On top of that, our conceptions of God's word should not allow Him to be wrong. Do they?

When He said, "He will crush your head," was it possible that Jesus was not going to crush Satan's head?

From Jonah:



This didn't happen. So God was wrong? This seems to me to be a rather puerile way of looking at things.

If free will is involved, then prophecies involving the free will decisions of human beings must be viewed as conditional. In harmony with this, EGW speaks of how "Christ risked all," and how "heaven was imperiled for our redemption."

Arnold, I don't understand how heaven could be imperiled if the future is such that God knew for all eternity it would never be in any danger whatsoever.

To answer your question if it was possible that Christ would fail, the answer is unquestionably yes. If it weren't possible, then how could Christ have been at risk? How could heaven have been in danger?

Tom, your answer does not address Arnold's question. He agrees it was possible for Jesus to fail. That's not the question though. God promised Jesus would "crush" out Satan. He didn't say Jesus might crush his head. Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it say God wasn't absolutely sure Jesus would succeed on the cross.

Yes, Jesus could have failed. Yes, He could have sinned. That's why He became a human, so that He could become sin for us and pay our sin debt of death. As God He could do neither. But the fact He risked sinning, or the fact He risked failing on the cross in no way proves God did not know in advance with certainty that Jesus would succeed in saving mankind. If He didn't know He wouldn't have said so so many times.

MM hit it on the head. The problem is not that I don't believe there was a risk. Obviously, there was. But my concept of how God sees the future takes into account the possibility that God KNOWS the end from the beginning. He is not limited to knowing what the various possibilities are, but which one will actually happen.

As you said, in your system, God cannot make 100% accurate predictions when free will is involved. That pretty much covers everything that is worth predicting.

When God said, "He will crush your head," your system requires a fudge factor - God didn't exactly know for sure that Jesus will crush Satan's head.

God said, "Sin will not arise a second time." Since that involves humans with free will, in your system, that's not a rock-solid promise but a claim God made with His fingers crossed.

Your view of the future removes from God that ability to speak definitively about things that have not yet happened. In short, He cannot predict accurately; He can only report accurately.

I think the bottom line, as we have discussed before, is the deterministic vs probabilistic view of the universe. We both know that modern physics teaches that the universe is probabilistic. But we should keep in mind that probabilistic effects are manifest only in things with extremely low momenta and those confined in extremely small spaces - something on the order of subatomic particles. Anything much bigger than that makes the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle irrelevant.

Human brains are generally much bigger than subatomic particles. Some parts of it may function probabilistically, but as an aggregate, it is very deterministic. And the brain is what makes moral decisions. And these decisions, while impossibly difficult for us to predict due to lack of information as well as insufficient processing power, can be determined by God well in advance.

As for the probabilistic nature of the universe, I'm not convinced that it is really so, even on the subatomic level. It may be that we just don't have the necessary knowledge at this time. Unless there is a theory that explains all known phenomena, which quantum mechanics does not, it is not wise to say, "This cannot be wrong." And even if it does explain all known phenomena, there's no guarantee that something unexplainable will never pop up. That is a lesson all students of science should know well.

So, how is there risk at the same time that God knows that Jesus will not fail (i.e. crush Satan's head)? Perhaps the key is the context of the risk.

When you roll a fair die, there is a 1/6 chance of getting a 1. But if we knew the exact position and the exact momentum of the die, we could predict with 100% accuracy what will come up. There is no question as far as the all-knowing calculator is concerned. But to the average gambler, there's a risk involved because he doesn't have the same resources.

So it is with God and us. From our perspective, there are risks. That's why we don't know the end from the beginning. But God is different.

BTW, I heard a sermon once that used God's omniscience as a reason why He is not tempted by evil. It was an interesting thought.

You say "obviously" (btw, why do you say "obviously"?) there was a risk, but then contradict this idea by asserting that it was a certainty that Christ would succeed. Risk implies a lack of certainty. These two concepts are diametrically opposed. It is because of this principle that insider information is not allowed in financial markets. The certainty involved would mitigate the risk. Exhaustive definite foreknowledge would mean 0 risk.



