to God. It assumes things about the future and God that cannot be true for the simple reason it doesn't work.

The truth is - God knows our future choices, which in no way robs us our ability and freedom to choose as we please. Whatever we believe about the future it must harmonize with these undeniable facts.

You can argue against these facts until you are blue in the face, but it will not change them one iota. You can earnestly plead, "But law and logic disallow it", and it wouldn't change the truth.

This is just admitting you have no answer to the argument. OK.

Mike;

Have you ever tried to tell a reformed pastor that he understands predestination wrongly because if how he understood it to be was the truth, you would not feel free?

That God would know all of our future choises is not an undeniable fact for the simple reason that it has been denied and backed with evidence that have not been refuted.

I have attempted to support my view with Bible and SOP. For over 20 pages it has been rejected. What more can I say? God's knowledge of our future choices in no way means free will is nonexistent. Law and logic also agree.

Not logic, MM. You've avoided the logic, for the same 20 pages.

Not your logic.

It's not "my" logic. It's just logic.

I didn't invent the rules of logic. I've just presented logical arguments, and invited you to comment on some flaw of the logic, but you have refused to do so, not just here recently, but the whole time, which is understandable.

Your rules of logic do not explain how God can be everywhere at the same time. Time and space do not apply to God in the same way they apply to us.

Even given that time and space do not apply to God the same way they apply to us, logic does.

If your statement that time and space do not apply to God as they do to us is intended to address the argument, please make that clear (i.e., statement a) is not true because of ....)

There is a phrase used here, "time and space". What I would like to know is how time relates to space. Does, for instance, being able to be present in all of space automatically mean that one is also present in all of time? Why? Why not?

My understanding is that according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the answer would be no. If you have Boyd's book "Satan and the Problem of Evil," I think he may discuss this point in one of the chapters, maybe the chapter on questions.

Time and space are inseparable. The fact God is everywhere (space) at the same time (time) demonstrates this fact. Time is matter moving in space - the earth rotating and revolving around the sun or blood pumping and circulating in our body.

The only way God, a physical Being, can be everywhere at the same time is if the rules of time and space do not apply to Him in the same way they apply to us. The laws of logic, as we know it, do not explain how God can be everywhere at the same time.

God's ability to be everywhere at the same time "defies" the laws of logic as we know it. It "defies" our time-space continuum. It really doesn't "defy" the laws of logic as know it, it only seems that way to us. Given our experience and perspective, we cannot explain how God, a physical Being, can be everywhere at the same time.

Neither can we explain how God can know our future choices without it robbing us of our ability and freedom to choose as we please. Yes, we will choose how God knows, but it doesn't mean we are robots, devoid of choice or free will. Given our experience and perspective, we cannot explain it, but our inability to explain it doesn't change its truthfulness.

TMK 35
This wonderful problem--how God could be just and yet the justifier of sinners--is beyond human ken. As we attempt to fathom it, it broadens and deepens beyond our comprehension. {TMK 35.3}

UL 316
The existence of a personal God, the unity of Christ with His Father, lies at the foundation of all true science. From nature we can gain only an imperfect idea of the greatness and majesty of God. We see the working of His power and His wisdom, but He Himself is beyond our comprehension. {UL 316.2}

ED 170
We have no reason to doubt God's word because we cannot understand the mysteries of His providence. In the natural world we are constantly surrounded with wonders beyond our comprehension. Should we then be surprised to find in the spiritual world also mysteries that we cannot fathom? The difficulty lies solely in the weakness and narrowness of the human mind. {Ed 170.1}

So, time and space are two aspects of the same thing because God is everywhere at the same time? Have we really figgured God out well enough to propose physical teories based on that knowledge?

Time is matter moving in space, and if God were to interact with some aspect of matter in space, this matter would be different after God acted upon it compared to before God acted. Thus Gods act caused time to move, which must mean that God is within time.

You wrote: "The only way God, a physical Being, can be everywhere at the same time is if the rules of time and space do not apply to Him in the same way they apply to us. "

First, where did you get the idea that God is a physical Being? The bible says God is spirit.
Second, the only way a physical being could be everywhere at the same time is explained by a theory called pantheism, a theory that certainly no SDA has any buisness courting with. (I know that there is also the Sci-Fi/Fantasy version where someone has the ability to stop time and move around while everyone else is still frozen, but the fact is that though time be frozen in relation to everyone else involved, it is still moving for the one who "froze" it, otherwise the person would also be frozen and incapable of any action, and that would not be very helpful would it?)
Third, the laws of logic take input from propositions and draw conclusions from them. To find out anything about time and space we would rather go to the laws of physics.

