T: What? "Christ risked all." "All heaven was imperiled" is "unclear," "ambiguous"? No! It's not! Not at all! Anyone can read these statements and understand what they mean.
M:It can also mean facing real danger, which, indeed, Jesus faced real dangers.
"Christ risked all" cannot mean this. Neither can "all heaven was imperiled." EGW spoke "the risk of failure and eternal loss." "Eternal loss" is what was at stake, which agrees with "Christ risked all." There's no way it could be said that "Christ risked all," or that He risked His eternal life, if He was absolutely certain, on the basis of seeing a fixed future, that there was no chance He would fail.
However, you haven’t addressed my main concern, namely, do you believe her use of “risk” and “peril” means we must interpret everything else she wrote to agree with your view (i.e. neither the Father nor the Son were absolutely certain Lucifer, Adam, and Jesus would succeed or fail)?
I think this question is vaguely worded. What I think is that Christ risked all, and this couldn't be said if the future were fixed, for the reasons I've explained.
M: The idea that we are not free if we cannot make choices that would result in outcomes different than what God knows assumes He cannot know the future like history (we both agree knowing history does not limit or eliminate free will, nor does it mean that they cannot make choices that would result in outcomes different than what history records).
T: Of course, because these are mutually exclusive! One part of the sentence is the future-is-single-threaded idea, and one the other part of the sentence it's the future-is-multi-threaded. Which is it? It can't be both.
M:Yes it can be both. We’re talking about God.
No we're not. I didn't say God couldn't both be single-threaded and multi-threaded, but that the future cannot be. Either it's fixed or it's not. It's either like the past in this regard, or it isn't.
He possesses the supernatural ability to know the future like history without upsetting how things are and how things play out in real time.
Saying things like "Upsetting how things are and how things play out in real time" displays a misunderstanding of what we're discussing. This is a non-issue, as I've repeatedly explained. There's no reason to keep bringing this up.
M:You wrote:
T: Clearly if God can write out in a book what you are going to do, and that's certain to happen, nothing you can do can change that. To say you can impact the future, given God can write out what you will do in a book things you are certain to do, is not reasoning from cause to effect. If what you are going to do is already written down in a book, then you can't impact what's already been written down. That is, if you can't make what's written down be incorrect, then you can't impact the future. These things have a one to one correspondence.
M:You keep referring to God in terms of how things “will” play out rather than in terms of how things have played out.
This is because I understand what the word "future" means.
of, relating to, or constituting a verb tense expressive of time yet to come
God knowing the future like history has no more effect on how things play out in real time than someone reading a history book effects how things played out in real time.
This is a non-issue.
Again, we’re talking about God, so the rules are different.
1.We're talking about the future, not about God.
2.Logic is still logic, even if God were the subject.
That is, God can know the future like history without upsetting the natural order of things.
This isn't an issue.
The choices people make in real time are the result of unlimited, unrestricted free will. The fact God knows the future like history in no way means they were unable or incapable of making decisions resulting in outcomes different than what God saw.
It does if "free will" is understood in the libertarian sense. Why? Because there's a logical contradiction involved. If the future is single-threaded, then only one can possibly be made, which is contradictory to the (libertarian) definition of free will.
Why? Because from God’s point of view, which includes 20/20 hindsight, He knows the facts after the fact, like watching a rerun. Thus, it is no different than someone reading a history book. “I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike with God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily.” {TMK 12.2} “He sees the end from the beginning. He knows all things. Past, present and future are all clear to Him.” {MR926 34.1}
You're not discussing the real issue at all. The real issue is that the future has certain characteristics, like a square or triangle does. A square has four sides, even for God. God cannot know a square to be a triangle.
Is the future single-threaded or multi-threaded? Whatever it really is is how God sees it.
M: Nothing she wrote can be construed to mean the Father and the Son were uncertain Jesus would succeed.
T: Sure it can! Anyone understand what "Christ risked all" means. Similarly "all heaven was imperiled." Simply logic tells us that if:
1.God was certain Christ would succeed. AND
2.Every thing that God is certain will happen does indeed happen THEN
3.Christ risked nothing (remember Christ was as omniscient as God).
M:You are taking two unrelated points
They're not unrelated. You can't see the validity of this argument? You didn't even address the argument. You can't, because there's nothing wrong with it. Your only option is to skip it.
and arriving at a conclusion that isn’t plainly stated in the Bible or the SOP. The fact you cannot find a quote that clearly portrays the Father or the Son expressing uncertainty about it speaks eloquently against your view.
You're not dealing with any of the issues involved, or discussing any of the arguments.
Regarding doubt, Ellen wrote:
These quotes don't have anything to do with whether the future is single-threaded or not. Neither does the quote in John.
By the way, do you agree with me that unfallen beings were absolutely certain Jesus would succeed? If not, please post passages that portray them fretting or fearing Jesus would fail.
Why don't you present some passage from Scripture saying that unfallen beings were absolutely certain Jesus would succeed? The way you are approaching this is incredible. I presented 7 arguments, and you just keep ignoring them. Anything having to do with logical arguments that I write you just ignore. Instead you ask bizarre questions that don't relate to the issue.
Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it portray them feeling at risk or imperiled.
The Bible doesn't portray unfallen beings feeling anything. It says nothing about them. The SOP speaks about them in certain circumstances, but this is a totally irrelevant point anyway. (btw, she speaks about security in the context of unfallen beings, but, again, this is irrelevant).
Why do you think they never felt at risk or imperiled?
Why do you think they weren't?
This has nothing to do with the subject.
Why do you think they felt perfectly safe and secure?
According to the SOP, they weren't secure until after the cross. So, logically, if they weren't secure, it's more probable that they didn't feel perfectly safe and secure than that they did. But, again, this is irrelevant.
MM, I've pointed out moral problems, and presented 7 points; 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7a or 7b (I forget which is your and which is mine). Please address the points I made.
If you don't remember them, I can repeat them (but you can find them by looking a few posts back).