This is misstating the issue. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with a limitation of God. The issue has to do with the nature of the future. Is the future a single-threaded thing? Or is it more complex?

Your view is actually much more limiting of God than the Open view. In the Open view, God must keep track of quintillions of possibilities, the possible decisions of billions of free will beings interacting with one another, and in spite of this still be able to work out His purposes. In the more simplistic view of the future as something which will inevitably play out, much less of God's intelligence is required.



Here again this is contradicting the idea that there is risk. If it was certain that Jesus would crush Satan's head, then it is certain that Christ wouldn't fail, which is simply to say there was no risk that he would fail. Please note that the fact that God knew for sure that Jesus would crush Satan's head is not the salient point. The salient point is that it was certain to happen.



Not at all. If God looks into the future after the judgment, and sees that in all possible futures no human being chooses to sin, there's no finger-crossing involved, and no necessity for a single-threaded future.



Consider a world champion chess player analyzing a certain position. He has calculated that in all possible variations he will win the game. There may be many different courses his opponent can take, but regardless of which one is taken, the result can be accurately predicted. To accurately predict the future, it is not necessary for the future to be single-threaded.



This isn't true. The Heisengerg Uncertainty Principle has all sorts of implications outside of subautomic particles. Have you heard of Heisenbugs? Probabilistic effects are manifest in many situations, such as the stock market.



Edwards and others who take the deterministic perspective have used the argument you are suggesting. This reasoning provides the framework for compatibilistic free will. However, this is more a Calvinistic framework than an Armenian one, so doesn't fit well with Adventism. Especially your last sentence should cause one pause. By this reasoning, as soon as one is a fetus, one could determine, with enough processing power, whether the fetus would eventually be saved or lost; not a very encouraging prospect for those who believe in free will!



What phenomina are you talking about? For almost a century, quantum theory has worked well as a model for small-scaled physics. There is so much data supporting the probalistic model, I can't imagine what would lead one to think a deterministic model could explain things. How would this work? Postulate any possibility you wish, in terms of things that might possibly be true that we just don't know about. How could a deterministic cause explain the probabilistic model's success?



This is exactly the point I've been making!! Free will does not really exist, under your view, it's just the illusion of the gambler, based on ignorance, not true. That is, from our point of view, we perceive that given two options we are might choose one or might choose the other. We don't know the angle of the die, to use your analogy. Or, we don't have enough processing power. But one who had enough data, and enough processing power, would know there was no chance of option A being chosen, for example. So our perception of being able to choose option A is an illusion, just as the gambler's idea that the die had a 1/6 chance of being a certain number is an illusion.



Well, whose view of reality do you think is correct? Ours or God's? If you assert that there was a risk that Christ could fail yet also assert that God was certain he wouldn't, then it must be the case that you consider our concept of reality to be more valid than God's.

I'll explain. You are saying that it's not really true that there was a risk that Christ would fail, but that we perceive that there was a risk, because of our limited knowledge. However God, with perfect knowledge, knew there was no risk. So by asserting there really was a risk, when God would assert there wasn't, you are, in effect, saying that your view of reality is more valid than His.

I would argue the reverse. I would say that God's perception of reality is reality. So if God perceives there was no risk in Christ's overcoming Satan, then, in fact, there was no risk. God's perception of things is an accurate description of reality, not ours.

Also, EGW, in speaking of this says that God undertook a risk in sending His Son, and thus is describing things from His perspective. Likewise she speaks of Christ's willingness to undertake a risk. This is from the perspective of *before* He became a human, when His ability to foresee the future was equal to God's. If God knew it was 100% certain Christ would succeed, then so did Christ. So Christ undertook no risk. Again, there can only be risk where there is uncertainty.

I have heard of Heisenbugs. No, they are not probabilistic. It's actually a misnomer, confusing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with the "observer effect."


Interestingly, the first time I saw the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle derived in physics class, the teacher based it on the observer effect. It wasn't until later that we found out that observation has nothing to do with it. In fairness, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics relates the HUP with the observer effect.