If it looks like a radish, smells like a radish, tastes like a radish, grows like a radish, feels like a radish, has the DNA of a radish, then maybe it acctually is a radish. If something we believe about God defies everything we know about the world around us, then either we lack knowledge about God or about the world around us. If we think God has an ability that defies our time-space cotinuum, then either we are wrong about God or about the time-space continuum.

The first quote deals with a moral aspect of God and is thus not relevant to a discussion concerning the physical reality we live in.

The second quote looks like it is relevant for our discussion regarding they physical reality we and God live in. However, when the context is consulted, we find that this is not so. It says:

"The existence of a personal God, the unity of Christ with His Father, lies at the foundation of all true science. From nature we can gain only an imperfect idea of the greatness and majesty of God. We see the working of His power and His wisdom, but He Himself is beyond our comprehension. The ocean, the cataract, the lofty, rugged mountains reveal but imperfectly His handiwork. Satan has introduced confusion and deformity into the creation of God. Something more than nature is needed to reveal the character of the Father."

Ellen is not concerned with the physics of either creation or God, but Gods character only. A much different thing compared to what we are discussing here.

The third quote is good advice. However, your position might well be that I and Tom are doubting God's word while you are holding on to it. It might supprise you to hear that I do not share your opinion on this. I think the truth is rather that I have reached a different understanding compared with you when trying to follow the following advice found in the second document you quoted. As follows:

" We must be careful lest we misinterpret the Scriptures. The plain teachings of the Word of God are not to be so spiritualized that the reality is lost sight of. Do not overstrain the meaning of sentences in the Bible in an effort to bring forth something odd in order to please the fancy. Take the Scriptures as they read. Avoid idle speculation.--Manuscript 30, Oct. 29, 1904, "Redeem the Time." {UL 316.6}"

I believe my position follows Ellens words here.

Nicely done, Thomas. I wouldn't have known where to start.

Yes, thank you, Thomas. But do you have an opinion as to how God can be everywhere at the same time? And, how does it harmonize with the laws of physics as we know it?

BTW, that God the Father is a physical Being is clear to me from th following passages:

Genesis
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

EW 54
I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist." {EW 54.2}

CC 320
[Phillip] wished Christ to reveal the Father in bodily form; but in Christ God had already revealed Himself. Is it possible, Christ said, that after walking with Me, hearing My words, seeing the miracle of feeding the five thousand, of healing the sick of the dread disease leprosy, of bringing the dead to life, of raising Lazarus, who was a prey to death, whose body had indeed seen corruption, you do not know Me? Is it possible that you do not discern the Father in the works that He does by Me? . . . God cannot be seen in external form by any human being. Christ alone can represent the Father to humanity. {CC 320.3}

21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

How much weight do these words of Jesus carry, and what do they mean in context of this discussion?

And no, I do not know how God can be present everywhere at the same time, or even if He is present everywhere or maybe if he merely is present with His mind in some way. Don't know, havent figured the spirit out yet.

The word "spirit" in John 4:24 occurs twice. The first one applies to God, and the second applies to us. In both cases it is the same word. Apparently, God is a spirit like we are a spirit. Similarly, God is love; but most of us don't wonder if love is physical or non-physical.


Perhaps these quotes are helpful:

ED 131
The mighty power that works through all nature and sustains all things is not, as some men of science claim, merely an all-pervading principle, an actuating energy. God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image. As a personal being, God has revealed Himself in His Son. Jesus, the outshining of the Father's glory, "and the express image of His person" (Hebrews 1:3), was on earth found in fashion as a man. {Ed 131.1}

"God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image", Ellen wrote, and I agree with that. God is both spirit and a personal being. What He is not, as far as we can tell by the biblical record, is a physical being. Also, if Jesus was a physical being before the incarnation, incarnation itself becomes incomprehensible. It would be like you taking the form of a horse for instance in order to communicate better with horses. And yet there is really no such huge barrier of communication between men and horses that an incarnation would be nessessary.

I am looking forward to sitting on God's lap. But from what I hear you saying, He doesn't have a lap.

It does not seem to be an expectation any author of the bible ever expressed in writing.

But if God has a physical body like ours, and would take time to fullfill this expectation of yours. How long do you suppose you would have to stand in que before it was your turn to sit in God's lap? You are most likey not the only person who has considered that to happen in the future and God would only have two knees. Would he have time to do anything else except lifting up people in His lap and listening to their wishes?