But anyway, the "authentic" HUP is based on the wave-like nature of matter. While everyday experiences tell us that matter behaves like particles, underneath that lie its wave-like properties. The uncertainty comes from the fact that waves generally have ill-defined positions and momenta. The only waves with well-defined positions have undefined momenta, and vice versa. Hence, the uncertainty.

The de Broglie relation which relates a particle's momentum with its wavelength - w=h/p (where w=wavelength, p=momentum, h=Planck's constant) - shows that the wavelength can only be discerned for particles of very low momentum. If you put in the numbers, you will find that anything in the macro world doesn't fit the bill.

Anyway, given that the HUP is a feature of quantum mechanics, it has nothing to do with computer code or the stock market. Such effects are mislabeled.

I don't know of any verse that tells us definitively what the nature of the future is. However, we do have verses that tell us that whatever God says will come to pass will actually come to pass. To say that He would promise something that may or may not happen not only removes God's omniscience, it also makes Him untrustworthy.


Based on this, I don't think you understand my view. In my view, God keeps track of all these same possibilities as the Open view. But He knows something in my view that He doesn't in the Open view - which one of the countless possibilities becomes reality.

That's why He could say, "He WILL crush your head." He didn't say "might" or "could" or "possibly" or "probably" or any other word that implies that He wasn't sure if He was going to be able to come through on His promise.

I posted something in response to your other post, but I don't see it. Maybe it's on my other computer and I just haven't sent it.



It depends. If God foretells something *He* is going to do, and then He doesn't do it, then He would be untrustworthy. For example:



If God says He will do one thing, but then does another, He would be untrustworthy. However, if He predicts something will happen which involves the free will of another, that might or might not happen:



Jonah is a perfect example of this.



I understand your view. It's very common. In your view there's only one thing that can happen in the future, which is what God see's will happen. God already knows how everything will play out, so there's no need for any contingent planning.

Anyway, this is again getting sidetracked from the real issue. The real issue is not about God, but about the future. Is the future single-threaded, like a single line, or is it multithreaded, as a web. Given that God perceives things as they were really are, if the future is multithreaded, then this is how God perceives it. God's not knowing which thread will happen is not a limitation of God, anymore than His not being able to make a rock so big He can't life it would be. That is, to ask God which of different future possibilities will occur is a logical impossibility, just like creating a rock so big you can't lift it would be.

Conversely, if God sees a single thread when He looks at the future, comprising everything that will actually happen, then the future really is single threaded. The future's being single-threaded is what wipes out free will. It's not God's knowledge of the future that's the problem, but the nature of the future. Is it single-threaded (which EDF, or exhaustive definite foreknowledge implies) or is it multi-threaded (which the Open view implies).

Often those with a similar view to what you are presenting want to have their cake and eat it to. That is, they want the future to be multi-threaded, but God's seeing which thread will play out. This is a logical impossibility. How God sees the future is how it is in reality. If He sees it like a re-run (to use MM's analogy) then it really is like a rerun. We may perceive the future incorrectly, because of our ignorance, our lack of processing power and knowledge of the all the facts. We may perceive it as Open, when it's really not. That's possible. However, it's not possible for God to perceive it as fixed if it's really Open. If God perceives it as fixed, then it's fixed. Our perception of the future might be off, but not God's.



If one excepts Ellen White as a prophet, then we must accept that it was not certain that Christ would succeed. Again, the concept of risk implies uncertainty. If God was certain Christ would succeed, meaning that God was 100% sure that there was a 100% chance that Christ would succeed, then how could Christ have failed?

What question am I not addressing?



How so? He seems to be saying that God said it was certain that Christ would succeed. It is possible for something not to happen ig God is 100% certain to happen?



EGW says that Christ "risked" all, that God sent His Son at a "fearful risk." Risk means uncertainty. You cannot have certainty and risk. It's one or the other. Not both.



I agree. But this contradicts the idea that God was 100% certain that Christ would not fail. Unless you believe that something can happen even though God is 100% sure it won't. Do you believe this?



If one considers the meaning of the word "risk" it does.

The fact something can happen doesn't mean it will or must or might happen. Knowing what will happen doesn't mean something else could have happened. Jesus risked failing but it doesn't mean God couldn't know for sure He would succeed. The two are not incompatible.