Hello Thomas,

Such is the very pleasure of the Father, to commune and converse with those whom He and Christ created in Their image. This is His desire yesterday, today and forever. He has little time left, but He has eternity for those who wish to share it.

Your view of God must be very impersonal and uncaring. It's a popular but sad expectation. Communion with the Father and Son is the hope of every child of God.

"As a bride adorned for her husband." Rev. 21:2.
"And God himself shall be with them" Rev. 21:3.
"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes" Rev. 21:4.

Is having communion with God dependent upon sitting on His lap?

Since God is everywhere at the same time, I would not have to wait in line to sit on His lap.

First of all, based on what you've been saying previously, what you really mean is not that God is everywhere at the same time, but that God is everywhere in all times simultaneously.

Secondly, you would have to wait in line because (to express the thought as you have) *you* are not everywhere at the same time.

Gordon

Quite right you are that it is God's pleasure to have communion with all His creation, every human ever to be born. I am not aware of having said anything whatsoever indicating something different. However, if you insist on tying this communion with one physical manifestation of God, you are limiting the communion God can have with His children. It is as Jesus said that it was better for the diciples that He went to the Father in heaven and sent the Holy Spirit to earth. Jesus as an incarnate man could only be at one place at the same time and could only communicate with a limmited number of people at any one time. The Spirit on the other hand knows no such limmitations.

TE: First of all, based on what you've been saying previously, what you really mean is not that God is everywhere at the same time, but that God is everywhere in all times simultaneously.

MM: Both are true.

TE: Secondly, you would have to wait in line because (to express the thought as you have) *you* are not everywhere at the same time.

MM: Since both are true, I would not have to wait in line to sit on God's lap.

Thomas, Jesus forfeited omnipresence when He became a human. The Father is still omnipresent.

Jeremiah
23:23 [Am] I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?
23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

Psalm
139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].
139:9 [If] I take the wings of the morning, [and] dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
139:10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
139:11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
139:12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light [are] both alike [to thee].

Proverbs
15:3 The eyes of the LORD [are] in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

ED 132
The greatness of God is to us incomprehensible. "The Lord's throne is in heaven" (Psalm 11:4); yet by His Spirit He is everywhere present. He has an intimate knowledge of, and a personal interest in, all the works of His hand. (ED 132)

MH 417
The Bible shows us God in His high and holy place, not in a state of inactivity, not in silence and solitude, but surrounded by ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands of holy beings, all waiting to do His will. Through these messengers He is in active communication with every part of His dominion. By His Spirit He is everywhere present. Through the agency of His Spirit and His angels He ministers to the children of men. {MH 417.2}

Or in other words, the Father is still spirit...

One is true, but this isn't even important to the point. The point is that there are two different meanings, and you expressed one meaning, which is not the one you meant.



This doesn't follow any more than your original statement follows. Even if God is as you think He is, simultaneously omnipresent at all times (meaning that He is everywhere at all times and experiencing all times simultaneously), this still does not help you to sit on His lap without waiting because *you* are not simultaneously omnipresent at all times. Do you understand the point?

I do not have to be "simultaneously omnipresent at all times" in order to sit on God's lap in my time zone. God is with me always, everywhere. He says, I will never leave you. God being "simultaneously omnipresent at all times" does not change or alter my time zone.

Are you saying God has infinitely many laps?

Fast turning absurd, isnt it?

There is a cool way of looking at this. Consider spending time with Jesus, for example. As you pointed out, Thomas, as an incarnate man He can only be with one person at a time. Given that there will be a vast number of humans, and uncountable numbers of other beings, all of which would like to meet with Jesus, it could appear that we wouldn't be able to do so. But, eternity is infinite! So even if we only able to spend one day with Jesus every 1,000,000 years, after 365 trillion years, that would still amount to a million years! (assuming I did the math right). And with memories not deteriorated by sin, each encounter will stay fresh in the mind.

i am new want to take part but dont know.please help me.God blees

Tom and Thomas, this thread slipped by without my noticing it. Must God have many laps in order to be omnipresent? How do you explain the fact God is omnipresent? What does it mean to you?

Looking at the number of posts and the number of times this topic was viewed, this was once a very popular topic, which suddently ceased after the last post in which the following three questions were asked:

1 - Must God have many laps in order to be omnipresent?
2 - How do you explain the fact God is omnipresent?
3 - What does it mean to you?

Can't anybody answer these questions?

i would have thought the bolded parts answered number 2.

im not even going to get into number 1.

number 3: that God is omnipresent throught the Holy Spirit and the angels.

Do these quotes imply God the Father is not Himself omnipresent?

that is how i read them.

that raises the question of who decided God was omnipresent and whatever else we have attributed to Him?

where in the bible do we get the idea that He is omnipresent?

God is the Father, Son, and Spirit. Not three Gods, but that the three are one. If the Spirit is omnipresent, then God is omnipresent. Does this make sense?

if you buy into the trinity theory. and even then the people seem to be going "huh?!" at least from the sites ive seen.

now, it seems to me we either believe ellen white was spoken to by God to give us direction and guidance, or she wasnt. it isnt, sometimes, or she grew in understanding or any of that mumbo-jumbo. and we dont study "doctrines", or beliefs, then try to make the bible and egw fit those doctrines/beliefs. nor do we set the pioneers up over the sop.

one or the other. not bits, pieces, or what i want to believe.

one or the other

Yeah, and I believe the SOP is as inspired as the Bible. Not that it is equal to the Bible in all ways. The Bible is preeminent. Did Ellen as a person grow in her understanding of the truth? Yes! But does that mean her earlier visions and dreams and revelations were not as inspired or as right as her later works? Of course not! God was the one revealing truths to her. She simply recorded what God told or showed her. She didn't see or hear things in dreams or visions and then record her opinions.

Based on what I've read in the Bible and in the SOP, I believe God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, God is omnipresent. It makes sense to me. What about you?

i dont read her in the trinity light, because i didnt know the trinity doctrine til just recently.

Have you read her statements on the Godhead? If so, what have you concluded? Is God the union of three eternal beings? Or, is God only the Father, and the Son and Spirit are not God in the same way the Father is, that the Father is the one and only true God?

go check out my comments on the trinity thread. that is what i believe.

Teresaq, would you mind simply summarizing what you about it here? I would really appreciate it. It takes too much time to sort through all those posts to come up with my own summary of what you believe. Thank you.

Those who have by baptism given to God a pledge of their faith in Christ, and their death to the old life of sin, have entered into covenant relation with God. The three powers of the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are pledged to be their strength and their efficiency in their new life in Christ Jesus. {AUCR, October 7, 1907 par. 9}

The Father can not be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The word of God declares Him to be "the express image of His person." "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is shown the personality of the Father. {BTS, March 1, 1906 par. 1}
The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the name of these three powers,--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. {BTS, March 1, 1906 par. 2}

What is the sinner to do?--Believe in Christ. He is Christ's property, bought with the blood of the Son of God. Through test and trial the Saviour redeemed human beings from the slavery of sin. What then must we do to be saved from sin?--Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as the sin-pardoning Saviour. He who confesses his sin and humbles his heart will receive forgiveness. Jesus is the sin-pardoning Saviour as well as the only begotten Son of the infinite God. The pardoned sinner is reconciled to God through Jesus Christ our Deliverer from sin. Keeping in the path of holiness, he is a subject of the grace of God. There is brought to him full salvation, joy, and peace, and the true wisdom that comes from God. {BTS, March 1, 1906 par. 3}

The three powers of the Godhead have pledged their might to carry out the purpose that God had in mind when he gave to the world the unspeakable gift of his Son. Every act of self-denial, every earnest surrender to God, is an element in God's design for the increase of the piety and zeal and earnest faith of his people. The Holy Spirit unites with the powers of grace that God has provided to turn souls to Christ. We are to labor as Christ labored for the salvation of dying souls. And as we work, our hearts are to be encouraged by the thought that every soul converted through our efforts will become another instrumentality in the work of recovering the lost. Guided by the same Spirit that led some one to work for him, he will take up the work and labor in the spirit of the Master. {RH, July 18, 1907 par. 3}

Teresaq, given the quotes you posted above I take it you believe the one I underlined, namely, God is the union of three eternal beings. That's what I believe, too. Does this mean you believe God is omnipresent?

"God" can either refer to the Father alone, or the Godhead, depending on the context. I personally, by "God," always mean the Father. If I had in mind the Godhead, I would say "the Godhead," to be clear.

im curious what you mean by "union"? the way it is worded it sounds like they are literally joined in some way.

that seems right, according to my knowledge at the moment.

Yeah, I see what you mean. But one could draw a similar conclusion based on what it says in the Bible. For example, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Gen 2:24) "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." (Mark 10:8) "And they two shall be one flesh." (Eph 5:31)

But, no, I don't mean to imply the Father, Son, and Spirit are a kind of amalgamation like a Greek mythological creature. "There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized and these powers will cooperate with the obedient." {HP 336.2} ". . . the three great personal Dignitaries of heaven. {7BC 959.8}